Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Edward IV's Paternity

I remember that Mary Stuart lost twins from the shock when Rizzio was killed.

Anyway, Jones's hypothesis has certainly made people think. Together with Ann Wroe's work on the Princes, 2003 has been a momentous year from a Ricardian perspective.

Nothing can ever be conclusively proven except at the time.

However, DNA evidence is analysed statistically - a "positive" result means that more than a given probability has been achieved. Applying a t-test (from a simple list of tables) to Edward's possible conception dates means using a similar threshold or confidence interval (95%, 99% or whatever). We must get the dates absolutely right, even testing multiple possibilities. We must have the widest possible sample (not just three or four families but a few thousand mothers). I think we can take the normal distribution, our medical friends can supply a mean and standard deviation.
----- Original Message -----
From: aelyon2001
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: 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


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
> I remember that Mary Stuart lost twins from the shock when Rizzio
was killed.

I THINK she lost twins by Bothwell actually, and the child she was
carrying at Rizzio's death was the future James VI/I. It is said he
developed a pathological fear of being stabbed which may have been
conscious from hearing the story or a kind of inherited shock if you
believe in that kind of thing.
>
> Anyway, Jones's hypothesis has certainly made people think.
Together with Ann Wroe's work on the Princes, 2003 has been a
momentous year from a Ricardian perspective.

I agree. Although it was disappointing yesterday's verdict
was "Guilty" it was still refreshing that at least the whole thing
was considered more sympathetically and Richard shown to be anything
but the nasty traditional hunchback. On the other hand this may end
up with Ricardians being hoist by our own petard, for a good man
forced into a bad act can be accepted, whilst many question a
picture which is patently exaggerated and may therefore question all
apsects of the tale.
B
>
> Nothing can ever be conclusively proven except at the time.
>
> However, DNA evidence is analysed statistically - a "positive"
result means that more than a given probability has been achieved.
Applying a t-test (from a simple list of tables) to Edward's
possible conception dates means using a similar threshold or
confidence interval (95%, 99% or whatever). We must get the dates
absolutely right, even testing multiple possibilities. We must have
the widest possible sample (not just three or four families but a
few thousand mothers). I think we can take the normal distribution,
our medical friends can supply a mean and standard deviation.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aelyon2001
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:10 PM
> Subject: 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
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
> 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:
> I remember that Mary Stuart lost twins from the shock when Rizzio
was killed.
>
> Anyway, Jones's hypothesis has certainly made people think.
Together with Ann Wroe's work on the Princes, 2003 has been a
momentous year from a Ricardian perspective.
>
> Nothing can ever be conclusively proven except at the time.
>
> However, DNA evidence is analysed statistically - a "positive"
result means that more than a given probability has been achieved.
Applying a t-test (from a simple list of tables) to Edward's possible
conception dates means using a similar threshold or confidence
interval (95%, 99% or whatever). We must get the dates absolutely
right, even testing multiple possibilities. We must have the widest
possible sample (not just three or four families but a few thousand
mothers). I think we can take the normal distribution, our medical
friends can supply a mean and standard deviation.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: aelyon2001
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:10 PM
> Subject: Edward IV's Paternity
>
>
> Can we be sure that if Edward IV had been a fragile premature
baby it
> would have been recorded?

Jones says yes definitely. For myself I don't know. But if he was
genuinely premature he is highly unlikely to have grown up the
fantastic physical and mental specimen that he was.
>
> 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?

I think that's stretching it a bit. Actually unless your brother was
born at less than 259 days he was "mature" at that weight, and would
be expected to develop normally. So might Edward: if York had hot-
footed it back to Rouen STRAIGHT after that entry in the cathedral
register, AND Cecily had been ovulating on his return and conceived
immediately. Not otherwise. But could-haves are not proofs. Look we
haven't got proof, only probabilities, and the medical ones are on
the side of Blayburn. I've never said the case is stronger than that,
in fact I've stressed it over and over. Sometimes things just ain't
totally black and white. Anyhow, the medical probabilities have in
turn have to be balanced by the other evidence. And for me that is
strong. Cecily is said by Mancini (not Vergil or More or any of those
no-hopers) to have announced Edward's bastardy openly after his
marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. And all the other extant claims do
postdate that, which gives this story some credibility.

We're not all going to agree on this but we must bear in mind that
demonstrating that a 37-week baby can be okay is a long way from
proving Edward to have been York's child. As Stephen says, for a
sample to be statistically sound it has to be large. Without
reference to the results of large-scale surveys one has no way of
judging how normal one's own anecdotal evidence is. I can remember
almost nothing of the statistics I learned, but the figure of 5% of a
population sticks as being the threshold for a statistically
significant sample.
The websites I visited suggest that the risks to the baby increase
again after 42 weeks, though not fantastically between 42 and 43
weeks, but that the vast majority of babies have in any case been
born by 42 weeks. Again this suggests that Edward is, on pure
statistics, unlikely to have been York's (stress again: I said
unlikely not impossible).

Just spoken to my son on phone. He's coming home tomorrow. He's read
early chapters of Churchill book. Says he will need to re-read to see
if there's anything that can help. Doesn't remember any suggestion
that Winston was less than okay at birth. Did make a comment on his
mother's moral character which I won't repeat. I still say we can't
rule out the couple's having managed the "impossible". I don't know
how my grandparents did it, but they did.

Question: Why did Jennie's mother go so quickly from not letting her
even see Randolph to letting her marry him? Why did they marry in Gay
Paree and not in the midst of London society? (having to use the
British Embassy son tells me for legal reasons to do with titles or
something). Not that bothered about the answers - as I say lone
anecdotes aren't significant, particularly since there has to be a
question mark over dates with this one.

Marie

PS I enjoyed the programme last night, except for the 1/2-hour
section on the "usurpation" and the Princes. There was no mention of
the precontract, I think, but I saw why in retrospect. It did seem a
bit manipulative, but that's TV for you. Here is great duke, great
king, but this ruthless behaviour in 1483 which doesn't fit. Then out
comes the rabbit from the hat: The Jones Hypothesis! I must say,
though, it does seem to me that the JH is having the effect of
softening the anti-Richard historians, as nothing else has succeeded
in doing.


>>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> 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.
>
>
>
>

At 20:42 04/01/2004, you wrote:
>Just spoken to my son on phone. He's coming home tomorrow. He's read
>early chapters of Churchill book. Says he will need to re-read to see
>if there's anything that can help. Doesn't remember any suggestion
>that Winston was less than okay at birth. Did make a comment on his
>mother's moral character which I won't repeat. I still say we can't
>rule out the couple's having managed the "impossible". I don't know
>how my grandparents did it, but they did.

*grin* Jennie's moral character was less than perfect, as was Randolph's.
But the society at the time was so obsessed with sex, especially with the
tacit agreement that unmarried girls were out of bounds (as were newly
married women) that I do have difficulty believing that they'd have managed
to anything before. Definitely they were expecting Winston in January, not
November.

>Question: Why did Jennie's mother go so quickly from not letting her
>even see Randolph to letting her marry him? Why did they marry in Gay
>Paree and not in the midst of London society? (having to use the
>British Embassy son tells me for legal reasons to do with titles or
>something). Not that bothered about the answers - as I say lone
>anecdotes aren't significant, particularly since there has to be a
>question mark over dates with this one.

British Embassy was perfectly respectable, especially as there were a
limited number of Anglican ministers available in Paris. The Jerome's
European residence at the time was in Paris, not London, although they
rented in London for the season, so Paris makes sense, since traditionally
the wedding is hosted by the bride's parents.

Mrs Jerome - good question, but again, we're talking about an era where,
while a younger son was definitely a lesser catch, catching a member of the
aristocracy wasn't easy, particularly for an American. Also, at the time,
the Marquis of Blandford was unmarried, so when Winston Churchill was born,
he was number 2 in line for the Dukedom. Blandford had such a terrible
reputation that Mrs Jerome may have convinced herself that he would never
marry, whereas Randolph was a bright young thing and an outstanding
politician - maybe she learned more about English high society in the time
frame?

Jenny

> from: Stephen LARK <smlark@...>
> date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:29:34
> to:
> subject: Re: Edward IV's Paternity
>
> I remember that Mary Stuart lost twins from the shock when Rizzio was killed.
>
Rizzio´s muder brought on the birth of James Stewart Stephen, not twins, and he always blamed his horror of weapons on this event.
Paul

"...Clearly if Cecily admitted to adultery, it was as
a pentitant. ..."

"...I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but can we automatically assume that Richard and Clarence spent much time WITH their mother, as distinct from under the same roof? After all, they were presumably
> > looked after by wet nurses rather than by the Duchess herself. ..."

This could actually reinforce their feelings for Cecily. It is well known that an emotionally or physically distant parent can be more attractive to a
child than the parent who is more accessible. Cecily clearly had a strong character and they would wish to seek her approval. If she were not a hands-on mother they would strive for her attention and approval.

One can understand that if she committed adultery and explained this as a "sin" for which she had done penance and, moreover, now lived her life as a deeply religious woman, this could be accepted as a past transgression. I think it's quite important that Richard shared her piety, which would include the doctrine of forgiveness.

Clearly, as he grew older, he would have developed his own philosphophy of life but he did retain this interest in mysticism. If he had rejected his mother, it is likely that he would have rejected her take on religion. This would have been an unconscious stance, not a conscious decision

"....I'm not trying to prove that they didn't get on, simply to say that we cannot assume that they were as close as all that...."

I think perhaps you are interpreting "close" in a 21st C way. The relationship between parents and children in the aristocracy, even today, is more distant than in middle class families. In the 15th C, boys were fostered out for years at an early age in the same way that some boys today are sent to boarding school. They may still be close to their parents but in a different way to those children who remain at home and share day to day happenings. Also, the family considered itself royal. Think of what one hears about today's royal family writing notes to one another instead of picking up the phone and speaking. There is a formality to life which is peculiar to those who consider themselves of royal blood. This might reflect in the formality of written communications.

Shelagh

--- In , "Shelagh"
<leapint@b...> wrote:
> "...Clearly if Cecily admitted to adultery, it was as
> a pentitant. ..."
>
> "...I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but can we automatically
assume that Richard and Clarence spent much time WITH their mother,
as distinct from under the same roof? After all, they were
presumably
> > > looked after by wet nurses rather than by the Duchess
herself. ..."
>
> This could actually reinforce their feelings for Cecily. It is
well known that an emotionally or physically distant parent can be
more attractive to a
> child than the parent who is more accessible. Cecily clearly had
a strong character and they would wish to seek her approval. If she
were not a hands-on mother they would strive for her attention and
approval.
>
> One can understand that if she committed adultery and explained
this as a "sin" for which she had done penance and, moreover, now
lived her life as a deeply religious woman, this could be accepted as
a past transgression. I think it's quite important that Richard
shared her piety, which would include the doctrine of forgiveness.
>
> Clearly, as he grew older, he would have developed his own
philosphophy of life but he did retain this interest in mysticism.
If he had rejected his mother, it is likely that he would have
rejected her take on religion. This would have been an unconscious
stance, not a conscious decision
>
> "....I'm not trying to prove that they didn't get on, simply to
say that we cannot assume that they were as close as all that...."
>
> I think perhaps you are interpreting "close" in a 21st C way.
The relationship between parents and children in the aristocracy,
even today, is more distant than in middle class families. In the
15th C, boys were fostered out for years at an early age in the same
way that some boys today are sent to boarding school. They may still
be close to their parents but in a different way to those children
who remain at home and share day to day happenings. Also, the family
considered itself royal. Think of what one hears about today's royal
family writing notes to one another instead of picking up the phone
and speaking. There is a formality to life which is peculiar to
those who consider themselves of royal blood. This might reflect in
the formality of written communications.
>
> Shelagh

I would agree with all this. The relationship does seem to have had a
formality about it we would consider very odd. But clearly Richard
valued his mother's approval. That comes across strongly from the
1474 incident and from his letter. And that he valued her "comfort"
he says directly in the letter, and I also infer from the pre-
Bosworth visit to her.
In some ways a less hands-on relationship with the children could
protect a mother from messing things up, so that she would be more of
a "treat" figure, leaving the unpleasant business of making the kids
do as they were told to the nurse. Then on top of this Cecily
suddenly becomes the protecting heroine, keeping the little ones safe
under her wing when they are vulnerable in enemy hands. Praying with
them for their father's safe return.

Marie


>
>
>
>

--- In , "Shelagh"
<leapint@b...> wrote:
> "...Clearly if Cecily admitted to adultery, it was as
> a pentitant. ..."
>
> "...I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but can we automatically
assume that Richard and Clarence spent much time WITH their mother,
as distinct from under the same roof? After all, they were
presumably
> > > looked after by wet nurses rather than by the Duchess
herself. ..."
>
> This could actually reinforce their feelings for Cecily. It is
well known that an emotionally or physically distant parent can be
more attractive to a
> child than the parent who is more accessible. Cecily clearly had
a strong character and they would wish to seek her approval. If she
were not a hands-on mother they would strive for her attention and
approval.

Possibly. That point had occurred to me.

>
> One can understand that if she committed adultery and explained
this as a "sin" for which she had done penance and, moreover, now
lived her life as a deeply religious woman, this could be accepted as
a past transgression. I think it's quite important that Richard
shared her piety, which would include the doctrine of forgiveness.
>
Yes, but was this necessarily going to apply at a time when he was
still an adolecent and being pulled in different directions? I can't
help thinking that it must come as a hell of a shock to find your
very religious, morally worthy mother, who is devoted to the memory
of your heroic father, admitting to adultery with an archer of all
people, and while your father was on campaign. Something that would
take a long time to get used to.


> Clearly, as he grew older, he would have developed his own
philosphophy of life but he did retain this interest in mysticism.
If he had rejected his mother, it is likely that he would have
rejected her take on religion. This would have been an unconscious
stance, not a conscious decision.

I accept that.

>
> "....I'm not trying to prove that they didn't get on, simply to
say that we cannot assume that they were as close as all that...."
>
> I think perhaps you are interpreting "close" in a 21st C way.
The relationship between parents and children in the aristocracy,
even today, is more distant than in middle class families. In the
15th C, boys were fostered out for years at an early age in the same
way that some boys today are sent to boarding school. They may still
be close to their parents but in a different way to those children
who remain at home and share day to day happenings. Also, the family
considered itself royal. Think of what one hears about today's royal
family writing notes to one another instead of picking up the phone
and speaking. There is a formality to life which is peculiar to
those who consider themselves of royal blood. This might reflect in
the formality of written communications.


What I'm trying to do, and perhaps didn't express myself terribly
well, is to get away from the current 'touchy-feely mutual adoration'
ideology of parent-child relationships and try to establish what
things really were like. The mere fact that infants were routinely
put out to wet nurses and boys in particular were sent to other
households for many years means that family relationships must have
been 'different'. I would agree entirely that among the higher
aristocracy there was probably much greater formality (reading Sharon
Penman's 'The Sunne in Splendour' the other day I found it jarred
instantly when the teenage Elizabeth of York comes rushing out to
meet Richard shouting 'Dickon', instead of walking soberly and
addressing him as 'My lord uncle', or some such!)

Ann

Blaybourne...

Yes, this is the detail which gives me pause, too. Not just "an archer", with all the implications of a noble woman falling off her pedestal, but a named man. I'm sure I read somewhere - but I can't remember where - that there was talk about Cecily and an archer before she said (if she did) what she did about Edward's paternity. It's too specific to be the usual malicious gossip. That's not to say that she was playing away from home but there does appear to have been a Blaybourne who's name had been linked to hers for some reason. BTW, I always understood that he was French, not from the UK.

Shelagh

Hi

The culture of the time suggests that the birth of the firstborn son was of immense importance to the family, effectively validating the wife's existence in the family unit. Cecily would have been aware of this even if she couldn't bond with the child and the oldest male child himself would have been aware of it. Thus he would have had tons of positive emotional reinforcement which I suggest would be a more formative factor than the attitude of his aristocratic and necessarily hands-off mother. Any indication that his mother didn't view him as central to her existence is, I suggest, indicative that something was seriously wrong other than mother-child bonding.

Shelagh

--- In , "Shelagh"
<leapint@b...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> The culture of the time suggests that the birth of the firstborn
son was of immense importance to the family, effectively validating
the wife's existence in the family unit. Cecily would have been
aware of this even if she couldn't bond with the child and the oldest
male child himself would have been aware of it. Thus he would have
had tons of positive emotional reinforcement which I suggest would be
a more formative factor than the attitude of his aristocratic and
necessarily hands-off mother. Any indication that his mother didn't
view him as central to her existence is, I suggest, indicative that
something was seriously wrong other than mother-child bonding.
>
> Shelagh
>
>
I can't pretend any expertise in this area, but the same point surely
applies to Edward VII - more so, in fact, because she was queen
regnant and he was the immediate heir apparent.

A difficulty we have with Edward IV is that we don't know whether he
was in practical terms the eldest son at his birth - because his
elder brother died before this - or 'the spare' until some time
later.

I might also note that Eleanor of Aquitaine seems to have been far
more devoted to Richard I - her third son (one died as an infant) -
than to Henry the Young King, his surviving elder brother.

Back to Edward VII if I may. The parallels between him and Edward IV
are actually quite strong as Edward VII was quite spectacularly
unlike Prince Albert in character; Edward a compulsive womaniser,
Albert something of a prude; Albert very serious-minded and
intellectual, Edward only interested in pleasure. As to heredity and
womanising tendencies; Albert's elder brother was a notorious
womaniser, and Queen Victoria's father and uncles were no slouches in
this sphere.

What seems to have happened with Edward VII (and, indeed, a few other
19th century heirs apparent who went off the rails - the other
obvious example is Crown Prince Rudolf) is that his parents attempted
to force him into a mould he didn't fit, and he reacted violently in
the opposite direction. We can come to a fairly relaiable conclusion
on this because there is plenty of material to work from, not least
Victoria's own letters. With Edward IV we have to be careful about
writing to much into odd scraps of information which have come down
to us, simply because they are all we have got. To my mind,
supporting your younger son in a rebellion against your eldest (if,
indeed, that is what the Duchess did) is somewhat strange behaviour,
but the more I read about maternal affection the less it seems there
is any rationality about it, and the more room for likes and dislikes
without particular logic to them. It is, of course, complicated by
the sentiment that all mothers must love their offspring and to an
equal degree, so that to question such things is very much to
trespass on forbidden territory.

It is all a very strange business.

Ann

We know that Queen Victoria was emotionally unstable, that she didn't like children and hated the process of childbearing so this was all bound to reflect in her relationship with her children. Unfortunately we don't know much about Cecily's psychology.

Agreed, if Edward was the spare for a while he might have been and felt ignored.

I think the point about Eleanor is the most relevant in that she seemed to be emotionally stable, had a good marriage, had no negative feelings about having children .... and yet Richard 1 was far and away her most favourite.

Where this all leads I don't know except perhaps to say that it's infuriating that we don't know more about Cecily and how she reacted to the events in her life.

Shelagh

--- In , "Shelagh"
<leapint@b...> wrote:
> Blaybourne...
>
> Yes, this is the detail which gives me pause, too. Not just "an
archer", with all the implications of a noble woman falling off her
pedestal, but a named man. I'm sure I read somewhere - but I can't
remember where - that there was talk about Cecily and an archer
before she said (if she did) what she did about Edward's paternity.
It's too specific to be the usual malicious gossip. That's not to
say that she was playing away from home but there does appear to have
been a Blaybourne who's name had been linked to hers for some
reason. BTW, I always understood that he was French, not from the UK.
>
> Shelagh


I'm still flogging the archer business -- I just have a tough time
accepting that the Duchess of York could have gotten it on with an
archer, because I can't see any likely way she would have gotten to
know any archer, socially let alone carnally.

I'm wondering if his being called an archer could be some sort of sly
allusion. Slang, metaphors, circumlocutions and other kinds of code
phrases are difficult to translate from one language to another and
even between cultures sharing a common language, and an outdated
phrase can become obscure or completely unintelligible within
decades. For example, calling a man an "old goat" in an English-
speaking culture is a far different matter from calling a man
a "cabron" in a Hispanic one, though cabron merely means goat,
literally. If I wrote that Cecily Neville had round heels and when
her husband returned from a long campaign, she had a bun in the
oven, would someone reading it 500 years from now (with as
comparatively little of writing from our time to study as we have of
the 15th century) understand what I was saying or would they think
the duchess had an orthopedic problem and that she was baking a
welcome-home pastry for the Duke? A couple of hundred years ago,
a "swordsman" might have been a man skilled with bladed weapons, but
it also meant a promiscuous lover/seducer skilled in the use of
another instrument entirely. When Hamlet told Ophelia "get thee to a
nunnery" he wasn't suggesting she take holy vows.

My thought is that perhaps Blaybourne was an archer in the sense of
(wink, smirk) having sent a Cupid's arrow winging into the bosom of
the duchess...and the phrase got taken literally somewhere along the
way, perhaps by some of the French who weren't in on English idiom.
I don't know if there was any such idiom, but there could have been,
since the educated classes were more familiar with classic Greek and
Roman culture and mythology than people are today.

Katy

--- In , "Shelagh"
<leapint@b...> wrote:
> We know that Queen Victoria was emotionally unstable, that she
didn't like children and hated the process of childbearing so this
was all bound to reflect in her relationship with her children.
Unfortunately we don't know much about Cecily's psychology.
>
> Agreed, if Edward was the spare for a while he might have been and
felt ignored.
>
> I think the point about Eleanor is the most relevant in that she
seemed to be emotionally stable, had a good marriage, had no negative
feelings about having children .... and yet Richard 1 was far and
away her most favourite.
>
> Where this all leads I don't know except perhaps to say that it's
infuriating that we don't know more about Cecily and how she reacted
to the events in her life.
>
> Shelagh


Eleanor of Aquitaine was not all that stable and not such a loving
mother. She is said to have had Rosamond de Clifford poisoned when
she discovered that Henry had installed her at Woodstock as his
mistress. At any rate, Rosamond died suddenly shortly after Eleanor
discovered the love-nest, which she did by riding up there, 45 years
old and nine months pregnant, to see for herself. She went to a
nearby abbey and gave birth to John that night, and as soon as she
could travel, left him there and did not see him again for years.
John was his father's favorite and she loathed him, because, she
said once, he had dark hair whereas the rest of her children were
blonds and redheads. (More likely, because he reminded her of bad
times.) She set her sons -- Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John --
against each other and against Henry. "The Lion in Winter"
and "Becket" are about Kathryn Hepburn in period costume, not an
accurate portrayal of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Katy

Hi Katy

Yes, if "archer" is taken out of the equation, it all becomes much more plausible. Personally I do think it possible that she kicked over the traces but with an archer? No. But disbelieving in an archer doesn't invalidate the theory that she had an affair - merely that she didn't have an affair with an archer, using the normal meaning of the word.

Shelagh

I have been reading the various postings and would like to make a few
points.

1. Was there any evidence that Clarence ever made the claim that
Edward was not York's son?

2. Was the word bastard a general word of abuse in the fifteenth
century? Could Cecily use that term against her son Edward without
meaning it literally, assuming she said it at all?

3. Regarding family relationships, family relationships and dynamics
change over the years. A favourite child loses position as an adult
etc. Also I am rather wary of those first child, middle child,
youngest child theories being used since they seen to be based on
modern nuclear families not middle ages aristocratic families.

(Getting off the track but someone said something about the youngest
child being spoilt, in my experience being one, not true! Also from
what I experienced and seen, youngest children can be somewhat
bullied by older siblings)

4. Someone, sorry I forgot who, said something about Richard thinking
about the throne even during Edward's reign but wouldn't do anything
because of his regard for the crown. Didn't Richard take an oath to
his nephew Edward V after Edward IV's death? That, to me, does not
give an idea of Richard suspecting anything about either his brother
or nephew being illegitimate unless he is the ambitious creep of the
traditionalist view.

5. Richard's actions after his brother's death seen to be very much
the responses of a man to events, not planned at all unless you take
Carpenter's view of nicking the throne by an inept and none too
bright panicky man. I certainly do not think that since I see Richard
as an intelligent and capable man though not always the best judge of
character eg. Buckingham.

Helen

At 09:57 PM 1/19/04 -0000, Shelagh wrote:
>We know that Queen Victoria was emotionally unstable, that she didn't like
>children and hated the process of childbearing so this was all bound to
reflect
>in her relationship with her children.

That's a rather overstated view of Queen Victoria. While she did not enjoy
pregnancy, she produced a good deal more than the required "heir and a spare".

And Victoria got along quite well with all her children, except her heir,
Edward VII. Then again, not liking your oldest son was quite common in the
Hanover/Wettin/Windsor dynasty and it had nothing to do with the legitimacy
of the heir.

>I think the point about Eleanor is the most relevant in that she seemed to
be
>emotionally stable, had a good marriage, had no negative feelings about
having
>children .... and yet Richard 1 was far and away her most favourite.

I'm interested on what grounds you rate Eleanor as emotionally stable and
Victoria as instable. And last I checked, imprisoning one's spouse for
fifteen years (as Henry did) and encouraging your sons to rise in armed
revolt against their father (as Eleanor did) are not normally seen as signs
of a good marriage.

>Where this all leads I don't know except perhaps to say that it's
infuriating
>that we don't know more about Cecily and how she reacted to the events in
her
>life.

It's easy to find parent-child discord or favoritism when one looks at the
rulers of England. Only in the case of Cecily Neville and her sons, does
anyone seem to be using it as indicating the legitimacy of the children.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Shelagh"
> <leapint@b...> wrote:
> > We know that Queen Victoria was emotionally unstable, that she
> didn't like children and hated the process of childbearing so this
> was all bound to reflect in her relationship with her children.
> Unfortunately we don't know much about Cecily's psychology.
> >
> > Agreed, if Edward was the spare for a while he might have been
and
> felt ignored.
> >
> > I think the point about Eleanor is the most relevant in that she
> seemed to be emotionally stable, had a good marriage, had no
negative
> feelings about having children .... and yet Richard 1 was far and
> away her most favourite.
> >
> > Where this all leads I don't know except perhaps to say that it's
> infuriating that we don't know more about Cecily and how she
reacted
> to the events in her life.
> >
> > Shelagh
>
>
> Eleanor of Aquitaine was not all that stable and not such a loving
> mother. She is said to have had Rosamond de Clifford poisoned when
> she discovered that Henry had installed her at Woodstock as his
> mistress. At any rate, Rosamond died suddenly shortly after
Eleanor
> discovered the love-nest, which she did by riding up there, 45
years
> old and nine months pregnant, to see for herself. She went to a
> nearby abbey and gave birth to John that night, and as soon as she
> could travel, left him there and did not see him again for years.
> John was his father's favorite and she loathed him, because, she
> said once, he had dark hair whereas the rest of her children were
> blonds and redheads.

Do we know what colour hair Eleanor and Henry both had?

By the way, I like your theory about "archers".

Marie

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@c...> wrote:
> At 09:57 PM 1/19/04 -0000, Shelagh wrote:
> >We know that Queen Victoria was emotionally unstable, that she
didn't like
> >children and hated the process of childbearing so this was all
bound to
> reflect
> >in her relationship with her children.
>
> That's a rather overstated view of Queen Victoria. While she did
not enjoy
> pregnancy, she produced a good deal more than the required "heir
and a spare".
>
We have to bear in mind here that in the days before effective
contraception, having a large family does not indicate enjoyment of
having children. If a couple were as fertile as Victoria and Albert,
or Richard and Cecily, the only effective method of family limitation
was total abstinence. Victoria and Albert seem to have been devoted
to one another, and from her letters Victoria seems to have enjoyed
the physical side of their marriage, so abstinence wasn't really an
option. We cannot assume that Richard and Cecily were madly in love,
but they really only need to have been moderately fond of one another
to produce their quiverful (there, an archer metaphor!)

> And Victoria got along quite well with all her children, except her
heir,
> Edward VII. Then again, not liking your oldest son was quite
common in the
> Hanover/Wettin/Windsor dynasty and it had nothing to do with the
legitimacy
> of the heir.

So common as to be entirely usual. Father/heir apparent relations
among the Hanoverian kings were quite spectacularly bad. To cite only
one example; when George II was informed of his father's death, he
declared that it was all a plot by his still living father to provoke
him into some treasonable remark, so he could have him imprisoned.
What is unusual about Victoria is that she, a female ruler, followed
this pattern. And although she did not particularly like children,
she was on good terms with most of them as they got older, and indeed
very possessive towards some of them - she insisted that Helena and
Beatrice stay in England after their marriages, and refused to allow
Arthur to become Duke of Coburg because he was her favourite son and
he would have to live in Germany.
> >
> I'm interested on what grounds you rate Eleanor as emotionally
stable and
> Victoria as instable. And last I checked, imprisoning one's spouse
for
> fifteen years (as Henry did) and encouraging your sons to rise in
armed
> revolt against their father (as Eleanor did) are not normally seen
as signs
> of a good marriage.
>
> >Where this all leads I don't know except perhaps to say that it's
> infuriating
> >that we don't know more about Cecily and how she reacted to the
events in
> her
> >life.
>
> It's easy to find parent-child discord or favoritism when one looks
at the
> rulers of England. Only in the case of Cecily Neville and her
sons, does
> anyone seem to be using it as indicating the legitimacy of the
children.

This is precisely the point I've been working towards!

Ann

> > Eleanor of Aquitaine was not all that stable and not such a
loving
> > mother. She is said to have had Rosamond de Clifford poisoned
when
> > she discovered that Henry had installed her at Woodstock as his
> > mistress. At any rate, Rosamond died suddenly shortly after
> Eleanor
> > discovered the love-nest, which she did by riding up there, 45
> years
> > old and nine months pregnant, to see for herself. She went to a
> > nearby abbey and gave birth to John that night, and as soon as
she
> > could travel, left him there and did not see him again for
years.
> > John was his father's favorite and she loathed him, because, she
> > said once, he had dark hair whereas the rest of her children were
> > blonds and redheads.

I'm not sure all this is factually correct, though the general tenor
is true. Eleanor very definitely had favourites and un-favourites
among her brood, and certainly seems to have taken very little
interest in John (a change from the youngest being spoilt - that was
me, and very much based on experience)

>
> Do we know what colour hair Eleanor and Henry both had?
>
Henry is said by a reliable chronicler (Roger of Howden, I think) to
have had sandy to reddish hair and grey eyes. I have always thought
of Eleanor as dark, though perhaps that is just supposition on the
basis that my fair-to-sandy father married my dark-haired mother and
therefore I tend to expect marriages between 'colour opposites'.
Henry is also said to have been on the short side, and stocky,
whereas Richard was apparently tall and John about 5ft 7.

Still on heights, Queen Victoria was under 5ft but Prince Albert
quite tall. All their children and a good many of their grandchildren
seem to have been on the short side. This, of course, is tall father-
short mother, but there seems no particular reason why extremes
should not operate in either direction. The Kaiser, with a 6ft father
and 5ft 1 mother, was apparently a very average 5ft 9.

As to age of growth; somewhere tucked away I have details of my only
paternal uncle's career on board a very tough Merchant Navy training
ship from 1920-22. He was my father's very much older half-brother
(22 years between them) and joined shortly after his thirteenth
birthday, 4ft 10 tall and about 6 stone. When he left, aged 16, he
was still 4ft 10 tall and not much heavier. Interesting that he does
not seem to have grown at all in that time (someone did tell me that
the food on board the training ship was terrible and the boys were
always running away in search of something to eat!) According to an
aunt, he ended up at 6ft. I find this hard to believe, but as an
adult in group photographs (he died of TB at 26) he does not appear
noticeably taller or shorter than those around him, so 5ft 8-10 would
seem a fair estimate.

> By the way, I like your theory about "archers".
>
It makes sense to me as well.

Ann

--- In , "Helen"
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
> I have been reading the various postings and would like to make a
few
> points.
>
> 1. Was there any evidence that Clarence ever made the claim that
> Edward was not York's son?

Hicks (Clarence) says there wre rumours of Edward's bstardy by 1469
and that a continental source attributed them to EWarick. He cites a
French work on Louis XI. It seems, unsurprisingly, that there is no
documentary evidence from this country.
Clarence's whole intention to be King when he rebelled with Warick
does not seem to have been clearly stated, ceryainly in 1469.
However, the Act of Attainder against Clarence in 1478 stated that he
had "published and said trhat the King our sovereign lord was a
bastard and not begotten to reign upon us." These accusations could
have been made later, of oucrse.
Hicks does show an interest in the bastardy story, even though this
book was published in 1980, long before the MKJ gypothesis:
"That such stories are the stock of fifteenth-century propaganda
should make us cautious rather than incredulous. The story dates back
ro at least 1469, when it was probably disseminated by Clarence and
Warwick. It may have earlier origins and it was certainly current
later. Richard III's title to the crown, as it was presented to the
1484 parliament, was partly based on it. . . This story is recounted
by three independent chroniclers writing after the 1484 parliament,
and by Dominic Mancini, who was writing before it. He thought the
Duchess Cecily was respnosible for the bastardy story, which she
related at the time of Edward's wedding in 1464; this may not be true
but it indicated that both tales were associated with Edward's
marriage. Perhaps they were inseparable from it."




>
> 2. Was the word bastard a general word of abuse in the fifteenth
> century? Could Cecily use that term against her son Edward without
> meaning it literally, assuming she said it at all?

I've never encountered it. If it was, it would have been a very
strong one and an odd one for a mother to use. Even in the 19th
century hard-swearing soldiers would take VIOLENT offence if one of
their colleagues called them a bastard as this was a slur on their
mother and so beyond the limits.

>
> 3. Regarding family relationships, family relationships and
dynamics
> change over the years. A favourite child loses position as an adult
> etc.

Very true.

Also I am rather wary of those first child, middle child,
> youngest child theories being used since they seen to be based on
> modern nuclear families not middle ages aristocratic families.

Same here. Victoria and Albert are a different matter. Albert had had
a very cold upbringing and was a cold and controlling father;
Victoria didn't like children, started childbearing very young and
without break, and was very resentful (actually she surely must have
used wetnurses, or she would have had breaks between the
pregnancies). She was also over-anxious that Bertie should please his
father. She then blamed Albert's death on the shock of finding out
Bertie had been with a prostitute. However, she never toyed with the
idea of replacing him as heir with a younger brother. Can you imagine
it?
I actually suspect the York family might have had very loving
parents, including Edward (the trouble with mum seems to have started
after his marriage). My reasons for supposing this are:
a) that letter from Edward and Edmuind to their father; it's quite
cheeky. They don't seem to have been frightened of him.
b) York's children seem to have loved their own children, and been
very at home with the parenting role, viz:
i) The picture visitors draw of Edward's household, and his playing
and dancing with his own children
ii) Richard's expressions of love and admiration for his children,
his grief at Edward's death
iii) Margaret of York's adoption of no less than two little boys at
different times, and the almost suffocating affection she lavished on
her 'Richard Duke of York'.

>
> (Getting off the track but someone said something about the
youngest
> child being spoilt, in my experience being one, not true! Also from
> what I experienced and seen, youngest children can be somewhat
> bullied by older siblings)
>
> 4. Someone, sorry I forgot who, said something about Richard
thinking
> about the throne even during Edward's reign but wouldn't do
anything
> because of his regard for the crown. Didn't Richard take an oath to
> his nephew Edward V after Edward IV's death? That, to me, does not
> give an idea of Richard suspecting anything about either his
brother
> or nephew being illegitimate unless he is the ambitious creep of
the
> traditionalist view.


>
> 5. Richard's actions after his brother's death seen to be very much
> the responses of a man to events, not planned at all unless you
take
> Carpenter's view of nicking the throne by an inept and none too
> bright panicky man. I certainly do not think that since I see
Richard
> as an intelligent and capable man though not always the best judge
of
> character eg. Buckingham.
>
> Helen

Yes, it was me (or indeed I) who mentioned about the anointing. I
think Hughes has inadvertently hit on something about how Richard
rationalised his continuing support of Edward - the anointing and -
yes, you're right - also the oaths. But it is my opinion that,
whatever ideas he may have toyed with earlier, Richard decided after
Edward died to go on support his son and not rock the boat. When it
came to it it was just too much. Hence the oaths, not only taken by
him but administered by him to others. Here I deffer from Jones, who
conveniently skims over this period. However, the Woodvilles were
clearly not prepared to trust Richard, and nor in the end were
Edward's old friends such as Hastings. So he was left with no option
but to press his own claim.

> Hicks (Clarence) says there wre rumours of Edward's bstardy by 1469
> and that a continental source attributed them to EWarick. He cites
a
> French work on Louis XI. It seems, unsurprisingly, that there is no
> documentary evidence from this country.
> Clarence's whole intention to be King when he rebelled with Warick
> does not seem to have been clearly stated, ceryainly in 1469.
> However, the Act of Attainder against Clarence in 1478 stated that
he
> had "published and said trhat the King our sovereign lord was a
> bastard and not begotten to reign upon us." These accusations could
> have been made later, of oucrse.
> Hicks does show an interest in the bastardy story, even though this
> book was published in 1980, long before the MKJ gypothesis:
> "That such stories are the stock of fifteenth-century propaganda
> should make us cautious rather than incredulous. The story dates
back
> ro at least 1469, when it was probably disseminated by Clarence
and
> Warwick. It may have earlier origins and it was certainly current
> later. Richard III's title to the crown, as it was presented to the
> 1484 parliament, was partly based on it. . . This story is
recounted
> by three independent chroniclers writing after the 1484 parliament,
> and by Dominic Mancini, who was writing before it. He thought the
> Duchess Cecily was respnosible for the bastardy story, which she
> related at the time of Edward's wedding in 1464; this may not be
true
> but it indicated that both tales were associated with Edward's
> marriage. Perhaps they were inseparable from it."
>
This seems to me a pretty a fair summary. A point which someone
makes, and which I agree with, is that there is a long gap between
1464 when the Duchess is supposed to have let out the tale, and 1469
when anything was actually done. Further, Warwick and Clarence don't
seem to have included it in their 1469 manifesto, which, I would
think, they would have done had it been central to their cause.
>
>
> >
> > 2. Was the word bastard a general word of abuse in the fifteenth
> > century? Could Cecily use that term against her son Edward
without
> > meaning it literally, assuming she said it at all?
>
> I've never encountered it. If it was, it would have been a very
> strong one and an odd one for a mother to use. Even in the 19th
> century hard-swearing soldiers would take VIOLENT offence if one of
> their colleagues called them a bastard as this was a slur on their
> mother and so beyond the limits.
>
I've heard this too and more recently, that it was all right to call
a soldier anything except a bastard, since that constituted an insult
to his mother.

> > 3. Regarding family relationships, family relationships and
> dynamics
> > change over the years. A favourite child loses position as an
adult
> > etc.
>
> Very true.
>
> Also I am rather wary of those first child, middle child,
> > youngest child theories being used since they seen to be based on
> > modern nuclear families not middle ages aristocratic families.
>
> Same here. Victoria and Albert are a different matter. Albert had
had
> a very cold upbringing and was a cold and controlling father.

I can't remember the precise date, but Albert's father divorced
Albert's mother because of her adultery when Albert was about five,
and forbade her ever to see Albert and his brother again. (George I
did the same thing, incidentally, and very probably also had his
wife's paramour murdered for good measure).

> Victoria didn't like children, started childbearing very young and
> without break, and was very resentful (actually she surely must
have
> used wetnurses, or she would have had breaks between the
> pregnancies).

Not nececessarily - breastfeeding is not that reliable a
contraceptive. It works if the couple are no more than averagely
fertile, but not if they are very fertile, as Victoria and Albert
seem to have been.

She was also over-anxious that Bertie should please his
> father. She then blamed Albert's death on the shock of finding out
> Bertie had been with a prostitute. However, she never toyed with
the
> idea of replacing him as heir with a younger brother. Can you
imagine
> it?
> I actually suspect the York family might have had very loving
> parents, including Edward (the trouble with mum seems to have
started
> after his marriage). My reasons for supposing this are:
> a) that letter from Edward and Edmuind to their father; it's quite
> cheeky. They don't seem to have been frightened of him.

I would agree with the tone of that letter, written when Edward and
Edmund were 12 and 11. They use respectful language towards their
father ('your Highness') but there is no sense that they were in awe
of him, or even that they didn't see him all that often. It's really
rather a nice letter.

> b) York's children seem to have loved their own children, and been
> very at home with the parenting role, viz:
> i) The picture visitors draw of Edward's household, and his playing
> and dancing with his own children

Devil's Advocate here, but can we be sure that we are not dealing
with conventional depictions here. Have we anything from other upper-
class households of the time to compare it with?
>
> >
> > (Getting off the track but someone said something about the
> youngest
> > child being spoilt, in my experience being one, not true! Also
from
> > what I experienced and seen, youngest children can be somewhat
> > bullied by older siblings)
> > >
> >
> > 5. Richard's actions after his brother's death seen to be very
much
> > the responses of a man to events, not planned at all unless you
> take
> > Carpenter's view of nicking the throne by an inept and none too
> > bright panicky man. I certainly do not think that since I see
> Richard
> > as an intelligent and capable man though not always the best
judge
> of
> > character eg. Buckingham.
> >
> > Helen
>
> Yes, it was me (or indeed I) who mentioned about the anointing. I
> think Hughes has inadvertently hit on something about how Richard
> rationalised his continuing support of Edward - the anointing and -
> yes, you're right - also the oaths. But it is my opinion that,
> whatever ideas he may have toyed with earlier, Richard decided
after
> Edward died to go on support his son and not rock the boat. When it
> came to it it was just too much. Hence the oaths, not only taken by
> him but administered by him to others. Here I deffer from Jones,
who
> conveniently skims over this period. However, the Woodvilles were
> clearly not prepared to trust Richard, and nor in the end were
> Edward's old friends such as Hastings. So he was left with no
option
> but to press his own claim.


I would agree that the whole 'feel' of the period April-June 1483 is
that Richard was initially content to have his nephew as king, but
that some time in June things changed, and his actions from then on
suggest decisions taken pretty much on the hoof.

Ann

>
> > > Eleanor of Aquitaine was not all that stable and not such a
> loving
> > > mother. She is said to have had Rosamond de Clifford poisoned
> when
> > > she discovered that Henry had installed her at Woodstock as his
> > > mistress. At any rate, Rosamond died suddenly shortly after
> > Eleanor
> > > discovered the love-nest, which she did by riding up there, 45
> > years
> > > old and nine months pregnant, to see for herself. She went to a

> > > nearby abbey and gave birth to John that night, and as soon as
> she
> > > could travel, left him there and did not see him again for
> years.
> > > John was his father's favorite and she loathed him, because, she

> > > said once, he had dark hair whereas the rest of her children were

> > > blonds and redheads.
>
> I'm not sure all this is factually correct, though the general tenor

> is true. Eleanor very definitely had favourites and un-favourites
> among her brood, and certainly seems to have taken very little
> interest in John (a change from the youngest being spoilt - that was

> me, and very much based on experience)


The Rosamund story is almost certainly untrue. IIRC, Eleanor was
imprisoned at the time of Rosamund's death and couldn't have been
anywhere near Woodstock.

Re the Richard thing: he was her designated heir for Aquitaine. Henry,
the eldest, was the heir of England, Geoffrey, the next, was to inherit
Anjou (as he did) and then Richard was to inherit Aquitaine, so
inevitably his mother spent more time with him since as Duchess-Regnant,
she was the logical person to instruct him in his duties as putative
Duke. One reason John was ignored because he was John Lackland - the
only son without a major inheritance.

--

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Hicks (Clarence) says there wre rumours of Edward's bstardy by
1469
> > and that a continental source attributed them to EWarick. He
cites
> a
> > French work on Louis XI. It seems, unsurprisingly, that there is
no
> > documentary evidence from this country.
> > Clarence's whole intention to be King when he rebelled with
Warick
> > does not seem to have been clearly stated, ceryainly in 1469.
> > However, the Act of Attainder against Clarence in 1478 stated
that
> he
> > had "published and said trhat the King our sovereign lord was a
> > bastard and not begotten to reign upon us." These accusations
could
> > have been made later, of oucrse.
> > Hicks does show an interest in the bastardy story, even though
this
> > book was published in 1980, long before the MKJ gypothesis:
> > "That such stories are the stock of fifteenth-century propaganda
> > should make us cautious rather than incredulous. The story dates
> back
> > ro at least 1469, when it was probably disseminated by Clarence
> and
> > Warwick. It may have earlier origins and it was certainly current
> > later. Richard III's title to the crown, as it was presented to
the
> > 1484 parliament, was partly based on it. . . This story is
> recounted
> > by three independent chroniclers writing after the 1484
parliament,
> > and by Dominic Mancini, who was writing before it. He thought the
> > Duchess Cecily was respnosible for the bastardy story, which she
> > related at the time of Edward's wedding in 1464; this may not be
> true
> > but it indicated that both tales were associated with Edward's
> > marriage. Perhaps they were inseparable from it."
> >
> This seems to me a pretty a fair summary. A point which someone
> makes, and which I agree with, is that there is a long gap between
> 1464 when the Duchess is supposed to have let out the tale, and
1469
> when anything was actually done. Further, Warwick and Clarence
don't
> seem to have included it in their 1469 manifesto, which, I would
> think, they would have done had it been central to their cause.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2. Was the word bastard a general word of abuse in the
fifteenth
> > > century? Could Cecily use that term against her son Edward
> without
> > > meaning it literally, assuming she said it at all?
> >
> > I've never encountered it. If it was, it would have been a very
> > strong one and an odd one for a mother to use. Even in the 19th
> > century hard-swearing soldiers would take VIOLENT offence if one
of
> > their colleagues called them a bastard as this was a slur on
their
> > mother and so beyond the limits.
> >
> I've heard this too and more recently, that it was all right to
call
> a soldier anything except a bastard, since that constituted an
insult
> to his mother.
>
> > > 3. Regarding family relationships, family relationships and
> > dynamics
> > > change over the years. A favourite child loses position as an
> adult
> > > etc.
> >
> > Very true.
> >
> > Also I am rather wary of those first child, middle child,
> > > youngest child theories being used since they seen to be based
on
> > > modern nuclear families not middle ages aristocratic families.
> >
> > Same here. Victoria and Albert are a different matter. Albert had
> had
> > a very cold upbringing and was a cold and controlling father.
>
> I can't remember the precise date, but Albert's father divorced
> Albert's mother because of her adultery when Albert was about five,
> and forbade her ever to see Albert and his brother again. (George I
> did the same thing, incidentally, and very probably also had his
> wife's paramour murdered for good measure).
>
> > Victoria didn't like children, started childbearing very young
and
> > without break, and was very resentful (actually she surely must
> have
> > used wetnurses, or she would have had breaks between the
> > pregnancies).
>
> Not nececessarily - breastfeeding is not that reliable a
> contraceptive. It works if the couple are no more than averagely
> fertile, but not if they are very fertile, as Victoria and Albert
> seem to have been.

Sorry, that's simply not an accurate statement. It is quite a
reliable contraceptive though not as reliable as modern artificial
methods. Som women are more responsive to the ovulation-suppressing
effect of the breastfeeding hormone, but it is not the case that
these are the women who are less fertile anyway. It is highly
unlikely that any woman who breastfed would fall pregnant again
pretty well straight away over and over again.

It is very clear, I think, to anyone who has studied the family trees
of ordinary folk that in the days before bottle feeding was
introduced the routne normal gap between children was two
years.Anyway, wwetnursing was still the norm for classy ladies in
Victoria's day sp I'm not sure why she wouldn't have.
If you would like an anecdote, then you can have my own experience. I
am one of those who fell pregnant both times on first try. I
breastfed both children and both times did not have a period for a
full month after cutting down to a single feed per day. If you're
interested, this was over a year after birth in each case.

Marie

>
> She was also over-anxious that Bertie should please his
> > father. She then blamed Albert's death on the shock of finding
out
> > Bertie had been with a prostitute. However, she never toyed with
> the
> > idea of replacing him as heir with a younger brother. Can you
> imagine
> > it?
> > I actually suspect the York family might have had very loving
> > parents, including Edward (the trouble with mum seems to have
> started
> > after his marriage). My reasons for supposing this are:
> > a) that letter from Edward and Edmuind to their father; it's
quite
> > cheeky. They don't seem to have been frightened of him.
>
> I would agree with the tone of that letter, written when Edward and
> Edmund were 12 and 11. They use respectful language towards their
> father ('your Highness') but there is no sense that they were in
awe
> of him, or even that they didn't see him all that often. It's
really
> rather a nice letter.
>
> > b) York's children seem to have loved their own children, and
been
> > very at home with the parenting role, viz:
> > i) The picture visitors draw of Edward's household, and his
playing
> > and dancing with his own children
>
> Devil's Advocate here, but can we be sure that we are not dealing
> with conventional depictions here. Have we anything from other
upper-
> class households of the time to compare it with?

How does that help?


> >
> > >
> > > (Getting off the track but someone said something about the
> > youngest
> > > child being spoilt, in my experience being one, not true! Also
> from
> > > what I experienced and seen, youngest children can be somewhat
> > > bullied by older siblings)
> > > >
> > >
> > > 5. Richard's actions after his brother's death seen to be very
> much
> > > the responses of a man to events, not planned at all unless you
> > take
> > > Carpenter's view of nicking the throne by an inept and none too
> > > bright panicky man. I certainly do not think that since I see
> > Richard
> > > as an intelligent and capable man though not always the best
> judge
> > of
> > > character eg. Buckingham.
> > >
> > > Helen
> >
> > Yes, it was me (or indeed I) who mentioned about the anointing. I
> > think Hughes has inadvertently hit on something about how Richard
> > rationalised his continuing support of Edward - the anointing
and -
> > yes, you're right - also the oaths. But it is my opinion that,
> > whatever ideas he may have toyed with earlier, Richard decided
> after
> > Edward died to go on support his son and not rock the boat. When
it
> > came to it it was just too much. Hence the oaths, not only taken
by
> > him but administered by him to others. Here I deffer from Jones,
> who
> > conveniently skims over this period. However, the Woodvilles were
> > clearly not prepared to trust Richard, and nor in the end were
> > Edward's old friends such as Hastings. So he was left with no
> option
> > but to press his own claim.
>
>
> I would agree that the whole 'feel' of the period April-June 1483
is
> that Richard was initially content to have his nephew as king, but
> that some time in June things changed, and his actions from then on
> suggest decisions taken pretty much on the hoof.
>
> Ann

My family history has thrown up a family of 16 children within 20
years. These were children of a stone mason and the family was known
for being the "poor younger brother's offspring" so no wet nurse me
thinks! In fact I'm pretty certain there would have been no outside
help looking at census records and addresses.

I had 3 children all under 5 and I breast fed all of them. (went on
to adopt another child who became the eldest!)

Helen in Scotalnd

> It is very clear, I think, to anyone who has studied the family trees

> of ordinary folk that in the days before bottle feeding was
> introduced the routne normal gap between children was two
> years.Anyway, wwetnursing was still the norm for classy ladies in
> Victoria's day sp I'm not sure why she wouldn't have.

Victoria most certainly had wetnurses and quite probably the children
were on bottles from a very early age. In fact, she chastised two of
her daughters (Vicky and Alice, I think) for breast-feeding their
children, since she felt it was common and vulgar.

That may also highlight differences between German and English upper-
class practices at the time, since both of those daughters were
resident in Germany (two more married German princes but lived in
England).

Jenny

--

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:


<snip>

>
>
> I would agree that the whole 'feel' of the period April-June 1483
is
> that Richard was initially content to have his nephew as king, but
> that some time in June things changed, and his actions from then on
> suggest decisions taken pretty much on the hoof.
>
> Ann

<snip ends>

My feeling is that something very odd happened between April and June
1483. Things went much as expected until that point with Richard
acting in the way I (operative word here - this is only my personal
and highly biased opinion) would have expected from his earlier
support of Edward IV. He then starts to support Edward V and then
something happens.

What happened we don't know. Maybe Richard did come to realise he
could gain the crown for himself. Maybe there was a revelation that
was so shocking that the very roots of Richard's world was shaken. I
see Richard's actions as responding to events rather than having been
planned well in advance. I don't claim this made him either a beeter
or a worse man.

Helen in Scotland

--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> My family history has thrown up a family of 16 children within 20
> years. These were children of a stone mason and the family was
known
> for being the "poor younger brother's offspring" so no wet nurse me
> thinks! In fact I'm pretty certain there would have been no outside
> help looking at census records and addresses.

Are you sure the wife wasn't working to help make ends meet, and
leaving the babies with a childminder? This was also very common;
these women often 'looked after' several charges in addition to their
own.

>
> I had 3 children all under 5 and I breast fed all of them. (went on
> to adopt another child who became the eldest!)
Helen in Scotalnd

I can't really comment as I don't know how long you fed. To have the
eldest under five when the youngest is born you could have had almost
two years between each child.

However, upper class Victorian ladies didn't normally feed their own
children; You have only to look at the fashions to see that. It was
regarded as not quite the thing and was believed to give you saggy
breasts. Where you have a breastfeeding culture the fashions in
women's clothing reflect that. So I'll assume Victoria was "normal"
in that regard unless someone can give me some evidence that she
wasn't.

Marie
>
>

I made the point as I did because my grandmother (well past 30 at the
time) was advised by an experienced family doctor following the birth
of my eldest uncle in 1923 that she had no need to worry about
getting pregnant again because she was breastfeeding. My second uncle
arrived 363 days after his brother.

Marie:
You say it's not a matter of how fertile the woman is in the first
place, but the extent she reacts to hormones caused by lactation. But
if this is in itself variable it does suggest that breastfeeding
cannot be relied on that much (the woman concerned does not know
whether it will work for her or not), and that it may cause spacing
out of births in some families but not in others.

I also remember distinctly listening to a radio discussion some years
ago in which it was stressed that breastfeeding is only likely to
have a definite contraceptive effect if the child is fed very
frequently, so that milk production is more-or-less continuous.

As a more general point, (and going off the subject of the 15th
century, admittedly) has anyone any idea when wet nurses ceased to be
in common use? I have a feeling - no more - that they lasted longer
on the continent than over here; I remember hearing an Italian
soprano interviewed on 'Desert Island Discs' saying that she had
shared a wet nurse with Luciano Pavarotti! Pavarotti is, I think,
about 68 now, so that was presumably some time in the 1930s. One of
my mother's old nursing textbooks (dating to about 1945) gives advice
on how to choose a wet nurse, though it does say that wet nurses were
rarely used at that time.

After all that, I don't know whether Queen Victoria breast fed or
not, but I imagine the matter is dealt with in one or other of the
biographies.

Ann

Rousseau's advocacy of the idea that mothers should breastfeed their
own children becuase this was "the natural way" led to a revolution
in childcare. Before that wet-nurses were definitely the norm. This
was partly because a healthy wet-nurse was thought to give a baby a
good start in life, but also because in medieval times it was
advised that breast-feeding women should abstain from sex in case it
tainted the milk, and husbands tended to have had enough of
abstinence during the later stages of pregnancy.

> >
> > > b) York's children seem to have loved their own children, and
> been
> > > very at home with the parenting role, viz:
> > > i) The picture visitors draw of Edward's household, and his
> playing
> > > and dancing with his own children
> >
> > Devil's Advocate here, but can we be sure that we are not dealing
> > with conventional depictions here. Have we anything from other
> upper-
> > class households of the time to compare it with?
>
> How does that help?
>
Simply to give an idea of whether we are dealing with reality or
conventional depictions. If all 15th century fathers are routinely
depicted as playing and dancing with their offspring, we may suspect
that this was a 'motif' of the time. Rather as aristocratic women are
usually described as beautiful (if the chronicler concentrates on
their virtuous character, however, we have to wonder whether the lady
wasn't a bit plain). Equally, young princes such as Edward V are
handsome, intelligent and promising.

Ann

--- In , "susannewoodman"
<woodmans@b...> wrote:
> Rousseau's advocacy of the idea that mothers should breastfeed
their
> own children becuase this was "the natural way" led to a revolution
> in childcare. Before that wet-nurses were definitely the norm. This
> was partly because a healthy wet-nurse was thought to give a baby a
> good start in life, but also because in medieval times it was
> advised that breast-feeding women should abstain from sex in case
it
> tainted the milk, and husbands tended to have had enough of
> abstinence during the later stages of pregnancy.

Am I thinking of someone else entirely, or did Cecily Neville cause a
bit of a scandal by actually breast-feeding her babies? If so, the
close spacing of her pregnancies would be rather remarkable...think
what the woman could have managed if she had handed them each off to
a wet-nurse.



Katy

> Am I thinking of someone else entirely, or did Cecily Neville cause
a
> bit of a scandal by actually breast-feeding her babies? If so,
the
> close spacing of her pregnancies would be rather remarkable...think
> what the woman could have managed if she had handed them each off
to
> a wet-nurse.
>
I rather think you're thinking of somebody else, if only because we
don't have much information about her. I'll have to look up the
reference when I get home, but I do recall that Anne Boleyn fed
Elizabeth I herself, and that was most unusual and regarded as
definitely not the thing for a queen.

On a practical point so we can get the full picture, was it usual for
the infant to be handed over to the wet nurse immediately after
birth, or was there a time lag, and, if so, how long?

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I made the point as I did because my grandmother (well past 30 at
the
> time) was advised by an experienced family doctor following the
birth
> of my eldest uncle in 1923 that she had no need to worry about
> getting pregnant again because she was breastfeeding. My second
uncle
> arrived 363 days after his brother.
>
> Marie:
> You say it's not a matter of how fertile the woman is in the first
> place, but the extent she reacts to hormones caused by lactation.
But
> if this is in itself variable it does suggest that breastfeeding
> cannot be relied on that much (the woman concerned does not know
> whether it will work for her or not), and that it may cause spacing
> out of births in some families but not in others.

Having trawled through hundreds of early census returns and parish
registers, I'm confident that it did work most of the time, but women
in the 18th & early 19th centuries breastfed for far longer than is
normal now. No woman these days is advised to rely on breastfeeding
simply because you cannot know when it has stopped working. As came
up in an earlier discussion, periods follow ovulation and not the
other way round, so there is no warning that ovulation is about to
recommence. It was a good way to help increase the spacing between
children in the past, but cannot be used for the small modern planned
family.

>
> I also remember distinctly listening to a radio discussion some
years
> ago in which it was stressed that breastfeeding is only likely to
> have a definite contraceptive effect if the child is fed very
> frequently, so that milk production is more-or-less continuous.

I can only cite my only experience that as long as I was giving at
least 2 feeds in 24 hours I was all right. However, it varies from
woman to woman. One pregnancy book I had suggested that some women
start ovulating again once they cut down to under 4 feeds.

It means you do have to be careful when people tell you they got
pregnant whilst breastfeeding, and then slip that the baby was 8 or 9
months old, because the baby was probably taking very little by then.
We wean babies much earlier than was traditionally the case.

I did met a girl who'd got pregnant 5 weeks after the birth of her
daughter whilst breastfeeding AND using mini-pill! However, I still
suspect she was one of the unlucky few (she certainly thought she
was); when I had my first child my friends all fed as well, and they
did not straight back to menstruating.
As regards your grandmother's time, the idea of feeding by the clock
was already in by then. This can make proper breastfeeding almost
impossible as milk production is a matter of supply and demand. That
wasn't understood by doctors back then. It is natural for a baby to
want to feed nearly continually to start with, and this is nature's
way of getting the supply going. Again, because the supply and demand
thing wasn't understood, mothers were advised not to feed more often
but to supplement breastfeeding with bottles if the baby wasn't
gaining enough weight - which just made the problem worse. Again,
supplementation wasn't so much of an option in earlier times unless
one had a sister or friend prepared to do some wetnursing. So there
may be other factors in your grandmother's case. (Also, if the baby
had been ill and not feeding well, or your grandmother had been ill,
the milk supply may well have dwindled temporarily.)

I'm sure we have no source saying that Cecily breastfed. If husbands
were not supposed to touch lactating wives, one can certainly assume
she didn't, at least not with her younger children, as they came so
close together.

Marie


>
> As a more general point, (and going off the subject of the 15th
> century, admittedly) has anyone any idea when wet nurses ceased to
be
> in common use? I have a feeling - no more - that they lasted longer
> on the continent than over here; I remember hearing an Italian
> soprano interviewed on 'Desert Island Discs' saying that she had
> shared a wet nurse with Luciano Pavarotti! Pavarotti is, I think,
> about 68 now, so that was presumably some time in the 1930s. One of
> my mother's old nursing textbooks (dating to about 1945) gives
advice
> on how to choose a wet nurse, though it does say that wet nurses
were
> rarely used at that time.

I suspect they went out of use when bottle-feeding became more usual.

Marie
>
> After all that, I don't know whether Queen Victoria breast fed or
> not, but I imagine the matter is dealt with in one or other of the
> biographies.
>
> Ann

>
> Having trawled through hundreds of early census returns and parish
> registers, I'm confident that it did work most of the time, but
women
> in the 18th & early 19th centuries breastfed for far longer than is
> normal now. No woman these days is advised to rely on breastfeeding
> simply because you cannot know when it has stopped working. As came
> up in an earlier discussion, periods follow ovulation and not the
> other way round, so there is no warning that ovulation is about to
> recommence. It was a good way to help increase the spacing between
> children in the past, but cannot be used for the small modern
planned
> family.
>
> >
> > I also remember distinctly listening to a radio discussion some
> years
> > ago in which it was stressed that breastfeeding is only likely to
> > have a definite contraceptive effect if the child is fed very
> > frequently, so that milk production is more-or-less continuous.
>
> I can only cite my only experience that as long as I was giving at
> least 2 feeds in 24 hours I was all right. However, it varies from
> woman to woman. One pregnancy book I had suggested that some women
> start ovulating again once they cut down to under 4 feeds.
>
> It means you do have to be careful when people tell you they got
> pregnant whilst breastfeeding, and then slip that the baby was 8 or
9
> months old, because the baby was probably taking very little by
then.
> We wean babies much earlier than was traditionally the case.
>
> I did met a girl who'd got pregnant 5 weeks after the birth of her
> daughter whilst breastfeeding AND using mini-pill! However, I still
> suspect she was one of the unlucky few (she certainly thought she
> was); when I had my first child my friends all fed as well, and
they
> did not straight back to menstruating.
> As regards your grandmother's time, the idea of feeding by the
clock
> was already in by then. This can make proper breastfeeding almost
> impossible as milk production is a matter of supply and demand.
That
> wasn't understood by doctors back then. It is natural for a baby to
> want to feed nearly continually to start with, and this is nature's
> way of getting the supply going. Again, because the supply and
demand
> thing wasn't understood, mothers were advised not to feed more
often
> but to supplement breastfeeding with bottles if the baby wasn't
> gaining enough weight - which just made the problem worse. Again,
> supplementation wasn't so much of an option in earlier times unless
> one had a sister or friend prepared to do some wetnursing. So there
> may be other factors in your grandmother's case. (Also, if the baby
> had been ill and not feeding well, or your grandmother had been
ill,
> the milk supply may well have dwindled temporarily.)
>

I'm happy to accept all this, but it demonstrates that it is all a
highly complex business. Statistically, perhaps not that unreliable,
but very much subject to individual variation.


> I'm sure we have no source saying that Cecily breastfed. If
husbands
> were not supposed to touch lactating wives, one can certainly
assume
> she didn't, at least not with her younger children, as they came so
> close together.
>
I supect that breastfeeding was sufficiently unusual among royalty
and high aristocracy for it to be remarked on by contemporaries when
anybody did - hence the record of Anne Boleyn doing it. Obviously, we
have to allow for non-survival of material, but I suspect that if the
Duchess of York had done it we are likely to have heard about it.

(I wonder why I think of her as 'the Duchess' and the rest of you
as 'Cecily'? Perhaps because my mind's eye impression of her is of a
sober and serious-minded lady, of the kind I would never think of
calling by her Christian name!)
>
>
> >
> > As a more general point, (and going off the subject of the 15th
> > century, admittedly) has anyone any idea when wet nurses ceased
to
> be
> > in common use?
>
> I suspect they went out of use when bottle-feeding became more
usual.

But when was that? Some time in the 19th century?

Ann

t 09:57 PM 1/19/04 -0000, Shelagh wrote:
>"...We know that Queen Victoria was emotionally unstable, that she didn't like children and hated the process of childbearing so this was all bound to reflect in her relationship with her children...."

"...That's a rather overstated view of Queen Victoria..."

If anything, it's understated. Even her husband expressed concern about the violence of some of her mood swings. She loathed her oldest son and smothered the rest of her children. But she was consistent. The interesting thing about Cecily is the inconsistency she showed in her attitude to Edward and to the rest of her brood.

"...I'm interested on what grounds you rate Eleanor as emotionally stable ..."

She was a woman who was in control of her life, far more so than most women of her time. She was self confident, ambitious, capable of love and didn't display any untoward extremes of behaviour unless pushed - as in her imprisonment. I would suggest that her actions after the marriage turned sour were caused by that fact and not any inherent emotional instability. Until Henry started philandering seriously, she was extremely supportive of him.

",,,It's easy to find parent-child discord or favoritism when one looks at the rulers of England. Only in the case of Cecily Neville and her sons, does
anyone seem to be using it as indicating the legitimacy of the children...>"

Because it's inconsistent behaviour. If you look at the appalling Georges you can see strong behaviour patterns. There is no such pattern with Cecily. She had many children and appears to have been a good mother to them all, except one. The Hanovarians were rotten parents full stop! (And the Windsors still are).

Shelagh

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >

>
> (I wonder why I think of her as 'the Duchess' and the rest of you
> as 'Cecily'? Perhaps because my mind's eye impression of her is of
a
> sober and serious-minded lady, of the kind I would never think of
> calling by her Christian name!)
> >
> >
> > >

>
> Ann

Well, speaking for myself, I refer to her as Cecily Neville in order
to be sure which person we are talking about -- remember my debacle
of thinking the Countess of Warwick people were discussing was Isabel
Neville, and finding out it was Anne Beauchamp. *Blush*.
Admittedly, I'm less likely to be felled by confusion re the identity
of the Duchess of York, but mentally I still tag her "Cecily Neville,
Duchess of York". I'm glad her parents had to reach a bit for a name
for their 14th child, or we might have yet another case of the many-
individuals/same-name, such as Isabel Despenser and her husbands,
Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp, or John Paston and his sons,
John and John, or John Talbot and his sons John and John. That one
even confused Shakespeare. And the two different Dukes of Norfolk --
who natrally signed their naes John Norfolk -- in a single year,
John Mowbray and John Howard.

I recall Barbaba Tuchman saying, in the introduction to her "A
Distant Mirror", that she had wasted a year of research in the events
in the life of her central figure, Engerraud de Coucy (my spelling
dubious), only to find that there were two men by that name, living
at the same time, moving in the same circles, and she was folowing
the wrong one.

You can't tell the players without a program, as they say.

Katy

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:

>
> On a practical point so we can get the full picture, was it usual
for
> the infant to be handed over to the wet nurse immediately after
> birth, or was there a time lag, and, if so, how long?
>
> Ann

It is my understanding that they were given over to the wet-nurse
immediately. Which is unfortunate, because the first secretion from
the breasts after delivery is colostrum, which is full of antibodies
and other good things for the newborn...true milk comes in a day or
so later, after the baby has emptied the breast of the colostrum. A
wet-nurse would already be lactating, obviously, so the "guest" baby
would not get that benefit. Which might have had some effect on
infant mortality.

Katy

>
> It is my understanding that they were given over to the wet-nurse
> immediately.

This was my impression. But it does raise the question of the
mechanics. Presumably you would need to have a wet nurse organised
and more-or-less there waiting - so things could have been awkward if
the child decided to arrive early.


Which is unfortunate, because the first secretion from
> the breasts after delivery is colostrum, which is full of
antibodies
> and other good things for the newborn...true milk comes in a day or
> so later, after the baby has emptied the breast of the colostrum.
A
> wet-nurse would already be lactating, obviously, so the "guest"
baby
> would not get that benefit. Which might have had some effect on
> infant mortality.
>
That point had occurred to me.

As to Anne Boleyn, I've now had a chance to look things up. Alison
Weir gives two different versions in different books; one that Anne
Boleyn fed Elizabeth herself, the other that she wanted to but Henry
wouldn't let her as it was unseemly for queens. Weir gives no
references. Antonia Fraser in 'The Six Wives of Henry VIII'
says 'elizabeth was weaned (from her wet nurse) at the age of 13
months,' with a reference to the State Papers of Henry's reign. I'd
be inclined to rely on Fraser here.

It gets us no further forward with the Duchess of York, but I think
the likelihood that she fed her offspring is low. not impossible, but
unlikely.

Ann

>
> ",,,It's easy to find parent-child discord or favoritism when one
looks at the rulers of England. Only in the case of Cecily Neville
and her sons, does
> anyone seem to be using it as indicating the legitimacy of the
children...>"
>
> Because it's inconsistent behaviour. If you look at the
appalling Georges you can see strong behaviour patterns. There is no
such pattern with Cecily. She had many children and appears to have
been a good mother to them all, except one. The Hanovarians were
rotten parents full stop! (And the Windsors still are).
>
We have to be careful here about arguing from silence. We have a
great deal of information about the Hanoverians, and really very
little about the Duchess of York. If she was inconsistent in her
attitude to Edward then there are a host of potential explanations,
most of which are inevitably going to remain unknown. In my view
Edward's 'unsuitable' marriage was quite enough to cause a falling-
out, and I remain to be convinced that the Duchess was actively
involved in the 1469 plot. If she wasn't, all we have are the kind of
up and down relations which can happen in any family for a whole
variety of reasons.

I have to disagree with your statement that the Windsors are rotten
parents, but that's something very definitely off topic for this list!

Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"...We have to be careful here about arguing from silence. We have a great deal of information about the Hanoverians, and really very little about the Duchess of York...."

Indeed, this is both the fascination and the frustration. All one can do is to look at the tiny fragments of information which have come down to us. I don't know about you but batting the arguments backwards and forwards is bringing Cecily alive for me in a way which hasn't happened before.

Shelagh

I remembered reading that Edward 111's Queen Phillipa of Hainault breastfed her children, or some of them. I think she was much praised for it so maybe that might imply it was rare. Of course that is an earlier century. She certainly had many children but I would have to check the gaps.

My grandmother was one who claimed to have got pregnant while still breastfeeding. There was thirteen months between my mother and her sister so mum might had been about 5 or 6 months old when nana realised she was pregnant again. One cousin had babies 11 months apart and she was breastfeeding too.




Helen



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Personals
- New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!

At 05:58 PM 1/20/04 -0000, Shelagh wrote:
>The interesting thing about Cecily is the inconsistency she showed in her
>attitude to Edward and to the rest of her brood.

Please give examples of this inconsistency.

> "...I'm interested on what grounds you rate Eleanor as emotionally
stable ..."
>
> She was a woman who was in control of her life, far more so than most
women of >her time.

Considering her divorce by her first husband, imprisonment and considered
divorce by her second, I'm not sure how in control of her life Eleanor was.
And being in control of one's life is no guarantee of mental stability.

>She was self confident, ambitious, capable of love and didn't display
>any untoward extremes of behaviour unless pushed - as in her imprisonment.

That doesn't mesh well with the way she was portrayed by various sources
when she accompanied her first husband Philip on the Crusade. Nor with the
fact that people seemed quite willing to believe she poisoned Rosamund
Clifford. And she was imprisoned after she incited her sons to rebel
against their father.

>I would suggest that her actions after the marriage turned sour were
caused by
>that fact and not any inherent emotional instability. Until Henry started
>philandering seriously, she was extremely supportive of him.

As opposed to her first husband, Louis, who was not a philanderer and who
Eleanor was not supportive of, taking the side of her Uncle, Raymond of
Tolouse, instead.

And Henry's affair with Rosamund Clifford did not become common knowledge
until after Eleanor incited her sons to revolt against her husband. He
didn't consider divorce until after that, either.

> ",,,It's easy to find parent-child discord or favoritism when one looks
at the >rulers of England. Only in the case of Cecily Neville and her
sons, does
> anyone seem to be using it as indicating the legitimacy of the
children...>"
>
> Because it's inconsistent behaviour. If you look at the appalling
Georges you
>can see strong behaviour patterns. There is no such pattern with Cecily.
She had
>many children and appears to have been a good mother to them all, except one.

And Victoria seems to have been a good mother to all of her children,
except one.

>The Hanovarians were rotten parents full stop!

Actually, they seemed to get along decently with all of their children,
excepting the heir to the throne.

Not that this is unique to the house of Hanover.

Great-great Grandma did not go out to work. She considered working
women to be not much better than harlots, but wasn't adverse to doing
a bit of child minding herself!

You are quite right about wet-nurses for the more affluent of the
then society. My Grandmother had a wet-nurse (born 1904) as did her
elder sister as did some of the younger siblings.

My point was just that breat feeding is not a good method of
contraception.

Helen in Scotland

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I remembered reading that Edward 111's Queen Phillipa of Hainault
breastfed her children, or some of them. I think she was much praised
for it so maybe that might imply it was rare. Of course that is an
earlier century. She certainly had many children but I would have to
check the gaps.

Yes, I think in the Middle Ages a lady might have been praised rather
than ciriticised for breastfeeding, again because of the example of
the Virgin Mary. However, I'm not sure how long a queen, or even a
noblewoman, given the public nature of their lives and their many
journeys and engagements, could have gone on being the sole source of
nutrition for the baby. She could certainly have done it during the
40 days lying-in after the birth, but after that my feeling is that
if she wished to continue she would have needed a wetnurse for when
she was not available; probably the wetnurse would soon have become
the main feeder. So the sort of feeding that has a real contraceptive
effect would probably not have continued for very long.

The 40-day lying-in may provide a solution to the question of what
happened if a baby was born early, before a wetnurse had been found.
It wouldn't be a problem for the mother to feed during this period.
I suspect, however, that wetnurses for noble families tended to be
earmarked well in advance.

Of course even two-year gaps between children, as was the pattern for
country women, produces large families as most women would have about
20 years when they were married and fertile; noblewomen, who married
young, even more.


>
> My grandmother was one who claimed to have got pregnant while still
breastfeeding. There was thirteen months between my mother and her
sister so mum might had been about 5 or 6 months old when nana
realised she was pregnant again. One cousin had babies 11 months
apart and she was breastfeeding too.

Is it not the case, however, that you have heard about these because
they were held to be surprising? I didn't claim that breastfeeding is
a foolproof contraceptive, only that it normally has a very
noticeable effect on the overall spacing of children in a family.
Certainly where you have a queen (who would not be expected to
breastfeed) having her children on top of each other, the
overwhelming likelihood is that she was using a wetnurse.

Marie




>
>
>
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Personals
> - New people, new possibilities. FREE for a limited time!
>
>