pre- and post-mature births
pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-05 18:16:46
On the adsmittedly murky subjectof Cecily Neville's obstetrical
career, I was just thinking of something else.
A while back I mistakenly recalled Rous and/or Mre having allegedthat
Richard was born covered with hair, as well as havingteeth and
claws. Marie corrected me that it was hair down to his shoulders,
not covered with hair.
From the business of being covered with hair, I had speculated that
maybe he was quite premature and had been born still covered with
lanugo, as some seven-months babies are.
Now I've switced to wondering if he was post-mature (assuming, of
course, that there is any kernel of fact at all in those
descriptions) since that would account for the overgrowth of head
hair and fingernails, and though its unusual some babies are born ith
teeth...I was born with two. A placenta only lasts so long, and
after about 42 weeks it starts to deteriorate and fail in ints
function of nourishing the fetus, so if he had been a weak or sickly
baby -- again, not proven -- being post-mature could account for it
as easily as being premature could. And if he resulted from an over-
long pregancy that could have gotten vastly exaggerated into the
notion that he had been in the womb two years, epecially if, as
occured to Marie and I, Cecily had been pregnant before Richard but
hd a miscarriage or early stillbirth, so no child had seemed to
result.
Katy
career, I was just thinking of something else.
A while back I mistakenly recalled Rous and/or Mre having allegedthat
Richard was born covered with hair, as well as havingteeth and
claws. Marie corrected me that it was hair down to his shoulders,
not covered with hair.
From the business of being covered with hair, I had speculated that
maybe he was quite premature and had been born still covered with
lanugo, as some seven-months babies are.
Now I've switced to wondering if he was post-mature (assuming, of
course, that there is any kernel of fact at all in those
descriptions) since that would account for the overgrowth of head
hair and fingernails, and though its unusual some babies are born ith
teeth...I was born with two. A placenta only lasts so long, and
after about 42 weeks it starts to deteriorate and fail in ints
function of nourishing the fetus, so if he had been a weak or sickly
baby -- again, not proven -- being post-mature could account for it
as easily as being premature could. And if he resulted from an over-
long pregancy that could have gotten vastly exaggerated into the
notion that he had been in the womb two years, epecially if, as
occured to Marie and I, Cecily had been pregnant before Richard but
hd a miscarriage or early stillbirth, so no child had seemed to
result.
Katy
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-05 20:21:11
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> On the adsmittedly murky subjectof Cecily Neville's obstetrical
> career, I was just thinking of something else.
>
> A while back I mistakenly recalled Rous and/or Mre having
allegedthat
> Richard was born covered with hair, as well as havingteeth and
> claws. Marie corrected me that it was hair down to his shoulders,
> not covered with hair.
>
> From the business of being covered with hair, I had speculated
that
> maybe he was quite premature and had been born still covered with
> lanugo, as some seven-months babies are.
>
> Now I've switced to wondering if he was post-mature (assuming, of
> course, that there is any kernel of fact at all in those
> descriptions) since that would account for the overgrowth of head
> hair and fingernails, and though its unusual some babies are born
ith
> teeth...I was born with two. A placenta only lasts so long, and
> after about 42 weeks it starts to deteriorate and fail in ints
> function of nourishing the fetus, so if he had been a weak or
sickly
> baby -- again, not proven -- being post-mature could account for
it
> as easily as being premature could. And if he resulted from an
over-
> long pregancy that could have gotten vastly exaggerated into the
> notion that he had been in the womb two years, epecially if, as
> occured to Marie and I, Cecily had been pregnant before Richard
but
> hd a miscarriage or early stillbirth, so no child had seemed to
> result.
>
> Katy
Interesting idea that sounds full of potential. Has anyone ever
approached the Royal Gynaecological lot for a definitive view on
these possibilities? I once contacted them with a different query
and they were kind enough to reply, so they wouldn't ignore such a
request I don't think. I said earlier I was 10 weeks prem, and I was
born with a thick head of red hair. Which subsequently fell out and
was replaced by a full head of jet black, which also fell out and
was finally replaced by blonde hair! I have no idea how common such
a thing might be, it certainly seems quite odd to me. And my brother
and sister have brown and hazel eyes, while I have blue. Both my
parents had blue eyes, Their father had brown eyes. The hazel eyes
came from goodness knows where, and brother looks like grandfather
while sis looks like her father and I look like our mum. Family
likeness are not necessarily that distinctive or exact, as I am sure
we all know anyway. It all serves, however, to suggest that stuff
like Richard and hair, George not looking like either etc is quite
feasible anyway.
Brunhild
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> On the adsmittedly murky subjectof Cecily Neville's obstetrical
> career, I was just thinking of something else.
>
> A while back I mistakenly recalled Rous and/or Mre having
allegedthat
> Richard was born covered with hair, as well as havingteeth and
> claws. Marie corrected me that it was hair down to his shoulders,
> not covered with hair.
>
> From the business of being covered with hair, I had speculated
that
> maybe he was quite premature and had been born still covered with
> lanugo, as some seven-months babies are.
>
> Now I've switced to wondering if he was post-mature (assuming, of
> course, that there is any kernel of fact at all in those
> descriptions) since that would account for the overgrowth of head
> hair and fingernails, and though its unusual some babies are born
ith
> teeth...I was born with two. A placenta only lasts so long, and
> after about 42 weeks it starts to deteriorate and fail in ints
> function of nourishing the fetus, so if he had been a weak or
sickly
> baby -- again, not proven -- being post-mature could account for
it
> as easily as being premature could. And if he resulted from an
over-
> long pregancy that could have gotten vastly exaggerated into the
> notion that he had been in the womb two years, epecially if, as
> occured to Marie and I, Cecily had been pregnant before Richard
but
> hd a miscarriage or early stillbirth, so no child had seemed to
> result.
>
> Katy
Interesting idea that sounds full of potential. Has anyone ever
approached the Royal Gynaecological lot for a definitive view on
these possibilities? I once contacted them with a different query
and they were kind enough to reply, so they wouldn't ignore such a
request I don't think. I said earlier I was 10 weeks prem, and I was
born with a thick head of red hair. Which subsequently fell out and
was replaced by a full head of jet black, which also fell out and
was finally replaced by blonde hair! I have no idea how common such
a thing might be, it certainly seems quite odd to me. And my brother
and sister have brown and hazel eyes, while I have blue. Both my
parents had blue eyes, Their father had brown eyes. The hazel eyes
came from goodness knows where, and brother looks like grandfather
while sis looks like her father and I look like our mum. Family
likeness are not necessarily that distinctive or exact, as I am sure
we all know anyway. It all serves, however, to suggest that stuff
like Richard and hair, George not looking like either etc is quite
feasible anyway.
Brunhild
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-05 20:24:56
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> On the adsmittedly murky subjectof Cecily Neville's obstetrical
> career, I was just thinking of something else.
>
> A while back I mistakenly recalled Rous and/or Mre having
allegedthat
> Richard was born covered with hair, as well as havingteeth and
> claws. Marie corrected me that it was hair down to his shoulders,
> not covered with hair.
>
> From the business of being covered with hair, I had speculated that
> maybe he was quite premature and had been born still covered with
> lanugo, as some seven-months babies are.
>
> Now I've switced to wondering if he was post-mature (assuming, of
> course, that there is any kernel of fact at all in those
> descriptions) since that would account for the overgrowth of head
> hair and fingernails, and though its unusual some babies are born
ith
> teeth...I was born with two. A placenta only lasts so long, and
> after about 42 weeks it starts to deteriorate and fail in ints
> function of nourishing the fetus, so if he had been a weak or
sickly
> baby -- again, not proven -- being post-mature could account for it
> as easily as being premature could. And if he resulted from an
over-
> long pregancy that could have gotten vastly exaggerated into the
> notion that he had been in the womb two years, epecially if, as
> occured to Marie and I, Cecily had been pregnant before Richard but
> hd a miscarriage or early stillbirth, so no child had seemed to
> result.
>
> Katy
I have the same feeling on this one, Katy. It seems to me, as I said,
that Rous may not have totally made all this up as he was attached to
the House of Warwick, and knew that the Countess was fond of
ministering to ladies in childbirth (he said so in his little write-
up on her). It all suggests certain conversations had passed between
them.
Actually, you went one better than I did. It had occurred to me that
the two-year pregnancy claim could be connected to the fact that
there was a two-year gap between Richard and the one before. But the
theory of a mscarried pregnancy shortly after Thomas is one I hadn't
thought of, but it does seem to complete the jigsaw.
I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind), but
for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks overdue,
were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who was
likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long, torn
fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have been a
health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it would
depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility. If he
was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory that
Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed, perhaps
Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could be
construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to go a
long time?
By the by, on the Churchill diversion, I calculate that if conceived
on wedding night Winston would have been just 5 weeks 4 days early.
No doubt, not to put too fine a point on it, wedding dates are set
where possible to avoid periods. The date of York's return, however,
would have been quite random in terms of Cecily's cycle.
By all,
Marie
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> On the adsmittedly murky subjectof Cecily Neville's obstetrical
> career, I was just thinking of something else.
>
> A while back I mistakenly recalled Rous and/or Mre having
allegedthat
> Richard was born covered with hair, as well as havingteeth and
> claws. Marie corrected me that it was hair down to his shoulders,
> not covered with hair.
>
> From the business of being covered with hair, I had speculated that
> maybe he was quite premature and had been born still covered with
> lanugo, as some seven-months babies are.
>
> Now I've switced to wondering if he was post-mature (assuming, of
> course, that there is any kernel of fact at all in those
> descriptions) since that would account for the overgrowth of head
> hair and fingernails, and though its unusual some babies are born
ith
> teeth...I was born with two. A placenta only lasts so long, and
> after about 42 weeks it starts to deteriorate and fail in ints
> function of nourishing the fetus, so if he had been a weak or
sickly
> baby -- again, not proven -- being post-mature could account for it
> as easily as being premature could. And if he resulted from an
over-
> long pregancy that could have gotten vastly exaggerated into the
> notion that he had been in the womb two years, epecially if, as
> occured to Marie and I, Cecily had been pregnant before Richard but
> hd a miscarriage or early stillbirth, so no child had seemed to
> result.
>
> Katy
I have the same feeling on this one, Katy. It seems to me, as I said,
that Rous may not have totally made all this up as he was attached to
the House of Warwick, and knew that the Countess was fond of
ministering to ladies in childbirth (he said so in his little write-
up on her). It all suggests certain conversations had passed between
them.
Actually, you went one better than I did. It had occurred to me that
the two-year pregnancy claim could be connected to the fact that
there was a two-year gap between Richard and the one before. But the
theory of a mscarried pregnancy shortly after Thomas is one I hadn't
thought of, but it does seem to complete the jigsaw.
I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind), but
for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks overdue,
were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who was
likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long, torn
fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have been a
health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it would
depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility. If he
was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory that
Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed, perhaps
Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could be
construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to go a
long time?
By the by, on the Churchill diversion, I calculate that if conceived
on wedding night Winston would have been just 5 weeks 4 days early.
No doubt, not to put too fine a point on it, wedding dates are set
where possible to avoid periods. The date of York's return, however,
would have been quite random in terms of Cecily's cycle.
By all,
Marie
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-06 17:33:13
> I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind), but
> for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks
overdue,
> were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
> particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who was
> likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long, torn
> fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have
been a
> health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it
would
> depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility. If
he
> was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory that
> Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed, perhaps
> Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could be
> construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to go a
> long time?
Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it would
be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it? The idea
of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for me.
As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC refers
to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned out
to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went back
for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
(very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same thing
happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end and
we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and paternity is
rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
gaoler!
Brunhild
>
>
> for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks
overdue,
> were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
> particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who was
> likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long, torn
> fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have
been a
> health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it
would
> depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility. If
he
> was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory that
> Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed, perhaps
> Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could be
> construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to go a
> long time?
Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it would
be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it? The idea
of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for me.
As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC refers
to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned out
to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went back
for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
(very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same thing
happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end and
we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and paternity is
rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
gaoler!
Brunhild
>
>
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-06 18:45:43
--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind),
but
> > for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks
> overdue,
> > were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
> > particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who
was
> > likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long, torn
> > fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have
> been a
> > health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it
> would
> > depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility. If
> he
> > was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory
that
> > Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed, perhaps
> > Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could be
> > construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to go
a
> > long time?
>
> Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
would
> be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But with
6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present, but
also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
actually switch order.
As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could have
been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most babies
lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new lot,
so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of babies
a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
waering a Ken Dodd wig.
I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we getting
carried away here?
I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
Gynaecologists, can't we?
Marie
The idea
> of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
> frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for
me.
> As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC refers
> to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned out
> to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went back
> for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
> (very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same thing
> happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end and
> we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and paternity
is
> rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
> gaoler!
> Brunhild
> >
> >
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind),
but
> > for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks
> overdue,
> > were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
> > particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who
was
> > likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long, torn
> > fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have
> been a
> > health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it
> would
> > depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility. If
> he
> > was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory
that
> > Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed, perhaps
> > Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could be
> > construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to go
a
> > long time?
>
> Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
would
> be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But with
6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present, but
also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
actually switch order.
As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could have
been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most babies
lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new lot,
so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of babies
a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
waering a Ken Dodd wig.
I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we getting
carried away here?
I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
Gynaecologists, can't we?
Marie
The idea
> of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
> frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for
me.
> As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC refers
> to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned out
> to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went back
> for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
> (very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same thing
> happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end and
> we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and paternity
is
> rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
> gaoler!
> Brunhild
> >
> >
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-06 19:24:50
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind),
> but
> > > for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks
> > overdue,
> > > were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
> > > particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who
> was
> > > likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long,
torn
> > > fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have
> > been a
> > > health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it
> > would
> > > depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility.
If
> > he
> > > was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory
> that
> > > Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed,
perhaps
> > > Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could
be
> > > construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to
go
> a
> > > long time?
> >
> > Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> > babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
> would
> > be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
>
>
> I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
> tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But
with
> 6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
> predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present,
but
> also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
> actually switch order.
>
> As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could have
> been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most babies
> lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new
lot,
> so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
> But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of
babies
> a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
> scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
> waering a Ken Dodd wig.
>
> I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we getting
> carried away here?
>
> I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
> Gynaecologists, can't we?
>
> Marie
The teeth that an occasional baby is born with aren't normal "baby"
or "milk" teeth that an infant usualy begins to cut at four to six
months...they're just additional abnormal teeth. They generally have
no roots, same as as normal baby teeth, but they're often very
loosely attached to the gums and malformed. The doctor who delivered
me showed off my two teeth to the family, then easily plucked them
out with a pair of tweezers. According to my mother he said they
would soon fall out anyway and could be a choking hazard. And there
was no bleeding of my gums.
Petrsonally, I can see women's gssip that Cecily Neville was having
an abnormally long pregnancy with Richard getting exaggerated into
the idea that it was a preternaturally long one, along with
exaggeration of the length of his hair and nails once he was finally
born.
Katy
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild@n...> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know any data on hairy babies (of the head-hair kind),
> but
> > > for what it is worth both my sisters, at 3 weeks & 2 weeks
> > overdue,
> > > were born with a good head of hair. So were both my babies,
> > > particularly the more overdue one (my son - 10 days over), who
> was
> > > likened by our butcher to a toilet brush (he also had long,
torn
> > > fingernails - little monster). There wouldn't necessarily have
> > been a
> > > health problem -some placentas last better than others, and it
> > would
> > > depend how overdue he was, but it is certainly a possibility.
If
> > he
> > > was overdue, of course, it does nothing to support the theory
> that
> > > Cecily may have been prone to short pregnancies. Indeed,
perhaps
> > > Edward IV's assertion that he was conceived in Yorkshire could
be
> > > construed as further evidence that his mother was inclined to
go
> a
> > > long time?
> >
> > Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> > babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
> would
> > be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
>
>
> I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
> tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But
with
> 6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
> predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present,
but
> also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
> actually switch order.
>
> As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could have
> been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most babies
> lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new
lot,
> so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
> But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of
babies
> a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
> scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
> waering a Ken Dodd wig.
>
> I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we getting
> carried away here?
>
> I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
> Gynaecologists, can't we?
>
> Marie
The teeth that an occasional baby is born with aren't normal "baby"
or "milk" teeth that an infant usualy begins to cut at four to six
months...they're just additional abnormal teeth. They generally have
no roots, same as as normal baby teeth, but they're often very
loosely attached to the gums and malformed. The doctor who delivered
me showed off my two teeth to the family, then easily plucked them
out with a pair of tweezers. According to my mother he said they
would soon fall out anyway and could be a choking hazard. And there
was no bleeding of my gums.
Petrsonally, I can see women's gssip that Cecily Neville was having
an abnormally long pregnancy with Richard getting exaggerated into
the idea that it was a preternaturally long one, along with
exaggeration of the length of his hair and nails once he was finally
born.
Katy
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-07 17:17:39
> >
> > Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> > babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
> would
> > be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
>
>
> I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
> tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But
with
> 6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
> predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present,
but
> also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
> actually switch order.
>
> As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could
have
> been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most
babies
> lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new
lot,
> so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
> But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of
babies
> a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
> scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
> waering a Ken Dodd wig.
My sister was bald for several years and had to wear a hat as
toddler all the time virtually! Since mum is no longer with us I
can't ask her about this languo (not awfully sure what it is, sorry -
never had any children!) but my sister may know so I will try and
remember to ask.
>
> I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we
getting
> carried away here?
Can't remember but it doesn't ring any bells.
>
> I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
> Gynaecologists, can't we?
>
I imagine we could. Are you volunteering ???? ;-)
B
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> The idea
> > of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
> > frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for
> me.
> > As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC
refers
> > to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned
out
> > to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went
back
> > for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
> > (very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same
thing
> > happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end
and
> > we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and
paternity
> is
> > rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
> > gaoler!
> > Brunhild
> > >
> > >
> > Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> > babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
> would
> > be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
>
>
> I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
> tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But
with
> 6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
> predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present,
but
> also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
> actually switch order.
>
> As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could
have
> been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most
babies
> lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new
lot,
> so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
> But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of
babies
> a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
> scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
> waering a Ken Dodd wig.
My sister was bald for several years and had to wear a hat as
toddler all the time virtually! Since mum is no longer with us I
can't ask her about this languo (not awfully sure what it is, sorry -
never had any children!) but my sister may know so I will try and
remember to ask.
>
> I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we
getting
> carried away here?
Can't remember but it doesn't ring any bells.
>
> I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
> Gynaecologists, can't we?
>
I imagine we could. Are you volunteering ???? ;-)
B
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> The idea
> > of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
> > frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for
> me.
> > As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC
refers
> > to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned
out
> > to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went
back
> > for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
> > (very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same
thing
> > happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end
and
> > we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and
paternity
> is
> > rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
> > gaoler!
> > Brunhild
> > >
> > >
Re: pre- and post-mature births
2004-01-07 17:18:11
> >
> > Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> > babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
> would
> > be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
>
>
> I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
> tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But
with
> 6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
> predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present,
but
> also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
> actually switch order.
>
> As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could
have
> been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most
babies
> lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new
lot,
> so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
> But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of
babies
> a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
> scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
> waering a Ken Dodd wig.
My sister was bald for several years and had to wear a hat as
toddler all the time virtually! Since mum is no longer with us I
can't ask her about this languo (not awfully sure what it is, sorry -
never had any children!) but my sister may know so I will try and
remember to ask.
>
> I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we
getting
> carried away here?
Can't remember but it doesn't ring any bells.
>
> I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
> Gynaecologists, can't we?
>
I imagine we could. Are you volunteering ???? ;-)
B
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> The idea
> > of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
> > frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for
> me.
> > As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC
refers
> > to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned
out
> > to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went
back
> > for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
> > (very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same
thing
> > happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end
and
> > we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and
paternity
> is
> > rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
> > gaoler!
> > Brunhild
> > >
> > >
> > Marie, this head of hair business is obviously not just overdue
> > babies, since my head was thick with it 10 weeks early, but it
> would
> > be unlikely to have teeth on the early side wouldn't it?
>
>
> I would have thought so. The books tell you most babies cut first
> tooth at 6 months. My son was earlier than that - 4 months. But
with
> 6 months as the average, when babies are born with teeth a genetic
> predisposition to cutting first teeth very early must be present,
but
> also the later such babies are born the more likely they are to
> actually switch order.
>
> As for your birth hair, is there any possibility that it could
have
> been lanugo, as Katy mentioned? I only ask this because most
babies
> lose their birth hair - at around 4 months - and then grow a new
lot,
> so I wondered if it was significant that you had lost yours twice.
> But again I suspect genetics have a big part to play. A lot of
babies
> a pretty baldy all through the first year; at the other end of the
> scale I remember one baby girl who always looked as if she was
> waering a Ken Dodd wig.
My sister was bald for several years and had to wear a hat as
toddler all the time virtually! Since mum is no longer with us I
can't ask her about this languo (not awfully sure what it is, sorry -
never had any children!) but my sister may know so I will try and
remember to ask.
>
> I'm wondering now - did Rous mention fingernails, or are we
getting
> carried away here?
Can't remember but it doesn't ring any bells.
>
> I think we can probably come up with a list of questions for the
> Gynaecologists, can't we?
>
I imagine we could. Are you volunteering ???? ;-)
B
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> The idea
> > of the miscarriage making it look to someone not seeing Cecily
> > frequently like she has been pregnant for a long time works for
> me.
> > As an amusing aside, one of my criminal records of the 14thC
refers
> > to the woman sentenced to hang with her husband but who turned
out
> > to be pregnant. Naturally they waited for the birth and went
back
> > for her - only to discover she was again expecting a happy event
> > (very happy in her case since it saved her life!). The same
thing
> > happened after the 2nd birth but there, sadly, the records end
and
> > we don't know what ever happened to her in the end, and
paternity
> is
> > rather a matter of conjecture, though I guess my money is on the
> > gaoler!
> > Brunhild
> > >
> > >
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.