Re: Loose ends

> > Thomas Betson's letter to his 14-year-old betrothed (Cely letters -
> > quoted by Kendall) suggests to me that a girl was considered ready
> > for childbearing once she had stopped growing.

Ann:
Errr ... Stonor Letters. In addition to the one quoted pretty much in full by Kendall, there's another, written to his future mother-in-law, that is, I think, pretty specific about her age. Will consult reference shelf ....

L.P.H.,

Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm

We have entertained a number of unusual guests in our home, but never had I seen one so extraordinary as the young man who was in the drawing room with Ramses and Nefret when I came down to tea.
GUARDIAN OF THE HORIZON
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- In , "Sharp, Ann"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> > > Thomas Betson's letter to his 14-year-old betrothed (Cely
letters -
> > > quoted by Kendall) suggests to me that a girl was considered
ready
> > > for childbearing once she had stopped growing.

"When she stopped growing" sems a little tenuous and subjective to
me, though I'm not arguing that you are incorrect. It sems to me
that puberty, with its unmistakeable signs including, mot
importantly, the beginning of menstruation, would be a much more
definite and easily-observed sign that a girl is old enough to begin
full marital duties.

Margaret Beaufort is not the only royal or noble lady who had a
child awfully young, though since Henry Tudor was born a very short
while after her 13th birthday, I think she takes the prize.

But Mary de Bohun was married to the future Henry IV in her very
early teens and bore him a stillborn or short-lived infant at age 14.
(Supposedly the plan by the couple' parents had been for the young
lovers to consummate their marriage thoroughly enough that it
couldn't be annulled, and they really did it up well. Consummating a
marriage could have been anything from touching bare legs to full-
fledged intercourse, depending on interpretation and arrangement.)
The two were then separated for a few years, and she had her next
child at age 17 or 18, then had five or six more before finally dying
in childbirth at about 27.

Katy

> Ann:
> Errr ... Stonor Letters. In addition to the one quoted
pretty much in full by Kendall, there's another, written to his
future mother-in-law, that is, I think, pretty specific about her
age. Will consult reference shelf ....

Ann again:
Estimate on Katherine Rich's age: She was probably born
about 1462-63 (her mother's grandfather left her 20 shillings in his
will dated 6 November 1465 without mentioning any of her siblings, so
presumably they had not yet been born). She married Thomas Betson
some time in the summer of 1478 (the famous letter is dated 1 June
1476, her mother refers to "myn sonne Betson" in a letter dated 12
September 1476, in May 1478 Betson writes to Katherine's mother
saying how much he misses her: "I remember her full oft, God know it:
I dreamed once she was XXX winter of age; and when I woke I wished
she had been but XX: and so by liklihood I am sooner like to have my
wish than my dream."

At the end of June 1478 he seeks guidance about purchases for
Katherine's trousseau, which he is procuring: "I must beseech your
ladyship to send me your [advice?] how I shall be demeaned in such
things as shall belong unto ... Katherine, and how I shall provide
for them: she must have girdles, three at the least, and how they
shall be made I know not: and many other things she must have, ye
know well what they be, in faith *I* know not: by my troth I wish it
were done [even if it were to cost more!] ... it shall make me the
gladder a great deal"!!

On 14 June 1478 Thomas tells Katherine's stepfather that the
banns will be said "within this X weeks and less, and by that time I
shall be ready in every point"

On 5 October 1478, Katherine's mother writes to her husband
mentioning "my son Betson and his wife" send courteous messages to
him.

Looks as if Katherine was about sixteen, but had been
betrothed for at least two years and very likely more -- quite
possibly an arrangement made by her own father before his death --
for which I have no date, but probably the summer of 1475.

L.P.H.,

Ann

Consulting the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is
an excellent idea.

Meanwhile, and before I flee the jurisdiction for the next week,
there is another point I have been pondering.

If the Jones hypothesis is correct, and the tale first surfaced in
the summer of 1469, then Richard's behaviour in the following two
years does not really 'fit'.

Richard was 16, rising 17, in the summer of 1469. This is an age when
people tend to see things in black and white. It is reasonable to
assume that he would have been shocked, to say the least, at the
revelation, all the more so if, as he may well have done, he
idealised his father, and his mother was by then in her religious
phase and professing devotion to his father's memory - what
hypocrisy! It would only make matters worse that his father was on
campaign at the time the dirty deed was done. Richard is rather young
to have been prepared to forgive the duchess on the basis that she
was lonely and this was one slip in an otherwise blameless life. If
this is the case, then Richard is likely not only to have been
disgusted with his mother, but also disgusted with the fruit of the
adultery, particularly if Edward was busy professiing that it didn't
really matter who his father was because he, Edward, was an anointed
king. So why, if Jones is correct, did Richard support Edward
throughout the crisis of his reign, when very few did? It wasn't as
if Clarence and Warwick had no hope of success; they had Edward as
their prisoner for a period, and Warwick and his allies then forced
Edward to abandon the throne and flee the country.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Consulting the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is
> an excellent idea.
>
> Meanwhile, and before I flee the jurisdiction for the next week,
> there is another point I have been pondering.
>
> If the Jones hypothesis is correct, and the tale first surfaced in
> the summer of 1469, then Richard's behaviour in the following two
> years does not really 'fit'.
>
> Richard was 16, rising 17, in the summer of 1469. This is an age
when
> people tend to see things in black and white. It is reasonable to
> assume that he would have been shocked, to say the least, at the
> revelation, all the more so if, as he may well have done, he
> idealised his father, and his mother was by then in her religious
> phase and professing devotion to his father's memory - what
> hypocrisy! It would only make matters worse that his father was on
> campaign at the time the dirty deed was done. Richard is rather
young
> to have been prepared to forgive the duchess on the basis that she
> was lonely and this was one slip in an otherwise blameless life. If
> this is the case, then Richard is likely not only to have been
> disgusted with his mother, but also disgusted with the fruit of the
> adultery, particularly if Edward was busy professiing that it
didn't
> really matter who his father was because he, Edward, was an
anointed
> king. So why, if Jones is correct, did Richard support Edward
> throughout the crisis of his reign, when very few did? It wasn't as
> if Clarence and Warwick had no hope of success; they had Edward as
> their prisoner for a period, and Warwick and his allies then forced
> Edward to abandon the throne and flee the country.
>
> Ann

Yes he idealised his father's memory, but he also seems to have had a
very close relationship with his mother, who had no doubt been his
rock during all the fear and crises of his childhood (and he was her
last baby, after all); Christians are urged to forgive. People who
end up disgusted with their mothers usually didn't like them in the
first place. And he had sworn oaths of allegiance to Edward. Loyaulte
me lie. . . .

Marie

--- In , "Ann Sharp"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
>
> > Ann:
> > Errr ... Stonor Letters. In addition to the one quoted
> pretty much in full by Kendall, there's another, written to his
> future mother-in-law, that is, I think, pretty specific about her
> age. Will consult reference shelf ....
>
> Ann again:
> Estimate on Katherine Rich's age: She was probably born
> about 1462-63 (her mother's grandfather left her 20 shillings in
his
> will dated 6 November 1465 without mentioning any of her siblings,
so
> presumably they had not yet been born). She married Thomas Betson
> some time in the summer of 1478 (the famous letter is dated 1 June
> 1476, her mother refers to "myn sonne Betson" in a letter dated 12
> September 1476, in May 1478 Betson writes to Katherine's mother
> saying how much he misses her: "I remember her full oft, God know
it:
> I dreamed once she was XXX winter of age; and when I woke I wished
> she had been but XX: and so by liklihood I am sooner like to have
my
> wish than my dream."
>
> At the end of June 1478 he seeks guidance about purchases for
> Katherine's trousseau, which he is procuring: "I must beseech your
> ladyship to send me your [advice?] how I shall be demeaned in such
> things as shall belong unto ... Katherine, and how I shall provide
> for them: she must have girdles, three at the least, and how they
> shall be made I know not: and many other things she must have, ye
> know well what they be, in faith *I* know not: by my troth I wish
it
> were done [even if it were to cost more!] ... it shall make me the
> gladder a great deal"!!
>
> On 14 June 1478 Thomas tells Katherine's stepfather that the
> banns will be said "within this X weeks and less, and by that time
I
> shall be ready in every point"
>
> On 5 October 1478, Katherine's mother writes to her husband
> mentioning "my son Betson and his wife" send courteous messages to
> him.
>
> Looks as if Katherine was about sixteen, but had been
> betrothed for at least two years and very likely more -- quite
> possibly an arrangement made by her own father before his death --
> for which I have no date, but probably the summer of 1475.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann

Yes, sorry, slip, it is the Stonor Letters, which you evidently
possess. For other listers, the letter I referred to was written in
1475, and Kendall says she was thirteen, which fts with your
estimate, and also supports my own earlier surmise regarding usual
age of marriage. However, the point of my referring to it is that he
says to her:
"And if you would be a good eater of your meat alway, that ye might
wax and grow fast to be a woman. . . "

The verb "wax" means to grow taller (of people and animals, not of
plants).

It's only an idea that crossed my mind; it fits the usual age of
marriage and seems to be supported by Betson's remoark. Certainly
onset of puberty (ie periods) does not seem to have been the deciding
factor, or there would have been far more 13-yr-old mothers. One
reason Margaret Beaufort's marriage would have been to pre-empt any
attempt at objection or appeal to the Pope by the family of her
betrothed, the young Duke of Suffolk (the one who later married
Elizabeth of York). (The Tudor match seems to have been a ploy by the
Queen to entice the Tudor brothers away from their support of the
Duke of York. )

Marie

Why, if Jones is correct, did Richard support Edward
> > throughout the crisis of his reign, when very few did? It wasn't
as
> > if Clarence and Warwick had no hope of success; they had Edward
as
> > their prisoner for a period, and Warwick and his allies then
forced
> > Edward to abandon the throne and flee the country.
> >
> > Ann
>
> Yes he idealised his father's memory, but he also seems to have had
a
> very close relationship with his mother, who had no doubt been his
> rock during all the fear and crises of his childhood (and he was
her
> last baby, after all); Christians are urged to forgive. People who
> end up disgusted with their mothers usually didn't like them in the
> first place. And he had sworn oaths of allegiance to Edward.
Loyaulte
> me lie. . . .
>

Marie

Back from the delights of Sicily and catching up on events...

I would be much more inclined to accept your rationale as set out
here had we been dealing with a mature adult whose ideas on morality,
forgiveness, adherence to oaths etc had had time to evolve. People's
ideas and allegiances develop over time and in response to
experiences; they do not spring fully armed from the head of Zeus.

There does seem to be an assumption that Richard was very close to
his mother, but do we have any definite evidence? As far as I know,
only one letter between them has survived, and that can be
interpreted in more than one way (is the wording indicative of
special affection or simply conventional sentiments?). We cannot know
what was going on in Richard's head in 1469-70, but it does not take
much imagination to wonder whether he was faced with a conflict of
loyalties, and a stark choice between choosing one side or the other.

On the one hand there is Edward, whom he has probably idealised up to
now (10 years is a pretty good age gap for hero worship), but whose
entire career and existence suddenly turns out to be based on lies
and betrayal. To my mind we don't really know how close Richard was
to his mother, but, however close they were, a revelation of adultery
and its consequences is going to shake the relationship, at least for
a time.

On the other hand there is Clarence, whom Richard may or may not
actually like very much (there was certainly a good deal of rivalry
between them over the Warwick lands later on; beyond that we don't
know), but there is also Warwick, who may well have been something of
a father figure to him. Quite possibly there was also a rather vague
sense of needing to keep faith with his father, the Duke of York;
after all, a dead hero.

And there were certainly times during this period when neither God
nor many men appeared to be on Edward's side. Would Richard, as a
very young man, not yet a mature adult with an adult's experience of
the world, appreciate the benefits of keeping one's oath at the time
when a large proportion of the people around him were doing just the
opposite?

I don't know.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Why, if Jones is correct, did Richard support Edward
> > > throughout the crisis of his reign, when very few did? It
wasn't
> as
> > > if Clarence and Warwick had no hope of success; they had Edward
> as
> > > their prisoner for a period, and Warwick and his allies then
> forced
> > > Edward to abandon the throne and flee the country.
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> > Yes he idealised his father's memory, but he also seems to have
had
> a
> > very close relationship with his mother, who had no doubt been
his
> > rock during all the fear and crises of his childhood (and he was
> her
> > last baby, after all); Christians are urged to forgive. People
who
> > end up disgusted with their mothers usually didn't like them in
the
> > first place. And he had sworn oaths of allegiance to Edward.
> Loyaulte
> > me lie. . . .
> >
>
> Marie
>
> Back from the delights of Sicily and catching up on events...
>
> I would be much more inclined to accept your rationale as set out
> here had we been dealing with a mature adult whose ideas on
morality,
> forgiveness, adherence to oaths etc had had time to evolve.
People's
> ideas and allegiances develop over time and in response to
> experiences; they do not spring fully armed from the head of Zeus.

Where does the head of Zeus come into it, please? Do you have
teenagers, Anne? Mine have been throughout extremely idealistic, as I
was myself at that age. Ideas on forgiveness, oathtaking and
allegiance did not have to evolve in adulthood, they were inculcated
into people from the earliest age. Having had a 20th century version
of that kind of religious upbringing, I can assure you it would all
be firmly in place by one's teens. What develops over time, on the
contrary, is a tempering of youthful idealism in the cold harsh light
of experience.

>
> There does seem to be an assumption that Richard was very close to
> his mother, but do we have any definite evidence? As far as I know,
> only one letter between them has survived, and that can be
> interpreted in more than one way (is the wording indicative of
> special affection or simply conventional sentiments?).

He spent his very earliest years at Fotheringhay, which is also where
his mother was most of the time. When he and George were captured
with their mother at Ludlow, Richard had probably been there only a
fairly short time, having just joined the big boys' household there.
Again, his mother was in residence. He and George remained with her
under house arrest until she was able to bring them to London. And it
was Cecily who organised for the boys to be smuggled abroad after
Wakefield.
The letter to his mother does seem rather more than normally dutiful
and asks her to write to him more often "to my comfort".
In 1474, when a dispute arose between one of Cecily's tenants and a
follower of Richard's, Cecily summoned Richard to Syon House to
discuss it, and Richard readily gave in.
Joanna Chamberlain believes Cecily would have come to London after
Edward's death, and may well have been at Baynards still when Richard
arrived. This suggests some communication and cooperation on how to
handle the crisis.
Jones suggests that Richard may have identified himself and Cecily
with St Constantine and his mother St Helena (finder of the "True
Cross"). Cecily owned a fragment of the True Cross, and spandrels in
the top corners of the Windsor portrait of Richard III show what
appear to be images of Constantine and Helena. If I recall, one of
the brides Richard was considering before Bosworth was actually one
of the Conmenas, so the dreams of restoring Constantinople (which
fell to the Turks when he was less than a year old) seem pretty real.

Richard and his mother seemed to share religious interests - both
owned copies of the Visions of St Matilda (the mystic Matilda of
Hackeborn).
In 1484 Cecily apparently made a rare trip out from Berkhamstead
(from 1480 she had been living under Benedictine Rule) to meet
Richard at Cambridge.
Before journeying to the midlands to meet Henry Tudor, Richard stayed
with his mother at Berkhamsted. This was slightly out of his way. I
can't recall his route, but Berkhamsted lies on no route north, but
on Akeman Street, the old Roman road from Verulamium (St Albans) to
Bath. He probably turned off Watling Street at St Albans to reach
her. This suggests to me that after he lost his wife, Cecily was the
person Richard naturally turned to for emotional support.


We cannot know
> what was going on in Richard's head in 1469-70, but it does not
take
> much imagination to wonder whether he was faced with a conflict of
> loyalties, and a stark choice between choosing one side or the
other.

Absolutely. I feel Richard was put in a terrible position of
conflicting loyalties for most of his life. Which is why he made a
choice and came up with the motto that he did "Loyaulte me Lie";
apparently the very earliest examples of his signature carry the
motto "Tant le desiree", so this was a change.

>
> On the one hand there is Edward, whom he has probably idealised up
to
> now (10 years is a pretty good age gap for hero worship), but whose
> entire career and existence suddenly turns out to be based on lies
> and betrayal. To my mind we don't really know how close Richard was
> to his mother, but, however close they were, a revelation of
adultery
> and its consequences is going to shake the relationship, at least
for
> a time.

I doubt whether he actually spoke to his mother about it personally
at this time; he was very young. He may well have told himself it
wasn't true. He and his family still owed their survival - and
triumph - to Edward. There were no two ways about that.
That Richard may have been temporarily shaken is quite probable.
However, he had had quite a while to think his position through by
the time that Clarence and Warwick rebelled. And he would have
considered the following:
a) His revered father had recognised Edward as his son
b) His mother had not gone ahead with denouncing him
c) Mortimer's Cross and Towton seemed to indicate God's approval of
Edward's claim
d) Edward had been anointed with the sacred chrism, and Richard had
given him oaths of allegiance
e) Warwick was tempting him with the easy way, the smooth road to
perdition, perhaps.
f) He may indeed not have thought much of the idea of George as king.

Richard had a ready answer in 1483 to those worried about oaths they
had taken to Edward V - ie that they had taken them in ignorance, not
knowing he was a bastard, and that such oaths were not binding.
Perhaps he had been many years wrestling towards this conclusion for
himself.

>
> On the other hand there is Clarence, whom Richard may or may not
> actually like very much (there was certainly a good deal of rivalry
> between them over the Warwick lands later on; beyond that we don't
> know), but there is also Warwick, who may well have been something
of
> a father figure to him. Quite possibly there was also a rather
vague
> sense of needing to keep faith with his father, the Duke of York;
> after all, a dead hero.
>
> And there were certainly times during this period when neither God
> nor many men appeared to be on Edward's side. Would Richard, as a
> very young man, not yet a mature adult with an adult's experience
of
> the world, appreciate the benefits of keeping one's oath at the
time
> when a large proportion of the people around him were doing just
the
> opposite?

As a young man most of all. Is your Richard the same person as mine?
When everyone else was becoming disenchanted with Edward in the late
1460s, Richard was safely in Warwick's household. I believe, however,
that he became quickly disenchanted during the 1470s - mainly because
of Picquigny and Edward's failure to help Burgundy, and of course the
execution of Clarence, but also because of Edward's failure to pull
his finger out and govern properly; Richard had experience of
administration himself by this time so would be much more critical.
After Clarence's death Richard seems to have feared he would be next
on the hit list (re that oath he had his followers take). Yet, it
appears he had made his own decision and was initially prepared to
recognise Edward V. Mancini tells us he wrote to the council that he
had been loyal to Edward IV and would be equally loyal to his
brother's heir and all his issue. Why did he feel the need to make
that point? Why did the Woodvilles not wish Richard to know that
Edward had died, or to let him in on the coronation? It seems to me
they knew he was aware of an impediment to Edward V's claim. Yet he
doesn't seem to have known of the precontract at this point.

All this isn't provable, but it is worth asking yourself whether
Cecily, Margaret of Burgundy and the de la Poles are likely to have
been so favourable to Richard's deposing Edward V just on the grounds
of the precontract (given that this was more of a technicality, and
Eleanor Butler was dead and couldn't testify). It may be, of course,
that they saw it as the only way to cleanse the country of the
Woodvilles. On the other hand. . . .




Marie

>
> I don't know.
>
> Ann

At 07:32 AM 1/14/2004, you wrote:
>Absolutely. I feel Richard was put in a terrible position of
>conflicting loyalties for most of his life. Which is why he made a
>choice and came up with the motto that he did "Loyaulte me Lie";
>apparently the very earliest examples of his signature carry the
>motto "Tant le desiree", so this was a change.

I point which Seward, I think, actually tries to make into evidence that
Richard was a schemin', connivin', good-fer-nothing varmint who changed his
motto as a matter of spin control, despite having plotted to seize the
crown from his youth!

--Bob Waters

> People's
> > ideas and allegiances develop over time and in response to
> > experiences; they do not spring fully armed from the head of Zeus.
>
> Where does the head of Zeus come into it, please?

This is me being an intellectual snob. The goddess Diana is supposed
to have sprung fully armed from the head of Zeus rather than gone
through birth, childhood etc in the usual fashion.

Do you have
> teenagers, Anne?

No, I don't, but I have been one.

Mine have been throughout extremely idealistic, as I
> was myself at that age. Ideas on forgiveness, oathtaking and
> allegiance did not have to evolve in adulthood, they were
inculcated
> into people from the earliest age. Having had a 20th century
version
> of that kind of religious upbringing, I can assure you it would all
> be firmly in place by one's teens. What develops over time, on the
> contrary, is a tempering of youthful idealism in the cold harsh
light
> of experience.
>
Here we are seeing two different views of teenage idealism. I also
had a religious upbringing, admittedly not Catholic but fairly high
Anglican. Further, I come from a military background, and took in a
whole lot about loyalty, oath-keeping and so on from that. You are
saying that Richard would be full of adolescent idealism and wanting
to forgive. But if Jones is correct, Richard's mother admitted to
betraying his father in about the worst way possible - what is the
difference between marriage vows and any other kind of oath? And in a
military society, adultery by the wife while the husband is on active
service is regarded as particularly heinous.


> He spent his very earliest years at Fotheringhay, which is also
where
> his mother was most of the time. When he and George were captured
> with their mother at Ludlow, Richard had probably been there only a
> fairly short time, having just joined the big boys' household
there.
> Again, his mother was in residence. He and George remained with her
> under house arrest until she was able to bring them to London. And
it
> was Cecily who organised for the boys to be smuggled abroad after
> Wakefield.

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.

> The letter to his mother does seem rather more than normally
dutiful
> and asks her to write to him more often "to my comfort".

If I'm being really cynical, perhaps this is an indication that she
didn't write to him all that often.

> In 1474, when a dispute arose between one of Cecily's tenants and a
> follower of Richard's, Cecily summoned Richard to Syon House to
> discuss it, and Richard readily gave in.
> Joanna Chamberlain believes Cecily would have come to London after
> Edward's death, and may well have been at Baynards still when
Richard
> arrived.

What does Chamberlain base this suggestion on? I agree that the
Duchess was quite likely to come to London after Edward's death, but
if she was still there when Richard arrived some three weeks later,
does that suggest a fondness for him or simply that she wanted to
keep an eye on events?

> Jones suggests that Richard may have identified himself and Cecily
> with St Constantine and his mother St Helena (finder of the "True
> Cross"). Cecily owned a fragment of the True Cross, and spandrels
in
> the top corners of the Windsor portrait of Richard III show what
> appear to be images of Constantine and Helena. If I recall, one of
> the brides Richard was considering before Bosworth was actually one
> of the Conmenas, so the dreams of restoring Constantinople (which
> fell to the Turks when he was less than a year old) seem pretty
real.
>
Interesting - I wasn't aware of this.

> Richard and his mother seemed to share religious interests - both
> owned copies of the Visions of St Matilda (the mystic Matilda of
> Hackeborn).
> In 1484 Cecily apparently made a rare trip out from Berkhamstead
> (from 1480 she had been living under Benedictine Rule) to meet
> Richard at Cambridge.
> Before journeying to the midlands to meet Henry Tudor, Richard
stayed
> with his mother at Berkhamsted. This was slightly out of his way. I
> can't recall his route, but Berkhamsted lies on no route north, but
> on Akeman Street, the old Roman road from Verulamium (St Albans) to
> Bath. He probably turned off Watling Street at St Albans to reach
> her. This suggests to me that after he lost his wife, Cecily was
the
> person Richard naturally turned to for emotional support.
>
It's not very far out of the way. I'll have to look at the map when I
get home this evening, but it's a fairly modest dog-leg. Again I'm
being Devil's Advocate, but can we be sure that this wasn't simply a
duty visit fitted in at a convenient opportunity?

>
> We cannot know
> > what was going on in Richard's head in 1469-70, but it does not
> take
> > much imagination to wonder whether he was faced with a conflict
of
> > loyalties, and a stark choice between choosing one side or the
> other.
>
> Absolutely. I feel Richard was put in a terrible position of
> conflicting loyalties for most of his life. Which is why he made a
> choice and came up with the motto that he did "Loyaulte me Lie";
> apparently the very earliest examples of his signature carry the
> motto "Tant le desiree", so this was a change.

Do we have a date for the first known appearance of 'Loyaulte me Lie'?
>
> >
> I doubt whether he actually spoke to his mother about it personally
> at this time; he was very young. He may well have told himself it
> wasn't true.

Possibly, but if she herself admitted it, and if he had no reason to
doubt her honesty, it would be difficult to treat it as untrue.
Unless it was obviously too outrageous to be credible, the natural
approach would be to ask, if only on the lines of, 'Mother, Warwick
is spreading these dreadful rumours about you. Please tell me they're
not true.'


He and his family still owed their survival - and
> triumph - to Edward. There were no two ways about that.
> That Richard may have been temporarily shaken is quite probable.
> However, he had had quite a while to think his position through by
> the time that Clarence and Warwick rebelled.

But if the rumour first surfaced around May-June 1469, or possibly a
bit later, and Edward was taken into custody in mid-August, that
isn't very long.


And he would have
> considered the following:
> a) His revered father had recognised Edward as his son
> b) His mother had not gone ahead with denouncing him
> c) Mortimer's Cross and Towton seemed to indicate God's approval of
> Edward's claim
> d) Edward had been anointed with the sacred chrism, and Richard had
> given him oaths of allegiance
> e) Warwick was tempting him with the easy way, the smooth road to
> perdition, perhaps.
> f) He may indeed not have thought much of the idea of George as
king.
>
> Richard had a ready answer in 1483 to those worried about oaths
they
> had taken to Edward V - ie that they had taken them in ignorance,
not
> knowing he was a bastard, and that such oaths were not binding.
> Perhaps he had been many years wrestling towards this conclusion
for
> himself.

But if Jones is correct, then up to his death the Duke of York had
not realised that Edward IV was a bastard, so that the Duke had
recognised Edward under false pretences, Edward had been crowned
under false pretences and Richard had given him oaths under false
pretences. Suddenly discovering that you've been duped is likely to
arouse antagonisms. Admittedly, Jones does contradict himself in
saying that the Duke could not have realised the position, and then
that Edward's low-key baptism meant that the Duke had his suspicions.
>
> >
> > On the other hand there is Clarence, whom Richard may or may not
> > actually like very much (there was certainly a good deal of
rivalry
> > between them over the Warwick lands later on; beyond that we
don't
> > know), but there is also Warwick, who may well have been
something
> of
> > a father figure to him. Quite possibly there was also a rather
> vague
> > sense of needing to keep faith with his father, the Duke of York;
> > after all, a dead hero.
> >
> > And there were certainly times during this period when neither
God
> > nor many men appeared to be on Edward's side. Would Richard, as a
> > very young man, not yet a mature adult with an adult's experience
> of
> > the world, appreciate the benefits of keeping one's oath at the
> time
> > when a large proportion of the people around him were doing just
> the
> > opposite?
>
> As a young man most of all. Is your Richard the same person as
mine?

Probably not. I find him an interesting figure, and his career a
fascinating one, but I have yet to form a single clear concept of him
as a person.


> When everyone else was becoming disenchanted with Edward in the
late
> 1460s, Richard was safely in Warwick's household. I believe,
however,
> that he became quickly disenchanted during the 1470s - mainly
because
> of Picquigny and Edward's failure to help Burgundy, and of course
the
> execution of Clarence, but also because of Edward's failure to pull
> his finger out and govern properly; Richard had experience of
> administration himself by this time so would be much more critical.

Yes, but he was in Warwick's household at the very time (1465-68)when
Warwick's disillusionment with Edward was developing. He might not
necessarily have believed everything Warwick had to say about Edward,
but it would be surprising if there were not some influence on his
thinking.

> After Clarence's death Richard seems to have feared he would be
next
> on the hit list (re that oath he had his followers take). Yet, it
> appears he had made his own decision and was initially prepared to
> recognise Edward V. Mancini tells us he wrote to the council that
he
> had been loyal to Edward IV and would be equally loyal to his
> brother's heir and all his issue. Why did he feel the need to make
> that point?

He was the late king's adult brother and the most powerful man in the
land. The new king was a boy and so potentially vulnerable to the
machinations of his relations. And it was only five years since
Clarence's death, so memories of his disloyalties would still be
fresh.

Why did the Woodvilles not wish Richard to know that
> Edward had died, or to let him in on the coronation? It seems to me
> they knew he was aware of an impediment to Edward V's claim.

I don't think this necessarily follows.

>
> All this isn't provable, but it is worth asking yourself whether
> Cecily, Margaret of Burgundy and the de la Poles are likely to have
> been so favourable to Richard's deposing Edward V just on the
grounds
> of the precontract (given that this was more of a technicality, and
> Eleanor Butler was dead and couldn't testify). It may be, of
course,
> that they saw it as the only way to cleanse the country of the
> Woodvilles. On the other hand. . . .

But why wait until 1483? The bastardy tale was current in 1469;
Edward IV was actually deposed and exiled in 1470. He did not get his
throne back without some support. If Edward IV was a bastard, why
bother?

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > People's
> > > ideas and allegiances develop over time and in response to
> > > experiences; they do not spring fully armed from the head of
Zeus.
> >
> > Where does the head of Zeus come into it, please?
>
> This is me being an intellectual snob. The goddess Diana is
supposed
> to have sprung fully armed from the head of Zeus rather than gone
> through birth, childhood etc in the usual fashion.


I know. But I had a feeling you'd tell me anyway.
I meant what has that got to do with teenage idealism? Teens are not
newborns.


>
> Do you have
> > teenagers, Anne?
>
> No, I don't, but I have been one.
>
> Mine have been throughout extremely idealistic, as I
> > was myself at that age. Ideas on forgiveness, oathtaking and
> > allegiance did not have to evolve in adulthood, they were
> inculcated
> > into people from the earliest age. Having had a 20th century
> version
> > of that kind of religious upbringing, I can assure you it would
all
> > be firmly in place by one's teens. What develops over time, on
the
> > contrary, is a tempering of youthful idealism in the cold harsh
> light
> > of experience.
> >
> Here we are seeing two different views of teenage idealism. I also
> had a religious upbringing, admittedly not Catholic but fairly high
> Anglican. Further, I come from a military background, and took in a
> whole lot about loyalty, oath-keeping and so on from that. You are
> saying that Richard would be full of adolescent idealism and
wanting
> to forgive. But if Jones is correct, Richard's mother admitted to
> betraying his father in about the worst way possible - what is the
> difference between marriage vows and any other kind of oath? And in
a
> military society, adultery by the wife while the husband is on
active
> service is regarded as particularly heinous.

So you think a teenage boy would believe it to be his place to punish
his mother and reject his brother? Apparently against the wishes of
his late father? Clearly if Cecily admitted to adultery, it was as a
pentitant. Very sorry indeed for what she had done. Catholics are
also brought up to honour their parents.
Whatever Richard's initial feelings, he had from 1464 to 1469 to come
to terms with them.

>
>
> > He spent his very earliest years at Fotheringhay, which is also
> where
> > his mother was most of the time. When he and George were captured
> > with their mother at Ludlow, Richard had probably been there only
a
> > fairly short time, having just joined the big boys' household
> there.
> > Again, his mother was in residence. He and George remained with
her
> > under house arrest until she was able to bring them to London.
And
> it
> > was Cecily who organised for the boys to be smuggled abroad after
> > Wakefield.
>
> 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.

Ann, I'm puzzled as to why you seem to accept uncritically truisms
with absoultely no foundation in primary sources - ie that Richard
had adored his golden brother Edward, or that Clarence was a drunken
lout, but suddenly get so picky about this?
They were suckled by wetnurses; looked after by drynurses. Richard's
was called Joan Peysmersh, in fact. But he probably saw somewhat more
of his mother than of his father. And they must have seen a lot of
their mother in late 1459 and 1460.

>
> > The letter to his mother does seem rather more than normally
> dutiful
> > and asks her to write to him more often "to my comfort".
>
> If I'm being really cynical, perhaps this is an indication that she
> didn't write to him all that often.

Possibly. But it does suggest that if this was the case he minded.

>
> > In 1474, when a dispute arose between one of Cecily's tenants and
a
> > follower of Richard's, Cecily summoned Richard to Syon House to
> > discuss it, and Richard readily gave in.
> > Joanna Chamberlain believes Cecily would have come to London
after
> > Edward's death, and may well have been at Baynards still when
> Richard
> > arrived.
>
> What does Chamberlain base this suggestion on? I agree that the
> Duchess was quite likely to come to London after Edward's death,
but
> if she was still there when Richard arrived some three weeks later,
> does that suggest a fondness for him or simply that she wanted to
> keep an eye on events?

Given that Richard used Baynards it would suggest the latter, unless
you go along with Tim that she forced him.

>
> > Jones suggests that Richard may have identified himself and
Cecily
> > with St Constantine and his mother St Helena (finder of the "True
> > Cross"). Cecily owned a fragment of the True Cross, and spandrels
> in
> > the top corners of the Windsor portrait of Richard III show what
> > appear to be images of Constantine and Helena. If I recall, one
of
> > the brides Richard was considering before Bosworth was actually
one
> > of the Conmenas, so the dreams of restoring Constantinople (which
> > fell to the Turks when he was less than a year old) seem pretty
> real.
> >
> Interesting - I wasn't aware of this.
>
> > Richard and his mother seemed to share religious interests - both
> > owned copies of the Visions of St Matilda (the mystic Matilda of
> > Hackeborn).
> > In 1484 Cecily apparently made a rare trip out from Berkhamstead
> > (from 1480 she had been living under Benedictine Rule) to meet
> > Richard at Cambridge.
> > Before journeying to the midlands to meet Henry Tudor, Richard
> stayed
> > with his mother at Berkhamsted. This was slightly out of his way.
I
> > can't recall his route, but Berkhamsted lies on no route north,
but
> > on Akeman Street, the old Roman road from Verulamium (St Albans)
to
> > Bath. He probably turned off Watling Street at St Albans to reach
> > her. This suggests to me that after he lost his wife, Cecily was
> the
> > person Richard naturally turned to for emotional support.
> >
> It's not very far out of the way. I'll have to look at the map when
I
> get home this evening, but it's a fairly modest dog-leg. Again I'm
> being Devil's Advocate, but can we be sure that this wasn't simply
a
> duty visit fitted in at a convenient opportunity?

The King didn't need to make duty visits. Berkhamsted's only a few
miles from St Albans (where I used to live - in fact I grew up in
that whole area), which is why he suggested he probably went up
Watling Street and turned off there, but heading for Nottingham he
would have been quicker going up Ermine Street, and that would make
Berkhamsted very inconvenient.

I'm not quite sure why you seem suddenly set to prove that Richard
and his mother didn't get on.

>
> >
> > We cannot know
> > > what was going on in Richard's head in 1469-70, but it does not
> > take
> > > much imagination to wonder whether he was faced with a conflict
> of
> > > loyalties, and a stark choice between choosing one side or the
> > other.
> >
> > Absolutely. I feel Richard was put in a terrible position of
> > conflicting loyalties for most of his life. Which is why he made
a
> > choice and came up with the motto that he did "Loyaulte me Lie";
> > apparently the very earliest examples of his signature carry the
> > motto "Tant le desiree", so this was a change.
>
> Do we have a date for the first known appearance of 'Loyaulte me
Lie'?

I'll see if I can find out.

> >
> > >
> > I doubt whether he actually spoke to his mother about it
personally
> > at this time; he was very young. He may well have told himself it
> > wasn't true.
>
> Possibly, but if she herself admitted it, and if he had no reason
to
> doubt her honesty, it would be difficult to treat it as untrue.

Sorry, I thought it was your own suggestion recently that if she only
said it in a furious argument maybe nobody took it very seriously,
and perhaps we shouldn't.


> Unless it was obviously too outrageous to be credible, the natural
> approach would be to ask, if only on the lines of, 'Mother, Warwick
> is spreading these dreadful rumours about you. Please tell me
they're
> not true.'

Too outrageous to be credible? Or untrue? One is a hearer's gut
feeling about an accusation, the other is the fact about it. The two
are not necessarily the same. Anyway Richard was not at court during
the late 1460s but in the north.
>
> He and his family still owed their survival - and
> > triumph - to Edward. There were no two ways about that.
> > That Richard may have been temporarily shaken is quite probable.
> > However, he had had quite a while to think his position through
by
> > the time that Clarence and Warwick rebelled.



>
> But if the rumour first surfaced around May-June 1469, or possibly
a
> bit later, and Edward was taken into custody in mid-August, that
> isn't very long.

The rumour according to Mancini (who had informents who were close
to the centre of Edward's household) started when Cecily told Edward
in a fury after the announcement of his marriage (which was made in
August 1464, I think).
>
> And he would have
> > considered the following:
> > a) His revered father had recognised Edward as his son
> > b) His mother had not gone ahead with denouncing him
> > c) Mortimer's Cross and Towton seemed to indicate God's approval
of
> > Edward's claim
> > d) Edward had been anointed with the sacred chrism, and Richard
had
> > given him oaths of allegiance
> > e) Warwick was tempting him with the easy way, the smooth road to
> > perdition, perhaps.
> > f) He may indeed not have thought much of the idea of George as
> king.
> >
> > Richard had a ready answer in 1483 to those worried about oaths
> they
> > had taken to Edward V - ie that they had taken them in ignorance,
> not
> > knowing he was a bastard, and that such oaths were not binding.
> > Perhaps he had been many years wrestling towards this conclusion
> for
> > himself.
>
> But if Jones is correct, then up to his death the Duke of York had
> not realised that Edward IV was a bastard, so that the Duke had
> recognised Edward under false pretences, Edward had been crowned
> under false pretences and Richard had given him oaths under false
> pretences. Suddenly discovering that you've been duped is likely to
> arouse antagonisms. Admittedly, Jones does contradict himself in
> saying that the Duke could not have realised the position, and then
> that Edward's low-key baptism meant that the Duke had his
suspicions.

Where does Jones say York didn't know? I was not under the impression
that he said this.
I think the Duke must have at the very least suspected the
possibility, and chosen to ignore the problem.



> >
> > >
> > > On the other hand there is Clarence, whom Richard may or may
not
> > > actually like very much (there was certainly a good deal of
> rivalry
> > > between them over the Warwick lands later on; beyond that we
> don't
> > > know), but there is also Warwick, who may well have been
> something
> > of
> > > a father figure to him. Quite possibly there was also a rather
> > vague
> > > sense of needing to keep faith with his father, the Duke of
York;
> > > after all, a dead hero.
> > >
> > > And there were certainly times during this period when neither
> God
> > > nor many men appeared to be on Edward's side. Would Richard, as
a
> > > very young man, not yet a mature adult with an adult's
experience
> > of
> > > the world, appreciate the benefits of keeping one's oath at the
> > time
> > > when a large proportion of the people around him were doing
just
> > the
> > > opposite?
> >
> > As a young man most of all. Is your Richard the same person as
> mine?
>
> Probably not. I find him an interesting figure, and his career a
> fascinating one, but I have yet to form a single clear concept of
him
> as a person.
>
>
> > When everyone else was becoming disenchanted with Edward in the
> late
> > 1460s, Richard was safely in Warwick's household. I believe,
> however,
> > that he became quickly disenchanted during the 1470s - mainly
> because
> > of Picquigny and Edward's failure to help Burgundy, and of course
> the
> > execution of Clarence, but also because of Edward's failure to
pull
> > his finger out and govern properly; Richard had experience of
> > administration himself by this time so would be much more
critical.
>
> Yes, but he was in Warwick's household at the very time (1465-68)
when
> Warwick's disillusionment with Edward was developing. He might not
> necessarily have believed everything Warwick had to say about
Edward,
> but it would be surprising if there were not some influence on his
> thinking.

I agree. But in the end he had to make a choice.


>
> > After Clarence's death Richard seems to have feared he would be
> next
> > on the hit list (re that oath he had his followers take). Yet, it
> > appears he had made his own decision and was initially prepared
to
> > recognise Edward V. Mancini tells us he wrote to the council that
> he
> > had been loyal to Edward IV and would be equally loyal to his
> > brother's heir and all his issue. Why did he feel the need to
make
> > that point?
>
> He was the late king's adult brother and the most powerful man in
the
> land. The new king was a boy and so potentially vulnerable to the
> machinations of his relations. And it was only five years since
> Clarence's death, so memories of his disloyalties would still be
> fresh.

But no memory of Richgard's disloyalties because there were none.

>
> Why did the Woodvilles not wish Richard to know that
> > Edward had died, or to let him in on the coronation? It seems to
me
> > they knew he was aware of an impediment to Edward V's claim.
>
> I don't think this necessarily follows.

Another suggestion?
>
> >
> > All this isn't provable, but it is worth asking yourself whether
> > Cecily, Margaret of Burgundy and the de la Poles are likely to
have
> > been so favourable to Richard's deposing Edward V just on the
> grounds
> > of the precontract (given that this was more of a technicality,
and
> > Eleanor Butler was dead and couldn't testify). It may be, of
> course,
> > that they saw it as the only way to cleanse the country of the
> > Woodvilles. On the other hand. . . .
>
> But why wait until 1483? The bastardy tale was current in 1469;
> Edward IV was actually deposed and exiled in 1470. He did not get
his
> throne back without some support. If Edward IV was a bastard, why
> bother?

For the reasons I have outlined. Remember, paternity was impossible
to prove, and how would it do the House of York any good to turn on
itself? Richard eventually had to, and look what happened.
I know you may find this shocking, but the proportion of children not
fathered by their mothers' husbands is by definition an unknown. I
seem to remember there was a study of blood groups carried out in
some small US town at one time, as a byproduct of which it emerged
that a sizeable proportion (I have the figure 10% in my head but this
may well be exaggerated) couldn't possibly have been fathered by
their supposed fathers because their blood groups were incompatible.
A patrilinear society is always based on some measure of a lie.

And human beings were known to be frail, in those days at least,
women being believed to be more easily tempted sexually than men. We
hadn't quite got to the censoriousness of the Victorian era.

Marie

>
> Ann

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > People's
> > > > ideas and allegiances develop over time and in response to
> > > > experiences; they do not spring fully armed from the head of
> Zeus.
> > >
> > > Where does the head of Zeus come into it, please? I meant what
has that got to do with teenage idealism? Teens are not newborns.
>
I was using the phrase in a metaphorical sense, that people's ideas
tend to evolve, rather than emerge fully formed all at once.


> >
> > So you think a teenage boy would believe it to be his place to
punish
> his mother and reject his brother?

I think it would be a very natural gut reaction, at least for a
period. Later on, the same teenage boy might be rather more
philosophical.

Apparently against the wishes of
> his late father? Clearly if Cecily admitted to adultery, it was as
a
> pentitant. Very sorry indeed for what she had done. Catholics are
> also brought up to honour their parents.

This is true, but are they expected to honour their parents right or
wrong? Serious question here - I'm not a Catholic. And what if one
parent has betrayed the other, which is the situation we are talking
about?


> Whatever Richard's initial feelings, he had from 1464 to 1469 to
come
> to terms with them.
>
But what if things had calmed down and flared up again? What if he
had not even known about the 1464 admission? I admit, we're talking
hypotheticals here.

> >
> > 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.
>
> Ann, I'm puzzled as to why you seem to accept uncritically truisms
> with absoultely no foundation in primary sources - ie that Richard
> had adored his golden brother Edward, or that Clarence was a
drunken
> lout, but suddenly get so picky about this?

I don't 'accept uncritically truisms', in fact. I think it is a
reasonable supposition that there was a degree of hero-worship from
Richard to Edward, on the basis that Edward did indeed pull off a
remarkable military coup in the early months of 1461, and as a
dashing young man in his early 20s was the sort of person to inspire
admiration in his considerably younger brother. I don't accept that
Clarence was necessarily a drunken lout. I don't know what he was
like and am trying to get at what can be established from original
sources rather than the fancies of historical novelists.


> They were suckled by wetnurses; looked after by drynurses.
Richard's
> was called Joan Peysmersh, in fact. But he probably saw somewhat
more
> of his mother than of his father. And they must have seen a lot of
> their mother in late 1459 and 1460.

Yes, but it does not necessarily follow that Richard adored his
mother in a totally uncritical fashion when he became an adolescent
and capable of thinking for himself.
>
> >
> > > The letter to his mother does seem rather more than normally
> > dutiful
> > > and asks her to write to him more often "to my comfort".
> >
> > If I'm being really cynical, perhaps this is an indication that
she
> > didn't write to him all that often.
>
> Possibly. But it does suggest that if this was the case he minded.
>
Very true, but that in itself is capable of more than one
interpretation. Was he very close to his mother and there was a gap
in the usual flow of letters, or did he have the sense that he was
not all that close to her and would like to be? Again, we just don't
know.



I agree that the
> > Duchess was quite likely to come to London after Edward's death,
> but
> > if she was still there when Richard arrived some three weeks
later,
> > does that suggest a fondness for him or simply that she wanted to
> > keep an eye on events?
>
> Given that Richard used Baynards it would suggest the latter,
unless
> you go along with Tim that she forced him.

Just a suggestion here. Looking at the depositions of Edward II,
Richard II, Henry VI and Edward V as a group, one of the things which
is noticeable is a practice of following precedent. The new monarch
finds a way of proving his predecessor's unworthiness and his own
better right to the crown; he calls a parliament or quasi-parliament
to enact this into law, and he has that assembly proclaim him king.
Henry VII did much the same, in fact. Edward IV departed somewhat
from this, in that he relied on the declaration of October 1460 for
his title and did not call a parliament immediately. But he did have
himself proclaimed king from Baynard's Castle and it is possible,
though no more than that, that Richard was doing no more than
following precedent when he did the same.
>

> > > Before journeying to the midlands to meet Henry Tudor, Richard
> > stayed
> > > with his mother at Berkhamsted. This was slightly out of his
way.
> > The King didn't need to make duty visits. Berkhamsted's only a
few
> miles from St Albans (where I used to live - in fact I grew up in
> that whole area), which is why he suggested he probably went up
> Watling Street and turned off there, but heading for Nottingham he
> would have been quicker going up Ermine Street, and that would make
> Berkhamsted very inconvenient.
>
I don't know the area but the distance as the crow flies is about 12
miles. It would be an awkward dog-leg on a journey north as
Berkhamstead is almost due west of St Albans, but getting there and
back in a day would not be a problem in high summer - that is the
scale of the detour.


> I'm not quite sure why you seem suddenly set to prove that Richard
> and his mother didn't get on.

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. Possibly I'm
unduly cynical about the idea of universal mother-child affection;
maternal instinct seems to have passed me by, and in the light of my
mother's illness I'm currently trying to make sense of a relationship
which has not been entirely smooth-running. Nothing very dreadful, I
hasten to add (more a case of our not having been as close as mothers
and daughters are 'supposed' to be, and now it's too late).
> >
> > Do we have a date for the first known appearance of 'Loyaulte me
> Lie'?
>
> I'll see if I can find out.

I'll be very interested. A theory I have is that the crisis of 1469-
71, which happened when Richard was aged from 16 to rising 19, was
absolutely crucial to his development as a person, and to the ideas
he took forward to the crisis of 1483.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > I doubt whether he actually spoke to his mother about it
> personally
> > > at this time; he was very young. He may well have told himself
it
> > > wasn't true.
> >
> > Possibly, but if she herself admitted it, and if he had no reason
> to
> > doubt her honesty, it would be difficult to treat it as untrue.
>
> Sorry, I thought it was your own suggestion recently that if she
only
> said it in a furious argument maybe nobody took it very seriously,
> and perhaps we shouldn't.
>
That was indeed my own suggestion, but if Jones is correct, it was
actually true and people did take it seriously. If this is the case,
it is rather strange that Clarence, Warwick and a great many other
people took it seriously, but Edward and Richard didn't.

>
> > Unless it was obviously too outrageous to be credible, the
natural
> > approach would be to ask, if only on the lines of, 'Mother,
Warwick
> > is spreading these dreadful rumours about you. Please tell me
> they're
> > not true.'
>
Anyway Richard was not at court during
> the late 1460s but in the north.
> >
He seems to have been in Warwick's household until some time in 1468,
but he may have left during that year as Warwick was paid a
considerable sum to cover his maintenance. As far as I can see, his
movements over the next year or so are somewhat unclear.

> > But if the rumour first surfaced around May-June 1469, or
possibly
> a
> > bit later, and Edward was taken into custody in mid-August, that
> > isn't very long.
>
> The rumour according to Mancini (who had informents who were close
> to the centre of Edward's household) started when Cecily told
Edward
> in a fury after the announcement of his marriage (which was made in
> August 1464, I think).

Yes, but things then seem to have calmed down until summer 1469 when
Warwick and Clarence made use of it in their own cause.
> >

> Where does Jones say York didn't know? I was not under the
impression
> that he said this.
> I think the Duke must have at the very least suspected the
> possibility, and chosen to ignore the problem.
>
As I read Jones, he says, on the basis of 15th century medical-type
books, that men (as distinct from women) were not aware of the normal
length of pregnancy and thus the Duke of York need not have suspected
anything. Either before or after this, he also says that Edward's low-
key baptism suggests that the Duke was suspicious.
>
> > Yes, but he was in Warwick's household at the very time (1465-68)
> when
> > Warwick's disillusionment with Edward was developing. He might
not
> > necessarily have believed everything Warwick had to say about
> Edward,
> > but it would be surprising if there were not some influence on
his
> > thinking.
>
> I agree. But in the end he had to make a choice.
>
Exactly, and what I am saying is that the choice cannot have been an
easy one. To me the very fact that Richard seems to have stuck to
Edward in an unwavering fashion (when very few people did) is
circumstantial evidence (though no more) against the truth of the
Jones theory, on the basis that Edward's illegitimacy would have been
a strong reason not to support him.
> >
> > > After Clarence's death Richard seems to have feared he would be
> > next
> > > on the hit list (re that oath he had his followers take). Yet,
it
> > > appears he had made his own decision and was initially prepared
> to
> > > recognise Edward V. Mancini tells us he wrote to the council
that
> > he
> > > had been loyal to Edward IV and would be equally loyal to his
> > > brother's heir and all his issue. Why did he feel the need to
> make
> > > that point?
> >
> > He was the late king's adult brother and the most powerful man in
> the
> > land. The new king was a boy and so potentially vulnerable to the
> > machinations of his relations. And it was only five years since
> > Clarence's death, so memories of his disloyalties would still be
> > fresh.
>
> But no memory of Richgard's disloyalties because there were none.
>
There were none, but these were uncertain times.
>
Again, I'm surmising, but the Woodville faction may simply have
wanted to get Edward V crowned as quickly as possible because there
remained a degree of mystique about an anointed king and coronation
would to a certain extent protect him. Even in 1936 there was a
certain sense that if Edward VIII was going to abdicate he should do
it before he was crowned. (And even now I have seen it suggested more
than once that 'the public' don't mind Camilla Parker-Bowles marrying
the Prince of Wales, but they don't want her crowned.)

> I know you may find this shocking, but the proportion of children
not
> fathered by their mothers' husbands is by definition an unknown. I
> seem to remember there was a study of blood groups carried out in
> some small US town at one time, as a byproduct of which it emerged
> that a sizeable proportion (I have the figure 10% in my head but
this
> may well be exaggerated) couldn't possibly have been fathered by
> their supposed fathers because their blood groups were
incompatible.

The testing done to establish whether DNA testing was workable
apparently produced a similar statistic. That is precisely why I
don't think such things can be treated lightly. However, just as we
should beware of assuming on the basis of the actions of a minority
that all Catholic priests are child abusers, we should remember that
the majority of people do seem to have been fathered by their
official fathers.

> And human beings were known to be frail, in those days at least,
> women being believed to be more easily tempted sexually than men.

So surely a husband in the Duke of York's position would be reluctant
to take chances over the paternity of the man who was going to
inherit FROM HIM.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , aelyon2001
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > People's
> > > > > ideas and allegiances develop over time and in response to
> > > > > experiences; they do not spring fully armed from the head
of
> > Zeus.
> > > >
> > > > Where does the head of Zeus come into it, please? I meant
what
> has that got to do with teenage idealism? Teens are not newborns.
> >
> I was using the phrase in a metaphorical sense, that people's ideas
> tend to evolve, rather than emerge fully formed all at once.

I know. But I felt it was stretching the cloth a little - given that
so much indoctrination went on from early childhood.
>
>
> > >
> > > So you think a teenage boy would believe it to be his place to
> punish
> > his mother and reject his brother?
>
> I think it would be a very natural gut reaction, at least for a
> period. Later on, the same teenage boy might be rather more
> philosophical.

I'm sorry. Looking further down your response, I see that personal
relationships may be involved here. With guys I have delevoped a
theory over more years of life than appear to show from the outside:
ie relationship with mother shows in men in adult attitudes to women
in general. I can't prove it, but I stick by it. Edward was sexually
rapacious, perhaps like Kennedy. Of JFK it has been said that he was
badly treated by his mother, and later used women sexually as a way
of belittling them.
Richard, on the other hand, seems to have had a very positive
attitude to women, from which I infer. . . .
>
> Apparently against the wishes of
> > his late father? Clearly if Cecily admitted to adultery, it was
as
> a
> > pentitant. Very sorry indeed for what she had done. Catholics are
> > also brought up to honour their parents.
>
> This is true, but are they expected to honour their parents right
or
> wrong? Serious question here - I'm not a Catholic. And what if one
> parent has betrayed the other, which is the situation we are
talking
> about?

Richard's father was dead, and had recognised Edward as his heir. I
don't see that it would have been Richard's place to interfere.
Catholicism (which I have rejected, and do reject, as I reject all
religion based on insitutional power structures - and which fits that
description better than Catholicism?) does however make a big thing
of forgiveness. It is more NT than OT., ie less "an eye for an eye"
than "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass
against us".


>
> > Whatever Richard's initial feelings, he had from 1464 to 1469 to
> come
> > to terms with them.
> >
> But what if things had calmed down and flared up again? What if he
> had not even known about the 1464 admission? I admit, we're talking
> hypotheticals here.

It's impossible to know exactly when he joined Warwick's household. I
believe the earliest doc. we have for evidence is 1465 (I have lost
my notes, so don't have date, unfortunately). Kendall interpreted
this as the end of his sojourn, but it reads more like the start, as
Hicks et al have also decided.

>
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ann, I'm puzzled as to why you seem to accept uncritically
truisms
> > with absoultely no foundation in primary sources - ie that
Richard
> > had adored his golden brother Edward, or that Clarence was a
> drunken
> > lout, but suddenly get so picky about this?
>
> I don't 'accept uncritically truisms', in fact. I think it is a
> reasonable supposition that there was a degree of hero-worship from
> Richard to Edward, on the basis that Edward did indeed pull off a
> remarkable military coup in the early months of 1461, and as a
> dashing young man in his early 20s was the sort of person to
inspire
> admiration in his considerably younger brother. I don't accept that
> Clarence was necessarily a drunken lout. I don't know what he was
> like and am trying to get at what can be established from original
> sources rather than the fancies of historical novelists.
>
>
> > They were suckled by wetnurses; looked after by drynurses.
> Richard's
> > was called Joan Peysmersh, in fact. But he probably saw somewhat
> more
> > of his mother than of his father. And they must have seen a lot
of
> > their mother in late 1459 and 1460.
>
> Yes, but it does not necessarily follow that Richard adored his
> mother in a totally uncritical fashion when he became an adolescent
> and capable of thinking for himself.
> >
> > >
> > > > The letter to his mother does seem rather more than normally
> > > dutiful
> > > > and asks her to write to him more often "to my comfort".
> > >
> > > If I'm being really cynical, perhaps this is an indication that
> she
> > > didn't write to him all that often.
> >
> > Possibly. But it does suggest that if this was the case he minded.
> >
> Very true, but that in itself is capable of more than one
> interpretation. Was he very close to his mother and there was a gap
> in the usual flow of letters, or did he have the sense that he was
> not all that close to her and would like to be? Again, we just
don't
> know.
>
>
>
> I agree that the
> > > Duchess was quite likely to come to London after Edward's
death,
> > but
> > > if she was still there when Richard arrived some three weeks
> later,
> > > does that suggest a fondness for him or simply that she wanted
to
> > > keep an eye on events?
> >
> > Given that Richard used Baynards it would suggest the latter,
> unless
> > you go along with Tim that she forced him.
>
> Just a suggestion here. Looking at the depositions of Edward II,
> Richard II, Henry VI and Edward V as a group, one of the things
which
> is noticeable is a practice of following precedent. The new monarch
> finds a way of proving his predecessor's unworthiness and his own
> better right to the crown; he calls a parliament or quasi-
parliament
> to enact this into law, and he has that assembly proclaim him king.
> Henry VII did much the same, in fact. Edward IV departed somewhat
> from this, in that he relied on the declaration of October 1460 for
> his title and did not call a parliament immediately. But he did
have
> himself proclaimed king from Baynard's Castle and it is possible,
> though no more than that, that Richard was doing no more than
> following precedent when he did the same.

I'd just say - read through the events, day by day. Something
happened, c. 9 June, that set things on a different course. I had
wondered at one point if Anne Neville's arrrival on 5th might have
had something to do with it - a new influence - but the "code
symbols" on the Cely note have made me think again.

> >
>
> > > > Before journeying to the midlands to meet Henry Tudor,
Richard
> > > stayed
> > > > with his mother at Berkhamsted. This was slightly out of his
> way.
> > > The King didn't need to make duty visits. Berkhamsted's only a
> few
> > miles from St Albans (where I used to live - in fact I grew up in
> > that whole area), which is why he suggested he probably went up
> > Watling Street and turned off there, but heading for Nottingham
he
> > would have been quicker going up Ermine Street, and that would
make
> > Berkhamsted very inconvenient.
> >
> I don't know the area but the distance as the crow flies is about
12
> miles. It would be an awkward dog-leg on a journey north as
> Berkhamstead is almost due west of St Albans, but getting there and
> back in a day would not be a problem in high summer - that is the
> scale of the detour.
>
>
> > I'm not quite sure why you seem suddenly set to prove that
Richard
> > and his mother didn't get on.
>
> 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. Possibly I'm
> unduly cynical about the idea of universal mother-child affection;
> maternal instinct seems to have passed me by, and in the light of
my
> mother's illness I'm currently trying to make sense of a
relationship
> which has not been entirely smooth-running. Nothing very dreadful,
I
> hasten to add (more a case of our not having been as close as
mothers
> and daughters are 'supposed' to be, and now it's too late).

Ann, it's never too late. Give it a go. Honestly, it isn't.

> > >
> > > Do we have a date for the first known appearance of 'Loyaulte
me
> > Lie'?
> >
> > I'll see if I can find out.
>
> I'll be very interested. A theory I have is that the crisis of 1469-
> 71, which happened when Richard was aged from 16 to rising 19, was
> absolutely crucial to his development as a person, and to the ideas
> he took forward to the crisis of 1483.

A crucial stage, I suggest. And Kendall would have it as THE crucial
stage. But perhaps what we have to come to terms with is that the
human psyche keeps on growing and developing. To stop at a certain
point - late teens or wherever - is ultimately destructive. I used
to follow Kendall, but now it seems to me that Richard was further
formed - gouged out indeed - by still later events.


> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I doubt whether he actually spoke to his mother about it
> > personally
> > > > at this time; he was very young. He may well have told
himself
> it
> > > > wasn't true.
> > >
> > > Possibly, but if she herself admitted it, and if he had no
reason
> > to
> > > doubt her honesty, it would be difficult to treat it as untrue.
> >
> > Sorry, I thought it was your own suggestion recently that if she
> only
> > said it in a furious argument maybe nobody took it very
seriously,
> > and perhaps we shouldn't.
> >
> That was indeed my own suggestion, but if Jones is correct, it was
> actually true and people did take it seriously. If this is the
case,
> it is rather strange that Clarence, Warwick and a great many other
> people took it seriously, but Edward and Richard didn't.


Look, Ann, this is the bottom line. e have, by whatever means, to
come to terms with the FACTS that:

a) Clarence claimed to be rightful king because Edward wqs not York's
son

b) Warwick backed him in this

c) Richard sided with Edward.

So the claim was out there, whatever the truth of it might have been,
and that was the dcision Richard made. That you have to wrestle with.

In addition:
d) Mancini later claimed that it was Cecily herself who originally
made this claim
e) During 1460s/70s Louis and Burgund referred to Edward's real
father as
i) an archer
ii) Blayborgne
f) Ralph Shaa apparently said Edward was a bastard in his speech from
Paul's Cross on 22 June 1483

>
> >
> > > Unless it was obviously too outrageous to be credible, the
> natural
> > > approach would be to ask, if only on the lines of, 'Mother,
> Warwick
> > > is spreading these dreadful rumours about you. Please tell me
> > they're
> > > not true.'
> >
> Anyway Richard was not at court during
> > the late 1460s but in the north.
> > >
> He seems to have been in Warwick's household until some time in
1468,
> but he may have left during that year as Warwick was paid a
> considerable sum to cover his maintenance. As far as I can see, his
> movements over the next year or so are somewhat unclear.

The sum was paid in 1465. This was the payment that Kendall
interpreted as a pay-off, causing him to claim Richard entered
Warwicjk's household that year. However, it actually reads as an up-
front, qhich is how it is normally now interpreted. It is not clear
when he left Warwick's household, but apparently he didn't sail to
Burgundy witrh Edward but was in the north and followed on later.
>
> > > But if the rumour first surfaced around May-June 1469, or
> possibly
> > a
> > > bit later, and Edward was taken into custody in mid-August,
that
> > > isn't very long.

It isn't really what Mancini suggests.

> >
> > The rumour according to Mancini (who had informents who were
close
> > to the centre of Edward's household) started when Cecily told
> Edward
> > in a fury after the announcement of his marriage (which was made
in
> > August 1464, I think).
>
> Yes, but things then seem to have calmed down until summer 1469
when
> Warwick and Clarence made use of it in their own cause.

I think there is evidence that things were bubbling. But of course
that is just the point I made on Richard's having time to think.
> > >
>
> > Where does Jones say York didn't know? I was not under the
> impression
> > that he said this.
> > I think the Duke must have at the very least suspected the
> > possibility, and chosen to ignore the problem.
> >
> As I read Jones, he says, on the basis of 15th century medical-type
> books, that men (as distinct from women) were not aware of the
normal
> length of pregnancy and thus the Duke of York need not have
suspected
> anything. Either before or after this, he also says that Edward's
low-
> key baptism suggests that the Duke was suspicious.
> >
> > > Yes, but he was in Warwick's household at the very time (1465-
68)
> > when
> > > Warwick's disillusionment with Edward was developing. He might
> not
> > > necessarily have believed everything Warwick had to say about
> > Edward,
> > > but it would be surprising if there were not some influence on
> his
> > > thinking.
> >
> > I agree. But in the end he had to make a choice.
> >
> Exactly, and what I am saying is that the choice cannot have been
an
> easy one. To me the very fact that Richard seems to have stuck to
> Edward in an unwavering fashion (when very few people did) is
> circumstantial evidence (though no more) against the truth of the
> Jones theory, on the basis that Edward's illegitimacy would have
been
> a strong reason not to support him.
> > >
> > > > After Clarence's death Richard seems to have feared he would
be
> > > next
> > > > on the hit list (re that oath he had his followers take).
Yet,
> it
> > > > appears he had made his own decision and was initially
prepared
> > to
> > > > recognise Edward V. Mancini tells us he wrote to the council
> that
> > > he
> > > > had been loyal to Edward IV and would be equally loyal to his
> > > > brother's heir and all his issue. Why did he feel the need to
> > make
> > > > that point?
> > >
> > > He was the late king's adult brother and the most powerful man
in
> > the
> > > land. The new king was a boy and so potentially vulnerable to
the
> > > machinations of his relations. And it was only five years since
> > > Clarence's death, so memories of his disloyalties would still
be
> > > fresh.
> >
> > But no memory of Richgard's disloyalties because there were none.
> >
> There were none, but these were uncertain times.
> >
> Again, I'm surmising, but the Woodville faction may simply have
> wanted to get Edward V crowned as quickly as possible because there
> remained a degree of mystique about an anointed king and coronation
> would to a certain extent protect him.

I agree. But protect him from what???? Clearly from Richard. But why??


Even in 1936 there was a
> certain sense that if Edward VIII was going to abdicate he should
do
> it before he was crowned. (And even now I have seen it suggested
more
> than once that 'the public' don't mind Camilla Parker-Bowles
marrying
> the Prince of Wales, but they don't want her crowned.)

You're still saying they had some reason to fear for his kingship if h
>
> > I know you may find this shocking, but the proportion of children
> not
> > fathered by their mothers' husbands is by definition an unknown.
I
> > seem to remember there was a study of blood groups carried out in
> > some small US town at one time, as a byproduct of which it
emerged
> > that a sizeable proportion (I have the figure 10% in my head but
> this
> > may well be exaggerated) couldn't possibly have been fathered by
> > their supposed fathers because their blood groups were
> incompatible.
>
> The testing done to establish whether DNA testing was workable
> apparently produced a similar statistic. That is precisely why I
> don't think such things can be treated lightly. However, just as we
> should beware of assuming on the basis of the actions of a minority
> that all Catholic priests are child abusers, we should remember
that
> the majority of people do seem to have been fathered by their
> official fathers.

I do. I would not have used such evidence to argue Edward's bastardy
had it not been that:-

a) His father was away at what would otherwise have been the assumed
date of conception
b) Edward's younger brother tried to oust him on ground of his
bastardy
c) Mancini says Cecily admitted it
d) It appears that Ralph Shaw made this accusation in his sermon
e) Applied to the whole era, it makes so many things slide into place.
>
> > And human beings were known to be frail, in those days at least,
> > women being believed to be more easily tempted sexually than men.
>
> So surely a husband in the Duke of York's position would be
reluctant
> to take chances over the paternity of the man who was going to
> inherit FROM HIM.

What do you suggest - a chastity belt?

There is more to human life than paternity. And more to kingship. Had
Edward proved a wonderful King, and made a wise marriage, I doubt
very much that Richarrd would ever have claimed the throne.

Marie
>
> Ann

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > So you think a teenage boy would believe it to be his place
to
> > punish
> > > his mother and reject his brother?
> >
> > I think it would be a very natural gut reaction, at least for a
> > period. Later on, the same teenage boy might be rather more
> > philosophical.
>
> I'm sorry. Looking further down your response, I see that personal
> relationships may be involved here. With guys I have delevoped a
> theory over more years of life than appear to show from the
outside:
> ie relationship with mother shows in men in adult attitudes to
women
> in general. I can't prove it, but I stick by it. Edward was
sexually
> rapacious, perhaps like Kennedy. Of JFK it has been said that he
was
> badly treated by his mother, and later used women sexually as a way
> of belittling them.
> Richard, on the other hand, seems to have had a very positive
> attitude to women, from which I infer. . . .

I'm not going to argue with the theory, which makes a good deal of
sense, but Edward and Richard did have the same mother... Yes, I
know, she may have behaved somewhat differently towards them as
individuals (as a first-born I note cynically that younger siblings
tend to have a much easier time of it).
>
> Richard's father was dead, and had recognised Edward as his heir. I
> don't see that it would have been Richard's place to interfere.
> Catholicism (which I have rejected, and do reject, as I reject all
> religion based on insitutional power structures - and which fits
that
> description better than Catholicism?) does however make a big thing
> of forgiveness. It is more NT than OT., ie less "an eye for an eye"
> than "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass
> against us".
>
Yes, but can we ignore immediate gut reaction here.

>
> >
>
> It's impossible to know exactly when he joined Warwick's household.
I
> believe the earliest doc. we have for evidence is 1465 (I have lost
> my notes, so don't have date, unfortunately). Kendall interpreted
> this as the end of his sojourn, but it reads more like the start,
as
> Hicks et al have also decided.

I'm quite happy to accept the dates of Richard's time in Warwick's
household as 1465-68ish.
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > I'd just say - read through the events, day by day. Something
> happened, c. 9 June, that set things on a different course. I had
> wondered at one point if Anne Neville's arrrival on 5th might have
> had something to do with it - a new influence - but the "code
> symbols" on the Cely note have made me think again.
>
I'll have another look and tell you what I think.

> > Ann, it's never too late. Give it a go. Honestly, it isn't.
>
That was more a metaphorical 'now it's too late,' but to tell the
truth I am floundering around wondering what I should be doing,
beyond the obvious things of ringing up most days and going to see my
parents as often as realistic (the journey takes the best part of
five hours each way, which doesn't help matters).

> > >
A theory I have is that the crisis of 1469-
> > 71, which happened when Richard was aged from 16 to rising 19,
was
> > absolutely crucial to his development as a person, and to the
ideas
> > he took forward to the crisis of 1483.
>
> A crucial stage, I suggest. And Kendall would have it as THE
crucial
> stage. But perhaps what we have to come to terms with is that the
> human psyche keeps on growing and developing. To stop at a certain
> point - late teens or wherever - is ultimately destructive. I used
> to follow Kendall, but now it seems to me that Richard was further
> formed - gouged out indeed - by still later events.
>
Again, I am not going to disagree. 1469-71 is critical, because the
great crisis happens just as Richard is emerging into adulthood. He
continues to develop as a person after this (as we all do) but the
influences on him are more subtle.
> > >
> >
>
> Look, Ann, this is the bottom line. e have, by whatever means, to
> come to terms with the FACTS that:
>
> a) Clarence claimed to be rightful king because Edward wqs not
York's
> son
>
> b) Warwick backed him in this
>
> c) Richard sided with Edward.
>
> So the claim was out there, whatever the truth of it might have
been,
> and that was the dcision Richard made. That you have to wrestle
with.

This is exactly what I'm doing, but you and I are coming to different
conclusions.
>
> In addition:
> d) Mancini later claimed that it was Cecily herself who originally
> made this claim
> e) During 1460s/70s Louis and Burgund referred to Edward's real
> father as
> i) an archer
> ii) Blayborgne
> f) Ralph Shaa apparently said Edward was a bastard in his speech
from
> Paul's Cross on 22 June 1483
>
Yes, but Mancini was reporting what he heard, and we have to allow
for the possibility of garbled transmission. Louis XI was an
enthusiastic mischief-maker, to say the least, and Charles the Bold
was not exactly pally with Edward, so may have had his own reasons
for stirring things up.

>
> > The sum was paid in 1465. This was the payment that Kendall
> interpreted as a pay-off, causing him to claim Richard entered
> Warwicjk's household that year. However, it actually reads as an up-
> front, qhich is how it is normally now interpreted. It is not clear
> when he left Warwick's household, but apparently he didn't sail to
> Burgundy witrh Edward but was in the north and followed on later.
>
I'll need to take a close look at Richard's known movements. However,
it is always possible that he and his troops were temporarily
detached from Edward's for some military reason, rather than Richard
having been permanently in the north.



> > >
> > Again, I'm surmising, but the Woodville faction may simply have
> > wanted to get Edward V crowned as quickly as possible because
there
> > remained a degree of mystique about an anointed king and
coronation
> > would to a certain extent protect him.
>
> I agree. But protect him from what???? Clearly from Richard. But
why??

The mere fact that Richard was the late king's adult brotherand the
most powerful man in the country. Only the previous year, the Duke of
Albany (with English aid) had tried to topple his brother James III
from the Scots throne. This was a time when family loyalties were
pretty flimsy.

We should remember
> that
> > the majority of people do seem to have been fathered by their
> > official fathers.
>
> I do. I would not have used such evidence to argue Edward's
bastardy
> had it not been that:-
>
> a) His father was away at what would otherwise have been the
assumed
> date of conception
> b) Edward's younger brother tried to oust him on ground of his
> bastardy
> c) Mancini says Cecily admitted it
> d) It appears that Ralph Shaw made this accusation in his sermon
> e) Applied to the whole era, it makes so many things slide into
place.
> >
By no means everything. And I go back to the point that, on the
dates, it is very far from impossible that the Duke of York was
Edward's father. If the 'gap' we are talking about was two or three
months, I would have no difficulty in accepting the Jones thesis, but
we talking about something which is barely outside 'normal' limits,
and not inconsistent with a healthy child.



> >
> > So surely a husband in the Duke of York's position would be
> reluctant
> > to take chances over the paternity of the man who was going to
> > inherit FROM HIM.
>
> What do you suggest - a chastity belt?

One would hope that he could trust his wife. However, if there were
positive reasons for doubt, surely he would have done something about
it, i.e. repudiated his wife and her bastard. Yes, Cecily had
powerful relations, but would they not also have been horrified at
her actions?
>
> There is more to human life than paternity. And more to kingship.

Very true, but in a society where position was very much based on
heredity, paternity was far more important than it is now, and this
is something we cannot ignore.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So you think a teenage boy would believe it to be his place
> to
> > > punish
> > > > his mother and reject his brother?
> > >
> > > I think it would be a very natural gut reaction, at least for a
> > > period. Later on, the same teenage boy might be rather more
> > > philosophical.
> >
> > I'm sorry. Looking further down your response, I see that
personal
> > relationships may be involved here. With guys I have delevoped a
> > theory over more years of life than appear to show from the
> outside:
> > ie relationship with mother shows in men in adult attitudes to
> women
> > in general. I can't prove it, but I stick by it. Edward was
> sexually
> > rapacious, perhaps like Kennedy. Of JFK it has been said that he
> was
> > badly treated by his mother, and later used women sexually as a
way
> > of belittling them.
> > Richard, on the other hand, seems to have had a very positive
> > attitude to women, from which I infer. . . .
>
> I'm not going to argue with the theory, which makes a good deal of
> sense, but Edward and Richard did have the same mother... Yes, I
> know, she may have behaved somewhat differently towards them as
> individuals (as a first-born I note cynically that younger siblings
> tend to have a much easier time of it).

Indeed they did have the same mother. And if they had very different
experiences of her maternal feelings, might there be any reason,
apart from just position in the family (youngest sons admittedly do
tend to get spoilt)?

> >
> > Richard's father was dead, and had recognised Edward as his heir.
I
> > don't see that it would have been Richard's place to interfere.
> > Catholicism (which I have rejected, and do reject, as I reject
all
> > religion based on insitutional power structures - and which fits
> that
> > description better than Catholicism?) does however make a big
thing
> > of forgiveness. It is more NT than OT., ie less "an eye for an
eye"
> > than "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass
> > against us".
> >
> Yes, but can we ignore immediate gut reaction here.

Sorry, I don't follow.
>
> >
> > >
> >
> > It's impossible to know exactly when he joined Warwick's
household.
> I
> > believe the earliest doc. we have for evidence is 1465 (I have
lost
> > my notes, so don't have date, unfortunately). Kendall interpreted
> > this as the end of his sojourn, but it reads more like the start,
> as
> > Hicks et al have also decided.
>
> I'm quite happy to accept the dates of Richard's time in Warwick's
> household as 1465-68ish.

In May 1468 he accompanied Margaret to Margate on her wedding
journey, although since it was such a momentous family occasion, and
since Warwick was also there, this can't be taken as evidence that he
had left Warwick's household. He returned to London with Edward and
Clarence.

Hughes says Richard was welcomed into York in 1468 (but he doesn't
give a date) and left Warwick's household in the spring of 1469.

Certainly you have the first "Robin" trouble early in 1469, and
Warwick was abroad a lot at that time. And on 14 May Richard made an
indenture with Lady Hungerford regarding the lands of her recently
executed husband (many of which had been granted to Richard). This
suggests to me he was independent and in the South.

On 6 June Edward, with Richard, left London for East Anglia. (He was
to stay at Fotheringhay during this visit, though his mother was in
the south, so I presume he must already have taken the castle off
her).

After the King had gone Cecily visited Clarence, who was with Warwick
at Sandwich - she passed through Canterbury on 14-15, telling the
monks she was going to see Clarence; if she gave a reason they did
not record it. At this point their treason was not public; had Cecily
been aware of it and gonme to talk Clarence back to his allegiance
she would have warned Edward. But she didn't leave Canterbury for
London on her return until 21st, and Edward seems to have been
unaware of their involvement in the insurrections until their
manifesto of 12 July; so it looks as though Jones is probably right
in suggesting that Cecily was a fellow-conspirator at this stage.


> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > I'd just say - read through the events, day by day. Something
> > happened, c. 9 June, that set things on a different course. I had
> > wondered at one point if Anne Neville's arrrival on 5th might
have
> > had something to do with it - a new influence - but the "code
> > symbols" on the Cely note have made me think again.
> >
> I'll have another look and tell you what I think.
>
> >> > > >
> A theory I have is that the crisis of 1469-
> > > 71, which happened when Richard was aged from 16 to rising 19,
> was
> > > absolutely crucial to his development as a person, and to the
> ideas
> > > he took forward to the crisis of 1483.
> >
> > A crucial stage, I suggest. And Kendall would have it as THE
> crucial
> > stage. But perhaps what we have to come to terms with is that the
> > human psyche keeps on growing and developing. To stop at a
certain
> > point - late teens or wherever - is ultimately destructive. I
used
> > to follow Kendall, but now it seems to me that Richard was
further
> > formed - gouged out indeed - by still later events.
> >
> Again, I am not going to disagree. 1469-71 is critical, because the
> great crisis happens just as Richard is emerging into adulthood. He
> continues to develop as a person after this (as we all do) but the
> influences on him are more subtle.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > this is the bottom line. e have, by whatever means, to
> > come to terms with the FACTS that:
> >
> > a) Clarence claimed to be rightful king because Edward wqs not
> York's
> > son
> >
> > b) Warwick backed him in this
> >
> > c) Richard sided with Edward.
> >
> > So the claim was out there, whatever the truth of it might have
> been,
> > and that was the dcision Richard made. That you have to wrestle
> with.
>
> This is exactly what I'm doing, but you and I are coming to
different
> conclusions.

What I was trying to say is that people's actions are determined by
what they believe to be true, which is not necessarily what is true.
So whether or not Cecily slept with Blayburn, Richard would have
heard the accusation and had to make up his own mind. We know
Clarence chose to believe it and claim the throne, and Warwick chose
to back him. We know Richard chose to stick by Edward.





> > > >
> > > Again, I'm surmising, but the Woodville faction may simply have
> > > wanted to get Edward V crowned as quickly as possible because
> there
> > > remained a degree of mystique about an anointed king and
> coronation
> > > would to a certain extent protect him.
> >
> > I agree. But protect him from what???? Clearly from Richard. But
> why??
>
> The mere fact that Richard was the late king's adult brotherand the
> most powerful man in the country. Only the previous year, the Duke
of
> Albany (with English aid) had tried to topple his brother James III
> from the Scots throne. This was a time when family loyalties were
> pretty flimsy.

Actually Albany hadn't. When he reached Edinburgh found the Scottish
people, though unhappy with James, did not want him deposed, he
backed straight down.
There was up till that time no precedent for a boy king's immediate
relations deposing him. There had been no mad rush to get Henry VI
crowned within days of his father's death in case his uncles did away
with him.

To me these kind of suppositions have always seemed a bit lame. As
they have to traditionalists, which is why they fall back on the idea
that the Woodvilles knew Richard and that however nice he acted he
was really creepy.

>
>And I go back to the point that, on the
> dates, it is very far from impossible that the Duke of York was
> Edward's father. If the 'gap' we are talking about was two or three
> months, I would have no difficulty in accepting the Jones thesis,
but
> we talking about something which is barely outside 'normal' limits,
> and not inconsistent with a healthy child.

As I say, for me it's the whole picture, taken with the fact that
Blayburn got the prime-time slot.

>
>
>
> if there were
> positive reasons for doubt, surely he would have done something
about
> it, i.e. repudiated his wife and her bastard. Yes, Cecily had
> powerful relations, but would they not also have been horrified at
> her actions?

No. They wouldn't have approved, but I suggest to you that sex, and
adultery, were not invented in the 1960s. And people tend to support
their own. They'd probably have blamed that nasty low-life Blayburn,
and would certainly have wanted to hush it up. Indeed, I suspect this
is how Richard came to terms with it, by blaming her lover. Hence his
horror of (male) adulterers like Dorset who "hath many and sundry
maids, widows and wives damnably and without shame devoured,
deflowered and defouled...."
> >
> > There is more to human life than paternity. And more to kingship.
>
> Very true, but in a society where position was very much based on
> heredity, paternity was far more important than it is now, and this
> is something we cannot ignore.

Which is why I ask you, if denouncing wife and child was the way it
was done, then there should be loads of examples. Hushing things up
was the way things were done. Even today people can get a VERY
guarded response from elderly relatives if they say they're going to
research their family history. Said oldies assume there are bound to
be lots of things covered up that you really won't want to find out
about, even when it turns out there's nothing at all.

However, as regards Richard's visit to his mother in 1485, you will
be relieved to know that it does only seem to have been a one-
nighter, and not actually out of his way. He was at Windsor, not
London, before he set off for the midlands, and before going on to
Nottingham he stayed at Kenilworth, which is on or near Watling
Street. So he seems to have left Windsor on 16 May, staying at
Berhamsted on 17th. By 22nd he was at Kenilworth. It is about 30
miles from Windsor to Berkhamsted, quite a long stretch. From
Berkhamsted to Kenilworth is 85 miles, so he would have wanted a good
4 days for that, which means he probably left Berkhamsted again on
18th.
Bear in mind, however, that his mother was "retired from the world",
and that Berkhamstead was a semi ruin and not equipped to put up such
a large visiting party. That he stopped with her at all is perhaps
the surprise. I suspect he may have gone on from Windsor to
Berkhamsted with a small advance party, which is why he made such
good time.

Marie

> >
> > I'm not going to argue with the theory, which makes a good deal
of
> > sense, but Edward and Richard did have the same mother... Yes, I
> > know, she may have behaved somewhat differently towards them as
> > individuals (as a first-born I note cynically that younger
siblings
> > tend to have a much easier time of it).
>
> Indeed they did have the same mother. And if they had very
different
> experiences of her maternal feelings, might there be any reason,
> apart from just position in the family (youngest sons admittedly do
> tend to get spoilt)?

From personal experience, I would suggest that position in the
family, and growing up in a very different milieu could well be
enough to account for the differences between them. Edward had a
living father until he was 18, and the Duke of York was a powerful
man, whereas Richard's early life was literally torn apart when he
was eight. My brother and I, rather less than three years apart, are
completely different people (and, yes, he was thoroughly spoilt!) You
would have to take a close look at some large families.


> > I'm quite happy to accept the dates of Richard's time in
Warwick's
> > household as 1465-68ish.
>
> In May 1468 he accompanied Margaret to Margate on her wedding
> journey, although since it was such a momentous family occasion,
and
> since Warwick was also there, this can't be taken as evidence that
he
> had left Warwick's household. He returned to London with Edward and
> Clarence.
>
> Hughes says Richard was welcomed into York in 1468 (but he doesn't
> give a date) and left Warwick's household in the spring of 1469.
>
> Certainly you have the first "Robin" trouble early in 1469, and
> Warwick was abroad a lot at that time. And on 14 May Richard made
an
> indenture with Lady Hungerford regarding the lands of her recently
> executed husband (many of which had been granted to Richard). This
> suggests to me he was independent and in the South.
>
> On 6 June Edward, with Richard, left London for East Anglia. (He
was
> to stay at Fotheringhay during this visit, though his mother was in
> the south, so I presume he must already have taken the castle off
> her).
>
> After the King had gone Cecily visited Clarence, who was with
Warwick
> at Sandwich - she passed through Canterbury on 14-15, telling the
> monks she was going to see Clarence; if she gave a reason they did
> not record it. At this point their treason was not public; had
Cecily
> been aware of it and gonme to talk Clarence back to his allegiance
> she would have warned Edward. But she didn't leave Canterbury for
> London on her return until 21st, and Edward seems to have been
> unaware of their involvement in the insurrections until their
> manifesto of 12 July; so it looks as though Jones is probably right
> in suggesting that Cecily was a fellow-conspirator at this stage.
>

I wonder. It's possible that the Duchess just didn't know about it at
that stage.

>
> What I was trying to say is that people's actions are determined by
> what they believe to be true, which is not necessarily what is true.

Very true. The longer I live, the more I come to believe that people
have an almost infinite capacity for deluding themselves, especially
where the actions of their relations are concerned!

> So whether or not Cecily slept with Blayburn, Richard would have
> heard the accusation and had to make up his own mind. We know
> Clarence chose to believe it and claim the throne, and Warwick
chose
> to back him. We know Richard chose to stick by Edward.

Two possibilities here. One that the allegation was not true in the
first place, the second that it was true but Richard was too blindly
devoted to his mother to realise that. Despite what I have just said
above, to my mind the first possibility makes more sense.
>
>
>

Only the previous year, the Duke
> of
> > Albany (with English aid) had tried to topple his brother James
III
> > from the Scots throne. This was a time when family loyalties were
> > pretty flimsy.
>
> Actually Albany hadn't. When he reached Edinburgh found the
Scottish
> people, though unhappy with James, did not want him deposed, he
> backed straight down.

Yes and no. With English support, Albany proclaimed himself King of
Scots while still in England, and concluded a treaty under which he
would make various concessions to the English once he was safely
installed on the throne. Once he got to Edinburgh he backed down, but
he was once again scheming against James in the early months of 1483 -
he invited an English garrison into his castle at Dunbar, and only
seems to have given up his anti-James activitiers as a result of
Edward's unexpected death.

> There was up till that time no precedent for a boy king's immediate
> relations deposing him. There had been no mad rush to get Henry VI
> crowned within days of his father's death in case his uncles did
away
> with him.
>
True, but there was nothing illogical in being concerned about the
possibility.

> To me these kind of suppositions have always seemed a bit lame. As
> they have to traditionalists, which is why they fall back on the
idea
> that the Woodvilles knew Richard and that however nice he acted he
> was really creepy.
>
> >
> >And I go back to the point that, on the
> > dates, it is very far from impossible that the Duke of York was
> > Edward's father. If the 'gap' we are talking about was two or
three
> > months, I would have no difficulty in accepting the Jones thesis,
> but
> > we talking about something which is barely outside 'normal'
limits,
> > and not inconsistent with a healthy child.
>
> As I say, for me it's the whole picture, taken with the fact that
> Blayburn got the prime-time slot.
>
I do have a contact who is a historically-minded forensic
pathologist. I am going to contact him and see if he knows of any
historically-minded gynaecologists who can give an expert opinion on
the time factor.
> >
> >
> > if there were
> > positive reasons for doubt, surely he would have done something
> about
> > it, i.e. repudiated his wife and her bastard. Yes, Cecily had
> > powerful relations, but would they not also have been horrified
at
> > her actions?
>
> No. They wouldn't have approved, but I suggest to you that sex, and
> adultery, were not invented in the 1960s. And people tend to
support
> their own. They'd probably have blamed that nasty low-life
Blayburn,
> and would certainly have wanted to hush it up. Indeed, I suspect
this
> is how Richard came to terms with it, by blaming her lover. Hence
his
> horror of (male) adulterers like Dorset who "hath many and sundry
> maids, widows and wives damnably and without shame devoured,
> deflowered and defouled...."

Possibly.
> > >
> However, as regards Richard's visit to his mother in 1485, you will
> be relieved to know that it does only seem to have been a one-
> nighter, and not actually out of his way. He was at Windsor, not
> London, before he set off for the midlands, and before going on to
> Nottingham he stayed at Kenilworth, which is on or near Watling
> Street. So he seems to have left Windsor on 16 May, staying at
> Berhamsted on 17th. By 22nd he was at Kenilworth. It is about 30
> miles from Windsor to Berkhamsted, quite a long stretch. From
> Berkhamsted to Kenilworth is 85 miles, so he would have wanted a
good
> 4 days for that, which means he probably left Berkhamsted again on
> 18th.
> Bear in mind, however, that his mother was "retired from the
world",
> and that Berkhamstead was a semi ruin and not equipped to put up
such
> a large visiting party. That he stopped with her at all is perhaps
> the surprise. I suspect he may have gone on from Windsor to
> Berkhamsted with a small advance party, which is why he made such
> good time.
>
That makes sense. I think when trying to work out speed of travel, we
have to bear in mind that, in settled conditions at least, 'great
men' such as Richard, Warwick etc, might routinely have gone ahead
with a smallish escort, leaving the main body to follow behind, and
the heavy baggage even further behind.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not going to argue with the theory, which makes a good deal
> of
> > > sense, but Edward and Richard did have the same mother... Yes,
I
> > > know, she may have behaved somewhat differently towards them as
> > > individuals (as a first-born I note cynically that younger
> siblings
> > > tend to have a much easier time of it).
> >
> > Indeed they did have the same mother. And if they had very
> different
> > experiences of her maternal feelings, might there be any reason,
> > apart from just position in the family (youngest sons admittedly
do
> > tend to get spoilt)?
>
> From personal experience, I would suggest that position in the
> family, and growing up in a very different milieu could well be
> enough to account for the differences between them. Edward had a
> living father until he was 18, and the Duke of York was a powerful
> man, whereas Richard's early life was literally torn apart when he
> was eight. My brother and I, rather less than three years apart,
are
> completely different people (and, yes, he was thoroughly spoilt!)
You
> would have to take a close look at some large families.

Eldest children are supposed to be generally rather conservative and
averse to risk-taking, all expectations having been on them from an
early age, and parents more anxious at each stage of their
uprbringing. Doesn't really describe Edward, though, does it?
Of course in your family as in mine the eldest son is also the
youngest.


>
>
> > > I'm quite happy to accept the dates of Richard's time in
> Warwick's
> > > household as 1465-68ish.
> >
> > In May 1468 he accompanied Margaret to Margate on her wedding
> > journey, although since it was such a momentous family occasion,
> and
> > since Warwick was also there, this can't be taken as evidence
that
> he
> > had left Warwick's household. He returned to London with Edward
and
> > Clarence.
> >
> > Hughes says Richard was welcomed into York in 1468 (but he
doesn't
> > give a date) and left Warwick's household in the spring of 1469.
> >
> > Certainly you have the first "Robin" trouble early in 1469, and
> > Warwick was abroad a lot at that time. And on 14 May Richard made
> an
> > indenture with Lady Hungerford regarding the lands of her
recently
> > executed husband (many of which had been granted to Richard).
This
> > suggests to me he was independent and in the South.
> >
> > On 6 June Edward, with Richard, left London for East Anglia. (He
> was
> > to stay at Fotheringhay during this visit, though his mother was
in
> > the south, so I presume he must already have taken the castle off
> > her).
> >
> > After the King had gone Cecily visited Clarence, who was with
> Warwick
> > at Sandwich - she passed through Canterbury on 14-15, telling the
> > monks she was going to see Clarence; if she gave a reason they
did
> > not record it. At this point their treason was not public; had
> Cecily
> > been aware of it and gonme to talk Clarence back to his
allegiance
> > she would have warned Edward. But she didn't leave Canterbury for
> > London on her return until 21st, and Edward seems to have been
> > unaware of their involvement in the insurrections until their
> > manifesto of 12 July; so it looks as though Jones is probably
right
> > in suggesting that Cecily was a fellow-conspirator at this stage.
> >
>
> I wonder. It's possible that the Duchess just didn't know about it
at
> that stage.


What was she doing scooting down to Sandwich to see Clarence, then? I
don't think this was a social call. Nobody has ever assumed it had
NOTHING to do with what was going on. Scofield is quite clear that
the Canterbury records give no reason for her intention to go on to
Sandwich, but that hasn't stopped later writers making assumptions -
Kendal and everybody since assuming she was trying to talk him round,
now Jones assuming she was on Clarence & Warwick's side. The fact
that Edward seems to have remained unaware of any problems is a bit
of a problem for the first interpretation.

>
> >
> > What I was trying to say is that people's actions are determined
by
> > what they believe to be true, which is not necessarily what is
true.
>
> Very true. The longer I live, the more I come to believe that
people
> have an almost infinite capacity for deluding themselves,
especially
> where the actions of their relations are concerned!
>
> > So whether or not Cecily slept with Blayburn, Richard would have
> > heard the accusation and had to make up his own mind. We know
> > Clarence chose to believe it and claim the throne, and Warwick
> chose
> > to back him. We know Richard chose to stick by Edward.
>
> Two possibilities here. One that the allegation was not true in the
> first place, the second that it was true but Richard was too
blindly
> devoted to his mother to realise that. Despite what I have just
said
> above, to my mind the first possibility makes more sense.

I still don't think you've quite got my point. My point is that
whether it was true or false doesn't help us understand Richard''s
action. Richard had no way of proving whether it was true or false.
So he had to make a judgement about a) whether he believed it, and b)
what he whould do about it if he did.


> >
> >
> >
>
> Only the previous year, the Duke
> > of
> > > Albany (with English aid) had tried to topple his brother James
> III
> > > from the Scots throne. This was a time when family loyalties
were
> > > pretty flimsy.
> >
> > Actually Albany hadn't. When he reached Edinburgh found the
> Scottish
> > people, though unhappy with James, did not want him deposed, he
> > backed straight down.
>
> Yes and no. With English support, Albany proclaimed himself King of
> Scots while still in England, and concluded a treaty under which he
> would make various concessions to the English once he was safely
> installed on the throne. Once he got to Edinburgh he backed down,
but
> he was once again scheming against James in the early months of
1483 -
> he invited an English garrison into his castle at Dunbar, and only
> seems to have given up his anti-James activitiers as a result of
> Edward's unexpected death.
>
> > There was up till that time no precedent for a boy king's
immediate
> > relations deposing him. There had been no mad rush to get Henry
VI
> > crowned within days of his father's death in case his uncles did
> away
> > with him.
> >
> True, but there was nothing illogical in being concerned about the
> possibility.
>
> > To me these kind of suppositions have always seemed a bit lame.
As
> > they have to traditionalists, which is why they fall back on the
> idea
> > that the Woodvilles knew Richard and that however nice he acted
he
> > was really creepy.

Indeed, I can add to that that Jonathan Hughes actually believed in
the precontract and still thought Richard had to be a pretty creepy
character, as he discerns a belief in himself as the person called by
God to put right the wrongs of the time (ie as king) even before
Edward's death, and therefore before he knew of the precontract.
Since Hughes knew of no legitimate reason why he would feel like that
he concludes that Richard must have had dangerous messianic
tendencies.
I can't find the quote here, but he suggests that Richard had a
fanatical religious devotion to the anointing of the king, and so was
not prepared to challnge Edward's position but would wait until his
death in order to become God's anointed himself.
It seems to me that this is the key to what has puzzled you - ie why
Richard would continue to support Edward if he knew he was not a real
York. The other aspect to kingship was the coronation and anointing.
Edward was God's anointed. Richard may have been against deposing
anointed kings. After all, his father York had in 1460 settled for
inheriting the throne on Henry VI's death, only Margaret wouldn't
accept this. When Edward made himself king he was setting aside this
agreement (it has to be said there was little choice). Richard's
problem in 1469 was that there were two anointed kings alive, so his
only choice was between Edward and Henry - not much choice for a
York, eh? However, Richard had Henry's body reburied at Windsor by
Edward IV, so this suggests some reverence for him as a king. This,
together with an idea that Richard knew of some impediment to Edward
V's hereditary claim, would also explain the Woodvilles' rush to get
him crowned before Gloucester could get involved.

> >
> > >
> > >And I go back to the point that, on the
> > > dates, it is very far from impossible that the Duke of York was
> > > Edward's father. If the 'gap' we are talking about was two or
> three
> > > months, I would have no difficulty in accepting the Jones
thesis,
> > but
> > > we talking about something which is barely outside 'normal'
> limits,
> > > and not inconsistent with a healthy child.
> >
> > As I say, for me it's the whole picture, taken with the fact that
> > Blayburn got the prime-time slot.
> >
> I do have a contact who is a historically-minded forensic
> pathologist. I am going to contact him and see if he knows of any
> historically-minded gynaecologists who can give an expert opinion
on
> the time factor.

Some rough statistics is all we'll get, and I assure you they will
confirm that most babies are born nearer to due date. They will not
rule out the possibility of Edward being York's son so you will need
to decide whether you will be swayed at all by the statistical
probablities. It seems at present that provided there is a physical
possibility that York could have fathered Edward you will be happy
that he did, so I'm not sure that this is going to move things on.
However, I'd be very interested if you could get some figures. I have
read some stat. quoted in a pregnancy book at one time, but
unfortunately I have thrown it out since.

> > >
> > >
> > > if there were
> > > positive reasons for doubt, surely he would have done something
> > about
> > > it, i.e. repudiated his wife and her bastard. Yes, Cecily had
> > > powerful relations, but would they not also have been horrified
> at
> > > her actions?
> >
> > No. They wouldn't have approved, but I suggest to you that sex,
and
> > adultery, were not invented in the 1960s. And people tend to
> support
> > their own. They'd probably have blamed that nasty low-life
> Blayburn,
> > and would certainly have wanted to hush it up. Indeed, I suspect
> this
> > is how Richard came to terms with it, by blaming her lover. Hence
> his
> > horror of (male) adulterers like Dorset who "hath many and sundry
> > maids, widows and wives damnably and without shame devoured,
> > deflowered and defouled...."
>
> Possibly.
> > > >
> > However, as regards Richard's visit to his mother in 1485, you
will
> > be relieved to know that it does only seem to have been a one-
> > nighter, and not actually out of his way. He was at Windsor, not
> > London, before he set off for the midlands, and before going on
to
> > Nottingham he stayed at Kenilworth, which is on or near Watling
> > Street. So he seems to have left Windsor on 16 May, staying at
> > Berhamsted on 17th. By 22nd he was at Kenilworth. It is about 30
> > miles from Windsor to Berkhamsted, quite a long stretch. From
> > Berkhamsted to Kenilworth is 85 miles, so he would have wanted a
> good
> > 4 days for that, which means he probably left Berkhamsted again
on
> > 18th.
> > Bear in mind, however, that his mother was "retired from the
> world",
> > and that Berkhamstead was a semi ruin and not equipped to put up
> such
> > a large visiting party. That he stopped with her at all is
perhaps
> > the surprise. I suspect he may have gone on from Windsor to
> > Berkhamsted with a small advance party, which is why he made such
> > good time.
> >
> That makes sense. I think when trying to work out speed of travel,
we
> have to bear in mind that, in settled conditions at least, 'great
> men' such as Richard, Warwick etc, might routinely have gone ahead
> with a smallish escort, leaving the main body to follow behind, and
> the heavy baggage even further behind.

But this would be taken into account in the journey times I compiled,
and doesn't help speed up York's return to Rouen, if that is what you
have in mind. My notes obviously detail the journey stops for the
great men & women, not their baggage trains. This 30 miles was a long
first day's ride, and was not sustained; he probably did one long day
to Berkhamstead followed by a short day, in order to get a decent-
length visit at mum's. Taken over all, Richard's journey from Windsor
to Kenilworth avarages out at only 19 miles per day. The return time
from Pontoise of 4 days that I suggested was based on daily average
of 18 miles; to knock even one more day off York's return time to
Rouen you would have to up the daily AVERAGE to 26 miles, which is
significantly more than the norm.

Marie



>
> Ann

>
> Eldest children are supposed to be generally rather conservative
and
> averse to risk-taking, all expectations having been on them from an
> early age, and parents more anxious at each stage of their
> uprbringing. Doesn't really describe Edward, though, does it?
> Of course in your family as in mine the eldest son is also the
> youngest.

However, Edward wasn't the eldest, although he was the first son to
reach adulthood. He had an elder sister who survived. You mentioned
the Kennedys the other day, and JFK being a notorious womaniser,
rather like Edward. I went away wondcering whether it was something
to do with eldest child being 'dumped' by mother when the next one
arrives (as happened in my case, though without that effect), but
then remembered that JFK wasn't the eldest either (I don't know
enough about the Kennedys to know whether he had elder sisters, but
he certainly had an elder brother who was killed in the war). I
understand that Joseph Kennedy was also a great womaniser, so perhaps
JFK was just following paternal example. Difficult to say that of the
Duke of York, however.



> What was she doing scooting down to Sandwich to see Clarence, then?
I
> don't think this was a social call. Nobody has ever assumed it had
> NOTHING to do with what was going on. Scofield is quite clear that
> the Canterbury records give no reason for her intention to go on to
> Sandwich, but that hasn't stopped later writers making assumptions -

> Kendal and everybody since assuming she was trying to talk him
round,
> now Jones assuming she was on Clarence & Warwick's side. The fact
> that Edward seems to have remained unaware of any problems is a bit
> of a problem for the first interpretation.
>
True. A lot depends on whether the Duchess was in the habit of
visiting her various offspring, and I suspect we just haven't the
information to decide whether this is the case or not. Of course, it
is possible that the Duchess was aware of Clarence's impending
marriage, but no more.



>
> I still don't think you've quite got my point. My point is that
> whether it was true or false doesn't help us understand Richard''s
> action. Richard had no way of proving whether it was true or false.
>
Didn't he? His mother was avaialble to be asked. Not an easy thing to
do, I admit, but not totally out of the question, as it would have
been if she had been dead by then.
>
> > >
>
> Indeed, I can add to that that Jonathan Hughes actually believed in
> the precontract and still thought Richard had to be a pretty creepy
> character, as he discerns a belief in himself as the person called
by
> God to put right the wrongs of the time (ie as king) even before
> Edward's death, and therefore before he knew of the precontract.
> Since Hughes knew of no legitimate reason why he would feel like
that
> he concludes that Richard must have had dangerous messianic
> tendencies.
> I can't find the quote here, but he suggests that Richard had a
> fanatical religious devotion to the anointing of the king, and so
was
> not prepared to challnge Edward's position but would wait until his
> death in order to become God's anointed himself.
> It seems to me that this is the key to what has puzzled you - ie
why
> Richard would continue to support Edward if he knew he was not a
real
> York. The other aspect to kingship was the coronation and
anointing.
> Edward was God's anointed. Richard may have been against deposing
> anointed kings. After all, his father York had in 1460 settled for
> inheriting the throne on Henry VI's death, only Margaret wouldn't
> accept this. When Edward made himself king he was setting aside
this
> agreement (it has to be said there was little choice). Richard's
> problem in 1469 was that there were two anointed kings alive, so
his
> only choice was between Edward and Henry - not much choice for a
> York, eh? However, Richard had Henry's body reburied at Windsor by
> Edward IV, so this suggests some reverence for him as a king. This,
> together with an idea that Richard knew of some impediment to
Edward
> V's hereditary claim, would also explain the Woodvilles' rush to
get
> him crowned before Gloucester could get involved.
>
It might, but it's not the only possible explanation. I can't help
thinking that we have something of a parallel here with the
conspiracy theory over Diana. In her case, there seems to be a sense
that nobody as remarkable as she was could die in an ordinarily messy
fashion, therefore there must have been a deep-laid plot. Similarly,
there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the evidence we have of
what happened and the way people behaved, therefore there must be one
over-arching factor to explain it all.
> > > >
> > I do have a contact who is a historically-minded forensic
> > pathologist. I am going to contact him and see if he knows of any
> > historically-minded gynaecologists who can give an expert opinion
> on
> > the time factor.
>
> Some rough statistics is all we'll get, and I assure you they will
> confirm that most babies are born nearer to due date. They will not
> rule out the possibility of Edward being York's son so you will
need
> to decide whether you will be swayed at all by the statistical
> probablities. It seems at present that provided there is a physical
> possibility that York could have fathered Edward you will be happy
> that he did, so I'm not sure that this is going to move things on.

A realistic physical possibility.

> However, I'd be very interested if you could get some figures. I
have
> read some stat. quoted in a pregnancy book at one time, but
> unfortunately I have thrown it out since.
>
I will certainly let you know when I get some figures, though,
obviously, it may take some time.

> > >
I think when trying to work out speed of travel,
> we
> > have to bear in mind that, in settled conditions at least, 'great
> > men' such as Richard, Warwick etc, might routinely have gone
ahead
> > with a smallish escort, leaving the main body to follow behind,
and
> > the heavy baggage even further behind.
>
> But this would be taken into account in the journey times I
compiled,
> and doesn't help speed up York's return to Rouen, if that is what
you
> have in mind. My notes obviously detail the journey stops for the
> great men & women, not their baggage trains. This 30 miles was a
long
> first day's ride, and was not sustained; he probably did one long
day
> to Berkhamstead followed by a short day, in order to get a decent-
> length visit at mum's. Taken over all, Richard's journey from
Windsor
> to Kenilworth avarages out at only 19 miles per day. The return
time
> from Pontoise of 4 days that I suggested was based on daily average
> of 18 miles; to knock even one more day off York's return time to
> Rouen you would have to up the daily AVERAGE to 26 miles, which is
> significantly more than the norm.
>
Is there any difference in the details you have between long
journeys - say, a week or more - and shorter ones? To me it would
make sense to push on faster on a journey which isn't going to last
very long, on the basis that you don't have to 'nurse' your horses
along to the same extent, and everybody will be able to have a break
when you arrive at the destination.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Eldest children are supposed to be generally rather conservative
> and
> > averse to risk-taking, all expectations having been on them from
an
> > early age, and parents more anxious at each stage of their
> > uprbringing. Doesn't really describe Edward, though, does it?
> > Of course in your family as in mine the eldest son is also the
> > youngest.
>
> However, Edward wasn't the eldest, although he was the first son to
> reach adulthood. He had an elder sister who survived.

Yes, but he was, at least from the age of three, the eldest son and
the heir, which would put a lot on him that wouldn't have applied to
Anne. I think a lot of the data on this has also been ocmpiled from
historical sources, where of necessity they've really been looking at
the boys in the family. Certainly Edward's formative years were very
much more secure than Richard's, and this would go a long way towards
explaining his more laid-back approach to life.

You mentioned
> the Kennedys the other day, and JFK being a notorious womaniser,
> rather like Edward. I went away wondcering whether it was something
> to do with eldest child being 'dumped' by mother when the next one
> arrives (as happened in my case, though without that effect), but
> then remembered that JFK wasn't the eldest either (I don't know
> enough about the Kennedys to know whether he had elder sisters, but
> he certainly had an elder brother who was killed in the war). I
> understand that Joseph Kennedy was also a great womaniser, so
perhaps
> JFK was just following paternal example. Difficult to say that of
the
> Duke of York, however.

Indeed. No, I heard a review recently of a new book on JFK.
Apparently his mother was quite vicious to him, and the writer''
theory is that, in the way of guys, who tend to confuse their wives
with their mothers, he got his own back by humiliating Jackie with
his affairs. It just occurred to me that Edward might have been doing
the same, particularly in the way he involved Elizabeth's son
(Dorset) in his womanising.
On the other hand, if JFK were simply taking after his father, then
maybe Edward was taking after his (real) father too.
>
>
> > What was she doing scooting down to Sandwich to see Clarence,
then?
> I
> > don't think this was a social call. Nobody has ever assumed it
had
> > NOTHING to do with what was going on. Scofield is quite clear
that
> > the Canterbury records give no reason for her intention to go on
to
> > Sandwich, but that hasn't stopped later writers making
assumptions -
>
> > Kendal and everybody since assuming she was trying to talk him
> round,
> > now Jones assuming she was on Clarence & Warwick's side. The fact
> > that Edward seems to have remained unaware of any problems is a
bit
> > of a problem for the first interpretation.
> >
> True. A lot depends on whether the Duchess was in the habit of
> visiting her various offspring, and I suspect we just haven't the
> information to decide whether this is the case or not. Of course,
it
> is possible that the Duchess was aware of Clarence's impending
> marriage, but no more.

If there wasn't a complete rift with Edward, it's funny that she
didn't choose to follow him and Richard on their pilgrimage to Bury
St Edmunds & Walsingham, which was to wind up at Fotheringhay. (It
seems the plan was probably to go north after that to deal with the
disturbances.)

There was also trouble at sea with France at this time. On 22 May Sir
John Paston wrote from Windsor "as for the King, he departeth to
Waalsingham upon Friday come seven night [ie 2 June], and the Queen
also if God send her good health. And, as for the King, he was
appointed to go to Calais, and now it is put off. And also, as for
the going to the sea, my Lord of Warwick's ships goeth to the sea, as
I understand."

So Warwick was in Sandwich, ostensibly readying vessels to take to
sea against the French.

Edward actually left Windsor on 6th June, being entertained by George
Neville at The Moor on 7th (GN promising to join Edward in the north).
As soon as he had gone, Clarence set off to join Warwick in Sandwich,
passing through Canterbury and reaching Sandwich on 9th. George
Neville also went down to Sandwich as soon as Edward had left, the
excuse being a big holiday held for the blessing of the newly-readied
flagship The Trinity - it was George Neville who blessed the ship and
said High Mass on board, though his presence appears to have been
superfluous as Warwick already had the Bishop of London down there
with him.
Two days later, Cecily arrived in Canterbury. She stayed at Christ
Church Abbey and told the monks she was going to see Clarence. She
set out for Sandwich the next day (15th). She didn't get back to
Canterbury until the 19th. It is only 14 1/2 miles from Canterbury to
Sandwich so she was probably in Sandwich from late on 15th until the
morning of the 19th. On 21st Warwick and Clarence went up to
Canterbury; Cecily left for London the same day, and the next day
(22nd) Warwick and Clarence went on to Clarence's castle of
Queenborough (further up the Kent coast).

At what date I am not clear, the Countess of Warwick also went down
to Sandwich, presumably with Isabel. She does not seem to have
travelled with Cecily, but it is possible that their paths crossed at
some point.

By 28th June Warwick was also back in London (remember Cecily had
also returned to London). From here he wrote to Coventry saying that
he and Clarence intended to join Edward in the north "after the
solemnisation of the marriage by God's grace in short time to be had,
between my said lord and my daughter". He bade them have a band of
men ready to accompany him. The messenger might have reached the city
in 3 days (it is 100 miles from London to Coventry), and they could
have got word to Edward in another day had they wanted, so Warwick
was risking Edward finding out about the planned marriage by 2nd
July. However, the news seems not to have been officially passed on.

On 4th July Warwick and Clarence wre back in Canterbury, and on the
6th they crossed to Calais for the marriage, which took place on the
11th.

By 9th July Edward had reached Nottingham and had finally
heard "rumour" there that something was afoot involving Warwick,
Clarence and George Neville; he wrote to all three saying he hoped
the rumours weren't true and assuring them they would be "right
welcome" if they were to come to him. He reminded George Neville of
his promise to join him. So even now he doesn't seem to be aware they
had gone over to Calais.

Cecily does seem to have been close to Clarence and Warwick for a lot
of this period, and does not seem to have passed on whatever she knew
or suspected to the King.



>
>
>
> >
> > I still don't think you've quite got my point. My point is that
> > whether it was true or false doesn't help us understand
Richard''s
> > action. Richard had no way of proving whether it was true or
false.
> >
> Didn't he? His mother was avaialble to be asked. Not an easy thing
to
> do, I admit, but not totally out of the question, as it would have
> been if she had been dead by then.

She was available only once Richard had left Warwick's household,
which would apparently not have been until early 1469. VERY difficult
in any short meetings they may have had when he was Warwick's ward.
And then if she told him it wasn't true he had to decide whether to
believe her - after all she had apparently already told Edward the
opposite. Clarence's bidding for the throne was so consistent that I
really think he did believe in his claim. Also, the Ankarette Twynyho
thing, and his apparent plan to smuggle his heir abroad, suggest he
felt Edward was mortally afraid not only of him but of all his issue.
Now Clarence may have just been barmy. But maybe he wasn't.


> >
> > > >
> >
> > Indeed, I can add to that that Jonathan Hughes actually believed
in
> > the precontract and still thought Richard had to be a pretty
creepy
> > character, as he discerns a belief in himself as the person
called
> by
> > God to put right the wrongs of the time (ie as king) even before
> > Edward's death, and therefore before he knew of the precontract.
> > Since Hughes knew of no legitimate reason why he would feel like
> that
> > he concludes that Richard must have had dangerous messianic
> > tendencies.
> > I can't find the quote here, but he suggests that Richard had a
> > fanatical religious devotion to the anointing of the king, and so
> was
> > not prepared to challnge Edward's position but would wait until
his
> > death in order to become God's anointed himself.
> > It seems to me that this is the key to what has puzzled you - ie
> why
> > Richard would continue to support Edward if he knew he was not a
> real
> > York. The other aspect to kingship was the coronation and
> anointing.
> > Edward was God's anointed. Richard may have been against deposing
> > anointed kings. After all, his father York had in 1460 settled
for
> > inheriting the throne on Henry VI's death, only Margaret wouldn't
> > accept this. When Edward made himself king he was setting aside
> this
> > agreement (it has to be said there was little choice). Richard's
> > problem in 1469 was that there were two anointed kings alive, so
> his
> > only choice was between Edward and Henry - not much choice for a
> > York, eh? However, Richard had Henry's body reburied at Windsor
by
> > Edward IV, so this suggests some reverence for him as a king.
This,
> > together with an idea that Richard knew of some impediment to
> Edward
> > V's hereditary claim, would also explain the Woodvilles' rush to
> get
> > him crowned before Gloucester could get involved.
> >
> It might, but it's not the only possible explanation. I can't help
> thinking that we have something of a parallel here with the
> conspiracy theory over Diana. In her case, there seems to be a
sense
> that nobody as remarkable as she was could die in an ordinarily
messy
> fashion, therefore there must have been a deep-laid plot.
Similarly,
> there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the evidence we have of
> what happened and the way people behaved, therefore there must be
one
> over-arching factor to explain it all.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't tend to rush after every consiparcy
theory. I don't think there's much behind this Diana one. Clearly the
driver was drunk and they were being chased by paparazzi. She made a
lot of odd attention-seeking claims which are not borne out by the
facts, but if she was really frightened that someone was trying to
kill her in her car she would perhaps have got in the habit of
wearing a seatbelt.

Neither do I believe the Kennedy conspiracy theories.

I occasionally smell something fishy with the verdict in a well -
ublicised case or other, and time and again I have been proved right
so I don't think my judgement's that unsound.

It isn't a case of conspiracy theories, but where a particular
interpretation gives a consistent resolution to problematical events
it seems to me it is to be preferred to one that demands a different
(and sometimes lame) explanation at every turn. And that a theory
which allows most individuals to be acting rationally is preferable
to one which dictates that the majority of players have to be
unstable, flighty, unpredictable, inscrutable or even inclined to
flights of messianic fanaticism.

> > > > >
> > > I do have a contact who is a historically-minded forensic
> > > pathologist. I am going to contact him and see if he knows of
any
> > > historically-minded gynaecologists who can give an expert
opinion
> > on
> > > the time factor.
> >
> > Some rough statistics is all we'll get, and I assure you they
will
> > confirm that most babies are born nearer to due date. They will
not
> > rule out the possibility of Edward being York's son so you will
> need
> > to decide whether you will be swayed at all by the statistical
> > probablities. It seems at present that provided there is a
physical
> > possibility that York could have fathered Edward you will be
happy
> > that he did, so I'm not sure that this is going to move things on.
>
> A realistic physical possibility.

Please bear in mind when you ask your question that the statisitcal
likelihood of York's impregnating Cecily on the night of his return
is in itself low.

>
> > However, I'd be very interested if you could get some figures. I
> have
> > read some stat. quoted in a pregnancy book at one time, but
> > unfortunately I have thrown it out since.
> >
> I will certainly let you know when I get some figures, though,
> obviously, it may take some time.
>
> > > >
> I think when trying to work out speed of travel,
> > we
> > > have to bear in mind that, in settled conditions at
least, 'great
> > > men' such as Richard, Warwick etc, might routinely have gone
> ahead
> > > with a smallish escort, leaving the main body to follow behind,
> and
> > > the heavy baggage even further behind.
> >
> > But this would be taken into account in the journey times I
> compiled,
> > and doesn't help speed up York's return to Rouen, if that is what
> you
> > have in mind. My notes obviously detail the journey stops for the
> > great men & women, not their baggage trains. This 30 miles was a
> long
> > first day's ride, and was not sustained; he probably did one long
> day
> > to Berkhamstead followed by a short day, in order to get a decent-
> > length visit at mum's. Taken over all, Richard's journey from
> Windsor
> > to Kenilworth avarages out at only 19 miles per day. The return
> time
> > from Pontoise of 4 days that I suggested was based on daily
average
> > of 18 miles; to knock even one more day off York's return time to
> > Rouen you would have to up the daily AVERAGE to 26 miles, which
is
> > significantly more than the norm.
> >
> Is there any difference in the details you have between long
> journeys - say, a week or more - and shorter ones? To me it would
> make sense to push on faster on a journey which isn't going to last
> very long, on the basis that you don't have to 'nurse' your horses
> along to the same extent, and everybody will be able to have a
break
> when you arrive at the destination.

Not once you get to journeys of more than a day. Certainly not over 3
or 4 days. Sorry. Saving a day would hardly make a lot of difference
so I'm not saying this to save my case.

Marie

> Indeed. No, I heard a review recently of a new book on JFK.
> Apparently his mother was quite vicious to him, and the writer''
> theory is that, in the way of guys, who tend to confuse their wives
> with their mothers, he got his own back by humiliating Jackie with
> his affairs. It just occurred to me that Edward might have been
doing
> the same, particularly in the way he involved Elizabeth's son
> (Dorset) in his womanising.

Possible, though in the way of things impossible to prove or
disprove. Of course, if this Kennedy biographer is correct, Mrs
Kennedy's actions demonstrate that not all mothers are devoted to
their offspring. What was she like with the rest of them?

> On the other hand, if JFK were simply taking after his father, then
> maybe Edward was taking after his (real) father too.

We are now in an age which seems to put almost everything anyone does
down to heredity, whereas not long ago it was environment. For what
it's worth I would have thought that compulsive womanising would tend
to be caused by environmental factors, and presumably the archer
Blaybourne was a ship that passed in the night, and it was the Duke
of York who was the male role model.

>
> > > I still don't think you've quite got my point. My point is that
> > > whether it was true or false doesn't help us understand
> Richard''s
> > > action. Richard had no way of proving whether it was true or
> false.
> > >
> > Didn't he? His mother was avaialble to be asked. Not an easy
thing
> to
> > do, I admit, but not totally out of the question, as it would
have
> > been if she had been dead by then.
>
> She was available only once Richard had left Warwick's household,
> which would apparently not have been until early 1469. VERY
difficult
> in any short meetings they may have had when he was Warwick's ward.

Would Warwick have been in a position to prevent his ward from
speaking to his mother alone?

> And then if she told him it wasn't true he had to decide whether to
> believe her - after all she had apparently already told Edward the
> opposite.

After he left Warwick's household there would surely be time - if
only at the time the crisis emerged. And if it is correct to assume
that the Duchess would have revealed 'the truth' in a penitent
fashion, she would surely not have confessed to one son and then told
another it never happened.

> Now Clarence may have just been barmy. But maybe he wasn't.
>
We just don't know. But there are people who will keep worrying away
at something long after there's ceased to be any point to it (look at
me now!).
> > >

I can't help
> > thinking that we have something of a parallel here with the
> > conspiracy theory over Diana. In her case, there seems to be a
> sense
> > that nobody as remarkable as she was could die in an ordinarily
> messy
> > fashion, therefore there must have been a deep-laid plot.
> Similarly,
> > there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the evidence we have of
> > what happened and the way people behaved, therefore there must be
> one
> > over-arching factor to explain it all.
>
> I couldn't disagree more. I don't tend to rush after every
consiparcy
> theory. I don't think there's much behind this Diana one. Clearly
the
> driver was drunk and they were being chased by paparazzi. She made
a
> lot of odd attention-seeking claims which are not borne out by the
> facts, but if she was really frightened that someone was trying to
> kill her in her car she would perhaps have got in the habit of
> wearing a seatbelt.

No, I'm not suggesting that you believe in the Diana theory, or
indeed the Kennedy one. What I am saying is that there does seem to
be a 'typical' human reaction to some events to decide that the
prosaic explanation based on available evidence isn't enough, and
then to concentrate on what is or might be inconsistent with the
prosaic explanation and look for something else.
>
> Please bear in mind when you ask your question that the statisitcal
> likelihood of York's impregnating Cecily on the night of his return
> is in itself low.
>
Statistically the chances of my father impregnating my mother on
their wedding night were probably quite low, but if he didn't manage
it then, he managed it in the course of a week's honeymoon!

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > Indeed. No, I heard a review recently of a new book on JFK.
> > Apparently his mother was quite vicious to him, and the writer''
> > theory is that, in the way of guys, who tend to confuse their
wives
> > with their mothers, he got his own back by humiliating Jackie
with
> > his affairs. It just occurred to me that Edward might have been
> doing
> > the same, particularly in the way he involved Elizabeth's son
> > (Dorset) in his womanising.
>
> Possible, though in the way of things impossible to prove or
> disprove. Of course, if this Kennedy biographer is correct, Mrs
> Kennedy's actions demonstrate that not all mothers are devoted to
> their offspring. What was she like with the rest of them?

I don't know. Of course not all women make good mothers (there is
indeed a gene for maternal instinct which apparently some women
lack). But Cecily's problems seem to have been more specifically in
her relations with Edward. What evidence we have suggests that she
was, if not close to and doting on Richard, at least supporting of
his actions, and that the two shared very closely a particular brand
of intense spiritual devotion (as did Margaret), which does imply
that she had a very personal hand in the spiritual upbringing of her
younger children at Fotheringhay and that they embraced, rather than
rejected, this in later life.
>
> > On the other hand, if JFK were simply taking after his father,
then
> > maybe Edward was taking after his (real) father too.
>
> We are now in an age which seems to put almost everything anyone
does
> down to heredity, whereas not long ago it was environment. For what
> it's worth I would have thought that compulsive womanising would
tend
> to be caused by environmental factors, and presumably the archer
> Blaybourne was a ship that passed in the night, and it was the Duke
> of York who was the male role model.

I never have fully subscribed to the all-environment theory. It's
obviously an influence, but you can't make children what they aren't,
all you can do is send them out either happy or screwed up.
Indeed York was the male role model, so if it wasn't nurture, was it
nature?

>
> >
> > > > I still don't think you've quite got my point. My point is
that
> > > > whether it was true or false doesn't help us understand
> > Richard''s
> > > > action. Richard had no way of proving whether it was true or
> > false.
> > > >
> > > Didn't he? His mother was avaialble to be asked. Not an easy
> thing
> > to
> > > do, I admit, but not totally out of the question, as it would
> have
> > > been if she had been dead by then.
> >
> > She was available only once Richard had left Warwick's household,
> > which would apparently not have been until early 1469. VERY
> difficult
> > in any short meetings they may have had when he was Warwick's
ward.
>
> Would Warwick have been in a position to prevent his ward from
> speaking to his mother alone?

I wasn't suggesting that, only that such a delicate subject would
have required time and privacy.
>
> > And then if she told him it wasn't true he had to decide whether
to
> > believe her - after all she had apparently already told Edward
the
> > opposite.
>
> After he left Warwick's household there would surely be time - if
> only at the time the crisis emerged. And if it is correct to assume
> that the Duchess would have revealed 'the truth' in a penitent
> fashion, she would surely not have confessed to one son and then
told
> another it never happened.

Sorry, are you saying you think she never said it? Then where did the
idea come from?

>
> > Now Clarence may have just been barmy. But maybe he wasn't.
> >
> We just don't know. But there are people who will keep worrying
away
> at something long after there's ceased to be any point to it (look
at
> me now!).
> > > >
>
> I can't help
> > > thinking that we have something of a parallel here with the
> > > conspiracy theory over Diana. In her case, there seems to be a
> > sense
> > > that nobody as remarkable as she was could die in an ordinarily
> > messy
> > > fashion, therefore there must have been a deep-laid plot.
> > Similarly,
> > > there are all sorts of inconsistencies in the evidence we have
of
> > > what happened and the way people behaved, therefore there must
be
> > one
> > > over-arching factor to explain it all.
> >
> > I couldn't disagree more. I don't tend to rush after every
> consiparcy
> > theory. I don't think there's much behind this Diana one. Clearly
> the
> > driver was drunk and they were being chased by paparazzi. She
made
> a
> > lot of odd attention-seeking claims which are not borne out by
the
> > facts, but if she was really frightened that someone was trying
to
> > kill her in her car she would perhaps have got in the habit of
> > wearing a seatbelt.
>
> No, I'm not suggesting that you believe in the Diana theory, or
> indeed the Kennedy one. What I am saying is that there does seem to
> be a 'typical' human reaction to some events to decide that the
> prosaic explanation based on available evidence isn't enough,

I am actually using the avaiable evidence. As are we all in
questioning the official line on Richard III anyway.

and
> then to concentrate on what is or might be inconsistent with the
> prosaic explanation and look for something else.

No looking. I disagree there. I stumbled on the closeness of the
Pontoise campaign to the period of Edward's likely conception many
many years ago. The date of return given in books then - 1st August -
seemd improbably soon; no source was ever given and it did leave a
questionmark in my head; however, I wasn't studying the Yorkist
period as such at the time so didn't think through the implications,
and by the time I came back to it the Blaybourne question had sort of
left my head.
Likewise MKJ tripped over this Rouen entry showing quite
accidentally. It really is impossible to not notice that it
complements the persistent accusations of Edward's bastardy. It IS
intriguing that it gives a ore consistent and sensible explanation
for later events.


> >
> > Please bear in mind when you ask your question that the
statisitcal
> > likelihood of York's impregnating Cecily on the night of his
return
> > is in itself low.
> >
> Statistically the chances of my father impregnating my mother on
> their wedding night were probably quite low, but if he didn't
manage
> it then, he managed it in the course of a week's honeymoon!

This has no more to do with your conception date than it has to do
with my 3-week-overdue sister.

Marie

> I don't know. Of course not all women make good mothers (there is
> indeed a gene for maternal instinct which apparently some women
> lack). But Cecily's problems seem to have been more specifically in
> her relations with Edward. What evidence we have suggests that she
> was, if not close to and doting on Richard, at least supporting of
> his actions, and that the two shared very closely a particular
brand
> of intense spiritual devotion (as did Margaret), which does imply
> that she had a very personal hand in the spiritual upbringing of
her
> younger children at Fotheringhay and that they embraced, rather
than
> rejected, this in later life.

Do we know enough about her relations with ALL her children to be
certain that there were specific problems in relation to Edward? It
does seem to be the case with some women that they lose interest in
their elder children as the younger ones arrive, and relations with
the elder ones can become very strained.


> > > On the other hand, if JFK were simply taking after his father,
> then
> > > maybe Edward was taking after his (real) father too.
> >
> > We are now in an age which seems to put almost everything anyone
> does
> > down to heredity, whereas not long ago it was environment. For
what
> > it's worth I would have thought that compulsive womanising would
> tend
> > to be caused by environmental factors, and presumably the archer
> > Blaybourne was a ship that passed in the night, and it was the
Duke
> > of York who was the male role model.
>
> I never have fully subscribed to the all-environment theory. It's
> obviously an influence, but you can't make children what they
aren't,
> all you can do is send them out either happy or screwed up.
> Indeed York was the male role model, so if it wasn't nurture, was
it
> nature?

I'm not a subscriber to the all-environment theory either, in point
of fact. To my mind heredity and environment tend to operate together
in what may be very subtle ways; neither operates in isolation.


> >
> > After he left Warwick's household there would surely be time - if
> > only at the time the crisis emerged. And if it is correct to
assume
> > that the Duchess would have revealed 'the truth' in a penitent
> > fashion, she would surely not have confessed to one son and then
> told
> > another it never happened.
>
> Sorry, are you saying you think she never said it? Then where did
the
> idea come from?

No, I thought that what you were suggesting was that she admitted her
adultery to Edward in 1464, but told Richard something else.
>
I stumbled on the closeness of the
> Pontoise campaign to the period of Edward's likely conception many
> many years ago. The date of return given in books then - 1st
August -
> seemd improbably soon; no source was ever given and it did leave a
> questionmark in my head; however, I wasn't studying the Yorkist
> period as such at the time so didn't think through the
implications,
> and by the time I came back to it the Blaybourne question had sort
of
> left my head.
> Likewise MKJ tripped over this Rouen entry showing quite
> accidentally. It really is impossible to not notice that it
> complements the persistent accusations of Edward's bastardy. It IS
> intriguing that it gives a ore consistent and sensible explanation
> for later events.

But does it? I have to say that it by no means explains everything.
>
> > >
> > > Please bear in mind when you ask your question that the
> statisitcal
> > > likelihood of York's impregnating Cecily on the night of his
> return
> > > is in itself low.
> > >
> > Statistically the chances of my father impregnating my mother on
> > their wedding night were probably quite low, but if he didn't
> manage
> > it then, he managed it in the course of a week's honeymoon!
>
> This has no more to do with your conception date than it has to do
> with my 3-week-overdue sister.

Sorry, I don't follow. Your sister and I are proof that it is
perfectly possible for a child to be three weeks early and healthy,
or, indeed, three weeks late. The possibility that Edward IV was
similarly early or late is something that Jones does not seem to have
considered at all, but he should have borne in mind, even if only to
produce statistics to say that it is less likely than his thesis. Now
let us see if my forensic friend can put me in touch with a
gynaecologist. Necessarily, this will take some time.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know. Of course not all women make good mothers (there is
> > indeed a gene for maternal instinct which apparently some women
> > lack). But Cecily's problems seem to have been more specifically
in
> > her relations with Edward. What evidence we have suggests that
she
> > was, if not close to and doting on Richard, at least supporting
of
> > his actions, and that the two shared very closely a particular
> brand
> > of intense spiritual devotion (as did Margaret), which does imply
> > that she had a very personal hand in the spiritual upbringing of
> her
> > younger children at Fotheringhay and that they embraced, rather
> than
> > rejected, this in later life.
>
> Do we know enough about her relations with ALL her children to be
> certain that there were specific problems in relation to Edward? It
> does seem to be the case with some women that they lose interest in
> their elder children as the younger ones arrive, and relations with
> the elder ones can become very strained.

I feel you're maybe drawing on personal experience here - and that of
life in a modern private nuclear family. Coming from a family of just
two twins, I have no personal experience of life as either an older
or younger sibling, nor any experience of having been in a special
unique position in the family at any time from conception onwards! I
must admit that I've never been prone to feelings of jealousy, but I
don't know whether that comes from my nature or from my experience
growing up as a twin.
However, I have observed the results of this experience of having
nose put out of joint by younger siblings with other people, and also
experienced as a mother myself the natural tendency to focus on the
newborn, and how one's existing child - up until that point still a
baby in one's eyes - suddenly and unfairly seems huge and very grown-
up. The older child tends to be jealous anyway, and one does have to
have some self-awareness to deal with the new problem of splitting
one's attention between children whose needs are quite incompatible.
I would say that in the long run there's nothing like 20 years of
bringing up one's own family for making one more forgiving about
one's parents' faults. It's a hell of a hard job.
I would suggest, however, that the situation was entirely different
for York's sons, who would have been taken out of their mother's
household at age 7 or thereabouts as would all boys of their station.
Also, with Cecily having children every year Edward would have had no
memory of being the youngest, and the hard job of physically caring
for them was carried out by nurses, so all Cecily had to do was set
aside some time for gracious visits to the nursery/ schoolroom.
>
>
> > > > On the other hand, if JFK were simply taking after his
father,
> > then
> > > > maybe Edward was taking after his (real) father too.
> > >
> > > We are now in an age which seems to put almost everything
anyone
> > does
> > > down to heredity, whereas not long ago it was environment. For
> what
> > > it's worth I would have thought that compulsive womanising
would
> > tend
> > > to be caused by environmental factors, and presumably the
archer
> > > Blaybourne was a ship that passed in the night, and it was the
> Duke
> > > of York who was the male role model.
> >
> > I never have fully subscribed to the all-environment theory. It's
> > obviously an influence, but you can't make children what they
> aren't,
> > all you can do is send them out either happy or screwed up.
> > Indeed York was the male role model, so if it wasn't nurture, was
> it
> > nature?
>
> I'm not a subscriber to the all-environment theory either, in point
> of fact. To my mind heredity and environment tend to operate
together
> in what may be very subtle ways; neither operates in isolation.
>
>
> > >
> > > After he left Warwick's household there would surely be time -
if
> > > only at the time the crisis emerged. And if it is correct to
> assume
> > > that the Duchess would have revealed 'the truth' in a penitent
> > > fashion, she would surely not have confessed to one son and
then
> > told
> > > another it never happened.
> >
> > Sorry, are you saying you think she never said it? Then where did
> the
> > idea come from?
>
> No, I thought that what you were suggesting was that she admitted
her
> adultery to Edward in 1464, but told Richard something else.

Sorry, I though it was your suggestion that Richard would have asked
her and she could have told him it wasn't true. So if you also
believe she had told Edward the opposite. . . .


> >
> I stumbled on the closeness of the
> > Pontoise campaign to the period of Edward's likely conception
many
> > many years ago. The date of return given in books then - 1st
> August -
> > seemd improbably soon; no source was ever given and it did leave
a
> > questionmark in my head; however, I wasn't studying the Yorkist
> > period as such at the time so didn't think through the
> implications,
> > and by the time I came back to it the Blaybourne question had
sort
> of
> > left my head.
> > Likewise MKJ tripped over this Rouen entry showing quite
> > accidentally. It really is impossible to not notice that it
> > complements the persistent accusations of Edward's bastardy. It
IS
> > intriguing that it gives a ore consistent and sensible
explanation
> > for later events.
>
> But does it? I have to say that it by no means explains everything.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Please bear in mind when you ask your question that the
> > statisitcal
> > > > likelihood of York's impregnating Cecily on the night of his
> > return
> > > > is in itself low.
> > > >
> > > Statistically the chances of my father impregnating my mother
on
> > > their wedding night were probably quite low, but if he didn't
> > manage
> > > it then, he managed it in the course of a week's honeymoon!
> >
> > This has no more to do with your conception date than it has to
do
> > with my 3-week-overdue sister.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Your sister and I are proof that it is
> perfectly possible for a child to be three weeks early and healthy,
> or, indeed, three weeks late.

My sister died shortly after birth. Otherwise I might have known how
awful it is to have an older sibling!

The possibility that Edward IV was
> similarly early or late is something that Jones does not seem to
have
> considered at all, but he should have borne in mind, even if only
to
> produce statistics to say that it is less likely than his thesis.

I'd agree that that is a flaw in his arguments. But I don't just have
to follow Jones' book. I can make up my own mind. I admit that his
insinuation that a healthy child cannot possibly be born so early is
incorrect, but it IS the fact that the vast majority of healthy
children are born closer to term than that. Hard cases make bad law,
as my father-in-law is fond of saying, and yourself and my sister
represent the exceptions rather than the rule. I don't know what
statistical probability you would accept as reasonable - possibly
worth deciding in advance.
There is also, as far as late delivery is concerned, the problem for
me that I have a memory of having read somewhere that Cecily
travelled to Rouen 3 weeks behind York, and I don't know whether:
a) this is true, or
b) it would have them miss each other in Rouen. It is a bit odd that
Edward claimed to have been conceived in Hatfield before his parents
set out for Normandy.


Now
> let us see if my forensic friend can put me in touch with a
> gynaecologist. Necessarily, this will take some time.
>
> Ann

As I say, there are obviously two strands of statistics to take into
account here:
a) the probability of baby surviving unimpaired at a particular stage
of pregnancy; and
b) the probability of conception having been a possibility at all (ie
of ovulation taking place) at any randomly chosen date.

Other than that, we all just have to go along with what seems
likeliest to us personally.
I shouldn't be saying this as it's obviously a bad motive for
accepting any argument, but before Jones the most uptodate research
had already taken us back to a Richard who seemed to have been
thinking thoughts of possible kingship during Edward's lifetime. So
resisting the idea of Edward's illegitimacy might not have exactly
beneficial consequences from a Ricardian standpoint.

Marie

> >
> > Do we know enough about her relations with ALL her children to be
> > certain that there were specific problems in relation to Edward?
It
> > does seem to be the case with some women that they lose interest
in
> > their elder children as the younger ones arrive, and relations
with
> > the elder ones can become very strained.
>
> I feel you're maybe drawing on personal experience here - and that
of
> life in a modern private nuclear family. Coming from a family of
just
> two twins, I have no personal experience of life as either an older
> or younger sibling, nor any experience of having been in a special
> unique position in the family at any time from conception onwards!

I think position in family can make quite a difference to one's view
of the world. I cannot really begin to conceive what it must be like
being a twin.

I
> must admit that I've never been prone to feelings of jealousy, but
I
> don't know whether that comes from my nature or from my experience
> growing up as a twin.
> However, I have observed the results of this experience of having
> nose put out of joint by younger siblings with other people, and
also
> experienced as a mother myself the natural tendency to focus on the
> newborn, and how one's existing child - up until that point still a
> baby in one's eyes - suddenly and unfairly seems huge and very
grown-
> up. The older child tends to be jealous anyway, and one does have
to
> have some self-awareness to deal with the new problem of splitting
> one's attention between children whose needs are quite
incompatible.

> I would suggest, however, that the situation was entirely
different
> for York's sons, who would have been taken out of their mother's
> household at age 7 or thereabouts as would all boys of their
station.
> Also, with Cecily having children every year Edward would have had
no
> memory of being the youngest, and the hard job of physically caring
> for them was carried out by nurses, so all Cecily had to do was set
> aside some time for gracious visits to the nursery/ schoolroom.

I had thought of some of this. Incidentally, I have no memory of
being an only child - the gap between myself and my brother is just
that bit too short - but it is all too clear from what I have been
told and what has happened since that my nose went very badly out of
joint when he arrived. My parents, perhaps because they were both the
youngest in their respective families, never seemed to concern
themselves with what things were like for me. (Now the Duchess of
York was the youngest of 23, and the Duke of York was the younger of
two... No, I'm not going to push that point.) However, a lot can
happen up to the age of seven - isn't that what the Jesuits say?
Certainly enough for the elders to notice that during the gracious
nursery visits their mother is far more interested in the new
arrivals than in them, and imposes much more stringent standards on
them.


> >
> >
> > >
> > No, I thought that what you were suggesting was that she admitted
> her
> > adultery to Edward in 1464, but told Richard something else.
>
> Sorry, I though it was your suggestion that Richard would have
asked
> her and she could have told him it wasn't true. So if you also
> believe she had told Edward the opposite. . . .

What I am saying if that if it had been true, the Duchess would
hardly have told Edward it was true, then Richard it was not true.
Surely she would have told them both the same thing. If she had told
Richard that it was true, then he, with good reason to believe that
his mother was an honest woman, would then have been in the very
difficult position of having to reconcile this shocking news with his
sense of the mother and brother he had known up to now. I can't see
him doing this without a struggle, and without some wavering in his
allegiance to Edward.



> >
> > Sorry, I don't follow. Your sister and I are proof that it is
> > perfectly possible for a child to be three weeks early and
healthy,
> > or, indeed, three weeks late.
>
> My sister died shortly after birth. Otherwise I might have known
how
> awful it is to have an older sibling!

I had a feeling you had mentioned some time ago that your sister had
died, which was why I said 'three weeks early and healthy, or three
weeks late,' without adding 'healthy'.
>
> The possibility that Edward IV was
> > similarly early or late is something that Jones does not seem to
> have
> > considered at all, but he should have borne in mind, even if only
> to
> > produce statistics to say that it is less likely than his thesis.
>
> I'd agree that that is a flaw in his arguments. But I don't just
have
> to follow Jones' book. I can make up my own mind. I admit that his
> insinuation that a healthy child cannot possibly be born so early
is
> incorrect, but it IS the fact that the vast majority of healthy
> children are born closer to term than that. Hard cases make bad
law,
> as my father-in-law is fond of saying, and yourself and my sister
> represent the exceptions rather than the rule. I don't know what
> statistical probability you would accept as reasonable - possibly
> worth deciding in advance.
> There is also, as far as late delivery is concerned, the problem
for
> me that I have a memory of having read somewhere that Cecily
> travelled to Rouen 3 weeks behind York, and I don't know whether:
> a) this is true, or
> b) it would have them miss each other in Rouen. It is a bit odd
that
> Edward claimed to have been conceived in Hatfield before his
parents
> set out for Normandy.


>
> Now
> > let us see if my forensic friend can put me in touch with a
> > gynaecologist. Necessarily, this will take some time.
> >
> > Ann
>
> As I say, there are obviously two strands of statistics to take
into
> account here:
> a) the probability of baby surviving unimpaired at a particular
stage
> of pregnancy; and
> b) the probability of conception having been a possibility at all
(ie
> of ovulation taking place) at any randomly chosen date.

Assuming I can get in touch with a suitable person, I will put both
questions.
>
> Other than that, we all just have to go along with what seems
> likeliest to us personally.
> I shouldn't be saying this as it's obviously a bad motive for
> accepting any argument, but before Jones the most uptodate research
> had already taken us back to a Richard who seemed to have been
> thinking thoughts of possible kingship during Edward's lifetime. So
> resisting the idea of Edward's illegitimacy might not have exactly
> beneficial consequences from a Ricardian standpoint.

Depend on what we, as Ricardians, are trying to do. If what we are
trying to do is establish what really happened, there is no problem.
Speaking personally, when I started my history degree, we were told
that the historian was 'a seeker after truth', and that is what I try
to be. Given all the arguments you and I have been having over the
last few weeks, I expect you to throw up your hands in horror at this
point. But in situations where there are several possible
explanations, it is necessary to consider all the possibilities and
come to some sort of conclusion as to what is more or less likely.
Because the evidence is so limited, the conclusions will often have
to be cautious ones. To my mind Jones just hasn't gone through all
the necessary steps, and in his enthusiasm he's ignored what is not
consistent with his theory or less than consistent with his theory.
And he's been somewhat vague when it suits him; for example, he gives
no date for the Duke of York's departure from Rouen, nor for Edward's
baptism (presumably the latter at least can be found in the Rouen
records).

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Do we know enough about her relations with ALL her children to
be
> > > certain that there were specific problems in relation to
Edward?
> It
> > > does seem to be the case with some women that they lose
interest
> in
> > > their elder children as the younger ones arrive, and relations
> with
> > > the elder ones can become very strained.
> >
> > I feel you're maybe drawing on personal experience here - and
that
> of
> > life in a modern private nuclear family. Coming from a family of
> just
> > two twins, I have no personal experience of life as either an
older
> > or younger sibling, nor any experience of having been in a
special
> > unique position in the family at any time from conception
onwards!
>
> I think position in family can make quite a difference to one's
view
> of the world. I cannot really begin to conceive what it must be
like
> being a twin.
>
> I
> > must admit that I've never been prone to feelings of jealousy,
but
> I
> > don't know whether that comes from my nature or from my
experience
> > growing up as a twin.
> > However, I have observed the results of this experience of having
> > nose put out of joint by younger siblings with other people, and
> also
> > experienced as a mother myself the natural tendency to focus on
the
> > newborn, and how one's existing child - up until that point still
a
> > baby in one's eyes - suddenly and unfairly seems huge and very
> grown-
> > up. The older child tends to be jealous anyway, and one does have
> to
> > have some self-awareness to deal with the new problem of
splitting
> > one's attention between children whose needs are quite
> incompatible.
>
> > I would suggest, however, that the situation was entirely
> different
> > for York's sons, who would have been taken out of their mother's
> > household at age 7 or thereabouts as would all boys of their
> station.
> > Also, with Cecily having children every year Edward would have
had
> no
> > memory of being the youngest, and the hard job of physically
caring
> > for them was carried out by nurses, so all Cecily had to do was
set
> > aside some time for gracious visits to the nursery/ schoolroom.
>
> I had thought of some of this. Incidentally, I have no memory of
> being an only child - the gap between myself and my brother is just
> that bit too short - but it is all too clear from what I have been
> told and what has happened since that my nose went very badly out
of
> joint when he arrived. My parents, perhaps because they were both
the
> youngest in their respective families, never seemed to concern
> themselves with what things were like for me. (Now the Duchess of
> York was the youngest of 23, and the Duke of York was the younger
of
> two... No, I'm not going to push that point.) However, a lot can
> happen up to the age of seven - isn't that what the Jesuits say?
> Certainly enough for the elders to notice that during the gracious
> nursery visits their mother is far more interested in the new
> arrivals than in them, and imposes much more stringent standards on
> them.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > No, I thought that what you were suggesting was that she
admitted
> > her
> > > adultery to Edward in 1464, but told Richard something else.
> >
> > Sorry, I though it was your suggestion that Richard would have
> asked
> > her and she could have told him it wasn't true. So if you also
> > believe she had told Edward the opposite. . . .
>
> What I am saying if that if it had been true, the Duchess would
> hardly have told Edward it was true, then Richard it was not true.
> Surely she would have told them both the same thing. If she had
told
> Richard that it was true, then he, with good reason to believe that
> his mother was an honest woman, would then have been in the very
> difficult position of having to reconcile this shocking news with
his
> sense of the mother and brother he had known up to now. I can't see
> him doing this without a struggle, and without some wavering in his
> allegiance to Edward.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow. Your sister and I are proof that it is
> > > perfectly possible for a child to be three weeks early and
> healthy,
> > > or, indeed, three weeks late.
> >
> > My sister died shortly after birth. Otherwise I might have known
> how
> > awful it is to have an older sibling!
>
> I had a feeling you had mentioned some time ago that your sister
had
> died, which was why I said 'three weeks early and healthy, or three
> weeks late,' without adding 'healthy'.
> >
> > The possibility that Edward IV was
> > > similarly early or late is something that Jones does not seem
to
> > have
> > > considered at all, but he should have borne in mind, even if
only
> > to
> > > produce statistics to say that it is less likely than his
thesis.
> >
> > I'd agree that that is a flaw in his arguments. But I don't just
> have
> > to follow Jones' book. I can make up my own mind. I admit that
his
> > insinuation that a healthy child cannot possibly be born so early
> is
> > incorrect, but it IS the fact that the vast majority of healthy
> > children are born closer to term than that. Hard cases make bad
> law,
> > as my father-in-law is fond of saying, and yourself and my sister
> > represent the exceptions rather than the rule. I don't know what
> > statistical probability you would accept as reasonable - possibly
> > worth deciding in advance.
> > There is also, as far as late delivery is concerned, the problem
> for
> > me that I have a memory of having read somewhere that Cecily
> > travelled to Rouen 3 weeks behind York, and I don't know whether:
> > a) this is true, or
> > b) it would have them miss each other in Rouen. It is a bit odd
> that
> > Edward claimed to have been conceived in Hatfield before his
> parents
> > set out for Normandy.
>
>
> >
> > Now
> > > let us see if my forensic friend can put me in touch with a
> > > gynaecologist. Necessarily, this will take some time.
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> > As I say, there are obviously two strands of statistics to take
> into
> > account here:
> > a) the probability of baby surviving unimpaired at a particular
> stage
> > of pregnancy; and
> > b) the probability of conception having been a possibility at all
> (ie
> > of ovulation taking place) at any randomly chosen date.
>
> Assuming I can get in touch with a suitable person, I will put both
> questions.
> >
> > Other than that, we all just have to go along with what seems
> > likeliest to us personally.
> > I shouldn't be saying this as it's obviously a bad motive for
> > accepting any argument, but before Jones the most uptodate
research
> > had already taken us back to a Richard who seemed to have been
> > thinking thoughts of possible kingship during Edward's lifetime.
So
> > resisting the idea of Edward's illegitimacy might not have
exactly
> > beneficial consequences from a Ricardian standpoint.
>
> Depend on what we, as Ricardians, are trying to do. If what we are
> trying to do is establish what really happened, there is no
problem.
> Speaking personally, when I started my history degree, we were told
> that the historian was 'a seeker after truth', and that is what I
try
> to be. Given all the arguments you and I have been having over the
> last few weeks, I expect you to throw up your hands in horror at
this
> point.

Not at all. I ENTIRELY agree, which is why I said myself Ricaredian
sentiments would be a bad motive for accepting the MKJ hypothesis. In
fact, it was not mine, and on first sight the implications seemde
mixed. But I still went for it because it seemed to make so much more
sense of events (and it actually makee the Woodvilles less bad, which
I also liked). I'd love to know what things you feel it doesn't make
sense of. Because I think there are still outsitanding mysteries,
including much of what went on after Richard's death.
However, having since read Hughes (first EIV & Alchemy, and now
halfway through the Religion of RIII) I discover that he's been using
Richard's extant docs & personal books to argue for a kingship-
orientated, "chosen", sort of mindset before Edward's death
(particularly after the death of Clarence). He assumed this was
screwy, but to me it makes perfect sense in the context of Edward's
bastardy. However, it seems to me that it might pose a problem if for
those who reject that.

But in situations where there are several possible
> explanations, it is necessary to consider all the possibilities and
> come to some sort of conclusion as to what is more or less likely.

Agreed entirely.


> Because the evidence is so limited, the conclusions will often have
> to be cautious ones.

I don't say we have conclisions. At present to my minsd Jones' theory
looks good, and better the more I look into it. However, it is not
proven. But that does not mean it can be dismissed or not taken into
account when assessing events of that era.

To my mind Jones just hasn't gone through all
> the necessary steps, and in his enthusiasm he's ignored what is not
> consistent with his theory or less than consistent with his theory.
> And he's been somewhat vague when it suits him; for example, he
gives
> no date for the Duke of York's departure from Rouen,


15th july.

nor for Edward's
> baptism (presumably the latter at least can be found in the Rouen
> records).

Date of baptism doesn't really affect this. He was born on 28 April.
>
> Ann

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

>
> Not at all. I ENTIRELY agree, which is why I said myself Ricaredian
> sentiments would be a bad motive for accepting the MKJ hypothesis.
In
> fact, it was not mine, and on first sight the implications seemde
> mixed. But I still went for it because it seemed to make so much
more
> sense of events (and it actually makee the Woodvilles less bad,
which
> I also liked). I'd love to know what things you feel it doesn't
make
> sense of. Because I think there are still outsitanding mysteries,
> including much of what went on after Richard's death.
> However, having since read Hughes (first EIV & Alchemy, and now
> halfway through the Religion of RIII) I discover that he's been
using
> Richard's extant docs & personal books to argue for a kingship-
> orientated, "chosen", sort of mindset before Edward's death
> (particularly after the death of Clarence). He assumed this was
> screwy, but to me it makes perfect sense in the context of Edward's
> bastardy. However, it seems to me that it might pose a problem if
for
> those who reject that.


I realize that there is scanty evidence, other than the line in the
rhyming of the Duke of York's children, but if Richard actually had
survived a complicated pregnancy, difficult birth, and/or a sickly
childhood, those circumstances could well contribute to a sense of
being "chosen" or having a momentous destiny to fulfill.

Katy

> So
> > > resisting the idea of Edward's illegitimacy might not have
> exactly
> > > beneficial consequences from a Ricardian standpoint.
> >
> > Depend on what we, as Ricardians, are trying to do. If what we
are
> > trying to do is establish what really happened, there is no
> problem.
> > Speaking personally, when I started my history degree, we were
told
> > that the historian was 'a seeker after truth', and that is what I
> try
> > to be. Given all the arguments you and I have been having over
the
> > last few weeks, I expect you to throw up your hands in horror at
> this
> > point.
>
> Not at all. I ENTIRELY agree, which is why I said myself Ricaredian
> sentiments would be a bad motive for accepting the MKJ hypothesis.
In
> fact, it was not mine, and on first sight the implications seemde
> mixed. But I still went for it because it seemed to make so much
more
> sense of events (and it actually makee the Woodvilles less bad,
which
> I also liked). I'd love to know what things you feel it doesn't
make
> sense of. Because I think there are still outsitanding mysteries,
> including much of what went on after Richard's death.
> However, having since read Hughes (first EIV & Alchemy, and now
> halfway through the Religion of RIII) I discover that he's been
using
> Richard's extant docs & personal books to argue for a kingship-
> orientated, "chosen", sort of mindset before Edward's death
> (particularly after the death of Clarence). He assumed this was
> screwy, but to me it makes perfect sense in the context of Edward's
> bastardy. However, it seems to me that it might pose a problem if
for
> those who reject that.

I haven't read Hughes's books, so can't comment on his ideas at
present.


>
> To my mind Jones just hasn't gone through all
> > the necessary steps, and in his enthusiasm he's ignored what is
not
> > consistent with his theory or less than consistent with his
theory.
> > And he's been somewhat vague when it suits him; for example, he
> gives
> > no date for the Duke of York's departure from Rouen,
>
>
> 15th july.

I looked for it, but couldn't find it. Not in consistent with the
possibility of Edward being overdue.

>
> nor for Edward's
> > baptism (presumably the latter at least can be found in the Rouen
> > records).
>
> Date of baptism doesn't really affect this. He was born on 28 April.
>
On the contrary, it's relevant because Jones places some emphasis on
Edward's 'low-key' baptism by comparison with Edmund. If Edward was
baptised on the day of his birth or the day after that, and Edmund
somewhat later, that would be consistent with the possibility of
Edward being more fragile at birth and so at greater risk of dying.
Not conclusive, of course, but tending in that direction.

My forensic pathologist has come back to me this morning to say that
he will contact an Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics who is a pal of
his. I will report back when there are further developments.

Ann