who dunnit with the Duchess?

This is facetious, I know, but once the notion occurred to me I
couldn't resist:

On the speculation of why the Duke of York let seven sons go by
before he named one after himslf...maybe Richard was the first one he
was certain was actually his.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> This is facetious, I know, but once the notion occurred to me I
> couldn't resist:
>
> On the speculation of why the Duke of York let seven sons go by
> before he named one after himslf...maybe Richard was the first one
he
> was certain was actually his.
>
> Katy

ROTFLMAO! ;-) Nice one kittycat!
B

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > This is facetious, I know, but once the notion occurred to me I
> > couldn't resist:
> >
> > On the speculation of why the Duke of York let seven sons go by
> > before he named one after himslf...maybe Richard was the first
one
> he
> > was certain was actually his.
> >
> > Katy
>
> ROTFLMAO! ;-) Nice one kittycat!
> B

Perhaps Blayburn had accidentally strangled himself with his own
bowstring the year before (perhaps one day we'll know).
There is of course the more serious point that Richard would be
assuming to be naming the child for his father, the traitor Earl of
Cambridge. So it perhaps was only when his relations with court were
wrecked anyway that he felt in the mood to use it. I wonder - could
the Countess of Warwick have been present at the birth? Might Richard
Warwick have been a godfather? It's not so far between Warwick and
Fotheringhay.

Marie