Conception in France: Male psychology

IF Edward IV was premature then he was conceived after the Duke's return from the siege and the earlier this was, the more likely he is to have been legitimate (nearer to mean conception date). Remember, ANY intercourse could lead to conception in those days.

There are two scenarios:
1) Duke Richard rides or walks 73 miles in 4 days (nearly 3 marathons) and, despite his older son possibly still being alive, Cecily is in an amorous mood and he .... er .... obliges immediately.
2) The Duke is too exhausted for at least the first night.

Applying some male psychology, 2 is the most likely.

On this basis, the post-siege interval for conception should start a little later, making legitimacy less likely.

Now back to the statistics. Ladies, do you think that prematurity is just as likely as natural post-maturity. Is, say, 19 days early just as likely as 19 days late? If so, the Normal distribution can apply, because it is symmetrical, but the shape "feels" right.

At 19:31 07/01/2004, you wrote:
>IF Edward IV was premature then he was conceived after the Duke's return
>from the siege and the earlier this was, the more likely he is to have
>been legitimate (nearer to mean conception date). Remember, ANY
>intercourse could lead to conception in those days.
>
>There are two scenarios:
>1) Duke Richard rides or walks 73 miles in 4 days (nearly 3 marathons)
>and, despite his older son possibly still being alive, Cecily is in an
>amorous mood and he .... er .... obliges immediately.
>2) The Duke is too exhausted for at least the first night.


If he's riding - 73 miles in four days? Yep, you've definitely got energy
for doing whatever after that. Particularly if you're also a fit rider, as
the Duke would have been. 73 miles with a good horse is nothing. Even if
it's the same horse all the time.

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 19:31 07/01/2004, you wrote:
> >IF Edward IV was premature then he was conceived after the Duke's
return
> >from the siege and the earlier this was, the more likely he is to
have
> >been legitimate (nearer to mean conception date). Remember, ANY
> >intercourse could lead to conception in those days.
> >
> >There are two scenarios:
> >1) Duke Richard rides or walks 73 miles in 4 days (nearly 3
marathons)
> >and, despite his older son possibly still being alive, Cecily is
in an
> >amorous mood and he .... er .... obliges immediately.
> >2) The Duke is too exhausted for at least the first night.
>
>
> If he's riding - 73 miles in four days? Yep, you've definitely got
energy
> for doing whatever after that. Particularly if you're also a fit
rider, as
> the Duke would have been. 73 miles with a good horse is nothing.
Even if
> it's the same horse all the time.
>
> Jenny

Not sure of your point, perhaps. He would definitely have ridden. I
don't ride, but certainly 20 miles is not a big day out on a bike. So
all that bumping up and down on the horse might well have put the
Duke in the mood. However, he and his horse might both have been
exhausted by the military campaign itself, and it is not correct to
say that any intercourse could lead to conception; with the best will
(and whatever else) in the world, York could not have got Cecily
pregnant unless she was ovulating; there is at best a 1 in 14 chance
that she had a live egg ready and waiting in her tubes at that
particular time. And a child conceived even day of return would still
have been nearly 4 weeks early if born on 28th April next. If Edward
had been believed to be an early baby (and there are plenty of
people, including his mum, who could have told him) he would perhaps
not have claimed to have been conceived in Hatfield, Yorkshire.

Four days may seem a very slow ride, but I'm basing this on the sorts
of speeds even private cavalcades actually tended to go, stopping
every 20 miles or even less; bear in mind the roads could be
appalling. Admittedly a lone rider with an urgent message would go
very fast indeed, especially if changes of horse were available, but
as I said, I don't see York having made that sort of a journey back.
I imagine he would have taken at least a section of his army behind
him in triumph (a lot no doubt stayed to keep Pontoise); even had
they left the bulk of the baggage train behind he would have had his
own stuff brought up with him, and most of the men following him
would been footsoldiers.

Marie

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> IF Edward IV was premature then he was conceived after the Duke's
return from the siege and the earlier this was, the more likely he is
to have been legitimate (nearer to mean conception date). Remember,
ANY intercourse could lead to conception in those days.
>
> There are two scenarios:
> 1) Duke Richard rides or walks 73 miles in 4 days (nearly 3
marathons) and, despite his older son possibly still being alive,
Cecily is in an amorous mood and he .... er .... obliges immediately.
> 2) The Duke is too exhausted for at least the first night.
>
> Applying some male psychology, 2 is the most likely.
>
> On this basis, the post-siege interval for conception should start
a little later, making legitimacy less likely.
>
> Now back to the statistics. Ladies, do you think that prematurity
is just as likely as natural post-maturity. Is, say, 19 days early
just as likely as 19 days late? If so, the Normal distribution can
apply, because it is symmetrical, but the shape "feels" right.

Sorry Stephen, missed this bit of your message responding to Jenny's
reply.
The upshot seems to be that statistics on this are not readily
available. However the accepted threshold for prematurity is 3 weeks
early, but for post-maturity is only 2 weeks late. Also, it seems
that 90% of the babies still not born at 1 week over have been born
by 2 weeks over. Since the Duke seems to have been away by 15th July,
then last possible conception date before he left would be 14th. This
would give a due date of 7th April, making Edward precisely 3 weeks
overdue, which would seem to be unusually late (but no later than my
eldest sister), and possibly suffering post-maturity problems, and
also a more difficult delivery (my sister died from the results of a
difficult delivery). I still feel that, though it is not impossible
for him to have been very early or very late, if the Blayburn factor
was not involved we would tend to assume that a specimen like Edward
had been born in the safe "mature" period, between 37 and 42 weeks
pregnancy (ie 35 to 40 weeks actual gestation). Quickly calculating,
I think this would imply that he was conceived between 21st July and
26th August. Which would make it more likely that he was conceived on
the Duke's return than before. That is just possible.
I think I said on recent post that 24th August would have made him
nearly 4 weeks early. Sorry, this seems to be an error.

Marie

>
>

At 20:32 07/01/2004, you wrote:
>Four days may seem a very slow ride, but I'm basing this on the sorts
>of speeds even private cavalcades actually tended to go, stopping
>every 20 miles or even less; bear in mind the roads could be
>appalling. Admittedly a lone rider with an urgent message would go
>very fast indeed, especially if changes of horse were available, but
>as I said, I don't see York having made that sort of a journey back.
>I imagine he would have taken at least a section of his army behind
>him in triumph (a lot no doubt stayed to keep Pontoise); even had
>they left the bulk of the baggage train behind he would have had his
>own stuff brought up with him, and most of the men following him
>would been footsoldiers.


I'm not going into dates at all - I'm merely addressing whether he could
have reached Cecily 73 miles away in 4 days at the time and had the energy
to father a child at that time.

And yes, he definitely could. The roads were worse, but speaking from very
personal experience here as a long-distance horserider. even riding a very
rutted and hard-dried old road instead of a modern one, he could have made
it with energy to spare. In fact, *especially* under those circumstances.
Unlike me last year, he was travelling in a country where transport was
animal-based and amenities and layout were geared that way. He's also in a
pre-enclosure society and of sufficiently high status that he can cut
across private forests, etc. Compare that with trying to manoeuvre around
motorways and main roads and, unless there's a bridleway, you can't go
faster than a trot, and not even many of those if you're protecting your
horse's legs on tarmac or concrete.

I see no reason why York would have travelled with footsoldiers on such a
trip, but a small group of horsemen would have had no difficulty with the
trip and would have had the facilities to bring extra horses with them and
swap over, depending on the tiredness of the horses. A small group heading
home from war, especially if it's only for a short break, will do so at a
far faster pace than a cavalcade which needs to keep reasonable pace with
the slowest member.

Also York wouldn't have ridden his battle horse, he'd have ridden his
palfrey, since even by the 15th century, war horses were big, lumbering
beasts that are *hell* to ride long distances - this is why the Crusaders
used palfreys to travel and had their chargers led.

The "bouncing up and down" bit just doesn't apply to an experienced
horseman as York had to be. The only being seriously affected by "bouncing
up and down" is the horse, who gets a sore back from a rider's bad seat. I
don't know if English riders were posting at the trot at that time, but due
to the construction of medieval saddles, it's irrelevant. European
tradition riders post, American (Western) riders don't. Australians can do
either - the Aussie saddle is cut on an European dressage tree but has the
comfort features of a Western saddle and I'm equally comfortable rising or
sitting at the trot. Any other pace involves sitting, except for gallop,
and even then standing to gallop is a relatively recent development in
equitation.

Have you seen "Return of the King"? It's a dead giveaway in equitation
traditions. (There's no spoilers here, btw.) Bernard Hill rides like an
Englishman, rising to the trot and able to speak at the same time.
Similarly, those trained in stockman traditions (America and Down Under)
sit at the trot, since it's what they're taught. You absorb the impact with
your lower body and it really doesn't affect you. After a while, it's an
automatic reflex for the rider - they can do really long times at a trot,
and so can a well-trained horse.

I've done equestrian travel. Not a week, but four months of it, finding my
route along the way, with all my kit and the horse's kit in saddlebags.
After a while, you and the horse begin to read each other's pacing, to the
extent that on one day where I was deliberately giving my mare a quiet day,
she got very stroppy until she got a chance to have a good canter. (Well,
it was supposed to be a canter, she pushed it into a gallop.) This was
after about six hour's travelling and we'd done about 20 miles (my mare is
of a type that's basically packhorse so not actually bred for riding
travellers). She'd been travelling, with only one rest day, for more than
10 days at that point, including very hilly territory.

So yes, purely on time, York could have travelled 73 miles without fatigue
in four days. If he swapped horses halfway through, and with his status,
he'd have had good horses, then twice that distance wouldnt' have been a
problem at all.

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 20:32 07/01/2004, you wrote:
> >Four days may seem a very slow ride, but I'm basing this on the
sorts
> >of speeds even private cavalcades actually tended to go, stopping
> >every 20 miles or even less; bear in mind the roads could be
> >appalling. Admittedly a lone rider with an urgent message would go
> >very fast indeed, especially if changes of horse were available,
but
> >as I said, I don't see York having made that sort of a journey
back.
> >I imagine he would have taken at least a section of his army behind
> >him in triumph (a lot no doubt stayed to keep Pontoise); even had
> >they left the bulk of the baggage train behind he would have had
his
> >own stuff brought up with him, and most of the men following him
> >would been footsoldiers.
>
>
> I'm not going into dates at all - I'm merely addressing whether he
could
> have reached Cecily 73 miles away in 4 days at the time and had the
energy
> to father a child at that time.
>
> And yes, he definitely could. The roads were worse, but speaking
from very
> personal experience here as a long-distance horserider. even riding
a very
> rutted and hard-dried old road instead of a modern one, he could
have made
> it with energy to spare. In fact, *especially* under those
circumstances.
> Unlike me last year, he was travelling in a country where transport
was
> animal-based and amenities and layout were geared that way. He's
also in a
> pre-enclosure society and of sufficiently high status that he can
cut
> across private forests, etc. Compare that with trying to manoeuvre
around
> motorways and main roads and, unless there's a bridleway, you can't
go
> faster than a trot, and not even many of those if you're protecting
your
> horse's legs on tarmac or concrete.
>
> I see no reason why York would have travelled with footsoldiers on
such a
> trip, but a small group of horsemen would have had no difficulty
with the
> trip and would have had the facilities to bring extra horses with
them and
> swap over, depending on the tiredness of the horses. A small group
heading
> home from war, especially if it's only for a short break, will do
so at a
> far faster pace than a cavalcade which needs to keep reasonable
pace with
> the slowest member.
>
> Also York wouldn't have ridden his battle horse, he'd have ridden
his
> palfrey, since even by the 15th century, war horses were big,
lumbering
> beasts that are *hell* to ride long distances - this is why the
Crusaders
> used palfreys to travel and had their chargers led.
>
> The "bouncing up and down" bit just doesn't apply to an experienced
> horseman as York had to be. The only being seriously affected
by "bouncing
> up and down" is the horse, who gets a sore back from a rider's bad
seat. I
> don't know if English riders were posting at the trot at that time,
but due
> to the construction of medieval saddles, it's irrelevant. European
> tradition riders post, American (Western) riders don't.
Australians can do
> either - the Aussie saddle is cut on an European dressage tree but
has the
> comfort features of a Western saddle and I'm equally comfortable
rising or
> sitting at the trot. Any other pace involves sitting, except for
gallop,
> and even then standing to gallop is a relatively recent development
in
> equitation.
>
> Have you seen "Return of the King"? It's a dead giveaway in
equitation
> traditions. (There's no spoilers here, btw.) Bernard Hill rides
like an
> Englishman, rising to the trot and able to speak at the same time.
> Similarly, those trained in stockman traditions (America and Down
Under)
> sit at the trot, since it's what they're taught. You absorb the
impact with
> your lower body and it really doesn't affect you. After a while,
it's an
> automatic reflex for the rider - they can do really long times at a
trot,
> and so can a well-trained horse.
>
> I've done equestrian travel. Not a week, but four months of it,
finding my
> route along the way, with all my kit and the horse's kit in
saddlebags.
> After a while, you and the horse begin to read each other's pacing,
to the
> extent that on one day where I was deliberately giving my mare a
quiet day,
> she got very stroppy until she got a chance to have a good canter.
(Well,
> it was supposed to be a canter, she pushed it into a gallop.) This
was
> after about six hour's travelling and we'd done about 20 miles (my
mare is
> of a type that's basically packhorse so not actually bred for
riding
> travellers). She'd been travelling, with only one rest day, for
more than
> 10 days at that point, including very hilly territory.
>
> So yes, purely on time, York could have travelled 73 miles without
fatigue
> in four days. If he swapped horses halfway through, and with his
status,
> he'd have had good horses, then twice that distance wouldnt' have
been a
> problem at all.
>
> Jenny

I bow to your superior knowledge of horsemanship. I'm afraid that,
despite having two gt-grandfathers in the Ist Life Guards, I don't
ride at all. However, I'm not sure where it's supposed to be taking
us. Whether he bounced is really not an issue, is it? I think the
question of horsemanship is a distraction. The real issue is what
speed of travel politic demands, social conventions and safety
considerations would have dictated.

Would York and a few mates have gone ahead of the footsoldiers
(including those vital archers), perhaps taking shortcuts through the
woods? I don't think so. As I say, the return journey would have been
propaganda as much as anything else. There were no newspapers or TV
back then. He would have displayed at least a core of his victorious
troops en route, particularly as his chief advisors were apparently
very taken with the Roman way of doing things, including
the "triumphs" held after military victories.
Quite apart from it not being the way things were done, I suggest it
would have been very foolhardy for the Duke to go "of piste" with a
small entourage in what was very lawless occupied territory, full of
ecorcheurs. Bear in mind also that somebody would have had to carry
changes of clothes, personal effects, etc, for the journey. It seems
he'd already stopped in the Pontoise area for some while after the
end of the action, presumably to sort out remaining problems. I don't
see any reason to suppose he would suddenly have rushed the return
journey. In fact I believe he would at the very least have paused at
places which figure in the campaigns of that period, such as Vernon
and Vaudreuil.
Just as a comparison, Tewkesbury was fought on 4th May, and Edward
didn't enter London until 21st. Ross says he waited in Coventry until
14th, which leaves a full week for him to travel the 100 miles from
there to London. He arrived to a very big staged "triumph".

Marie

>
>________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:45:06 -0000
> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
>Subject: Re: Conception in France: Male psychology
>
>--- In , Jennifer Delaney
><clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
>> At 20:32 07/01/2004, you wrote:
>> >Four days may seem a very slow ride, but I'm basing this on the
>sorts
>> >of speeds even private cavalcades actually tended to go, stopping
>> >every 20 miles or even less; bear in mind the roads could be
>> >appalling. Admittedly a lone rider with an urgent message would go
>> >very fast indeed, especially if changes of horse were available,
>but
>> >as I said, I don't see York having made that sort of a journey
>back.
>> >I imagine he would have taken at least a section of his army behind
>> >him in triumph (a lot no doubt stayed to keep Pontoise); even had
>> >they left the bulk of the baggage train behind he would have had
>his
>> >own stuff brought up with him, and most of the men following him
>> >would been footsoldiers.
>>
>>
>> I'm not going into dates at all - I'm merely addressing whether he
>could
>> have reached Cecily 73 miles away in 4 days at the time and had the
>energy
>> to father a child at that time.
>>
>> And yes, he definitely could. The roads were worse, but speaking
>from very
>> personal experience here as a long-distance horserider. even riding
>a very
>> rutted and hard-dried old road instead of a modern one, he could
>have made
>> it with energy to spare. In fact, *especially* under those
>circumstances.
>> Unlike me last year, he was travelling in a country where transport
>was
>> animal-based and amenities and layout were geared that way. He's
>also in a
>> pre-enclosure society and of sufficiently high status that he can
>cut
>> across private forests, etc. Compare that with trying to manoeuvre
>around
>> motorways and main roads and, unless there's a bridleway, you can't
>go
>> faster than a trot, and not even many of those if you're protecting
>your
>> horse's legs on tarmac or concrete.
>>
>> I see no reason why York would have travelled with footsoldiers on
>such a
>> trip, but a small group of horsemen would have had no difficulty
>with the
>> trip and would have had the facilities to bring extra horses with
>them and
>> swap over, depending on the tiredness of the horses. A small group
>heading
>> home from war, especially if it's only for a short break, will do
>so at a
>> far faster pace than a cavalcade which needs to keep reasonable
>pace with
>> the slowest member.
>>
>> Also York wouldn't have ridden his battle horse, he'd have ridden
>his
>> palfrey, since even by the 15th century, war horses were big,
>lumbering
>> beasts that are *hell* to ride long distances - this is why the
>Crusaders
>> used palfreys to travel and had their chargers led.
>>
>> The "bouncing up and down" bit just doesn't apply to an experienced
>> horseman as York had to be. The only being seriously affected
>by "bouncing
>> up and down" is the horse, who gets a sore back from a rider's bad
>seat. I
>> don't know if English riders were posting at the trot at that time,
>but due
>> to the construction of medieval saddles, it's irrelevant. European
>> tradition riders post, American (Western) riders don't.
>Australians can do
>> either - the Aussie saddle is cut on an European dressage tree but
>has the
>> comfort features of a Western saddle and I'm equally comfortable
>rising or
>> sitting at the trot. Any other pace involves sitting, except for
>gallop,
>> and even then standing to gallop is a relatively recent development
>in
>> equitation.
>>
>> Have you seen "Return of the King"? It's a dead giveaway in
>equitation
>> traditions. (There's no spoilers here, btw.) Bernard Hill rides
>like an
>> Englishman, rising to the trot and able to speak at the same time.
>> Similarly, those trained in stockman traditions (America and Down
>Under)
>> sit at the trot, since it's what they're taught. You absorb the
>impact with
>> your lower body and it really doesn't affect you. After a while,
>it's an
>> automatic reflex for the rider - they can do really long times at a
>trot,
>> and so can a well-trained horse.
>>
>> I've done equestrian travel. Not a week, but four months of it,
>finding my
>> route along the way, with all my kit and the horse's kit in
>saddlebags.
>> After a while, you and the horse begin to read each other's pacing,
>to the
>> extent that on one day where I was deliberately giving my mare a
>quiet day,
>> she got very stroppy until she got a chance to have a good canter.
>(Well,
>> it was supposed to be a canter, she pushed it into a gallop.) This
>was
>> after about six hour's travelling and we'd done about 20 miles (my
>mare is
>> of a type that's basically packhorse so not actually bred for
>riding
>> travellers). She'd been travelling, with only one rest day, for
>more than
>> 10 days at that point, including very hilly territory.
>>
>> So yes, purely on time, York could have travelled 73 miles without
>fatigue
>> in four days. If he swapped horses halfway through, and with his
>status,
>> he'd have had good horses, then twice that distance wouldnt' have
>been a
>> problem at all.
>>
>> Jenny
>
>I bow to your superior knowledge of horsemanship. I'm afraid that,
>despite having two gt-grandfathers in the Ist Life Guards, I don't
>ride at all. However, I'm not sure where it's supposed to be taking
>us. Whether he bounced is really not an issue, is it? I think the
>question of horsemanship is a distraction. The real issue is what
>speed of travel politic demands, social conventions and safety
>considerations would have dictated.
>
>Would York and a few mates have gone ahead of the footsoldiers
>(including those vital archers), perhaps taking shortcuts through the
>woods? I don't think so. As I say, the return journey would have been
>propaganda as much as anything else. There were no newspapers or TV
>back then. He would have displayed at least a core of his victorious
>troops en route, particularly as his chief advisors were apparently
>very taken with the Roman way of doing things, including
>the "triumphs" held after military victories.
> Quite apart from it not being the way things were done, I suggest it
>would have been very foolhardy for the Duke to go "of piste" with a
>small entourage in what was very lawless occupied territory, full of
>ecorcheurs. Bear in mind also that somebody would have had to carry
>changes of clothes, personal effects, etc, for the journey. It seems
>he'd already stopped in the Pontoise area for some while after the
>end of the action, presumably to sort out remaining problems. I don't
>see any reason to suppose he would suddenly have rushed the return
>journey. In fact I believe he would at the very least have paused at
>places which figure in the campaigns of that period, such as Vernon
>and Vaudreuil.
>Just as a comparison, Tewkesbury was fought on 4th May, and Edward
>didn't enter London until 21st. Ross says he waited in Coventry until
>14th, which leaves a full week for him to travel the 100 miles from
>there to London. He arrived to a very big staged "triumph".
>
>Marie
>

Marie

English armies of the period frequently included a considerable number
of mounted archers thus Richard of York could possibly have moved in
company with a mounted detachment composed of both archers and men at
arms. The larger the party the lower the rate of movement?

It is quite possible that Richard moved on ahead of the 'foot' portion
of his troops. Equally it is possible that his some or all of his men
were attached to the force under John Talbot which was campaigning
around Pontoise until September or went into garrison. Archival research
would be required in order to demonstrate which if any option is
appropriate.

I am new to this group so forgive me if what follows seems somewhat
foolish. If Richard was making a victorious journey back to Rouen after
the Pontoise affair what was to stop Cecily from rushing out to meet
him? Is there evidence to the contrary that she stayed in Rouen rather
than rushing to greet the returning hero? Whatever the reasons for it
Cicely did seem to accompany the Duke on many (most?) of his journeys.

I have read Michael K Jones' book on Bosworth but I find it disturbing
and unsatisfactory that his hypothesis concerning Edward IV's
illegitimacy is not examined with more obvious statement of facts and
dates in support of his argument. This is a pity because irrespective of
whether one subscribes to Jones' interpretations or not it is evident he
does get stuck in with his research.

Regards

Bill

--- In , Bill Braham
<bill@w...> wrote:
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
___
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
___
> >
> >Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 12:45:06 -0000
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> >Subject: Re: Conception in France: Male psychology
> >
> >--- In , Jennifer Delaney
> ><clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> >> At 20:32 07/01/2004, you wrote:
> >> >Four days may seem a very slow ride, but I'm basing this on the
> >sorts
> >> >of speeds even private cavalcades actually tended to go,
stopping
> >> >every 20 miles or even less; bear in mind the roads could be
> >> >appalling. Admittedly a lone rider with an urgent message would
go
> >> >very fast indeed, especially if changes of horse were available,
> >but
> >> >as I said, I don't see York having made that sort of a journey
> >back.
> >> >I imagine he would have taken at least a section of his army
behind
> >> >him in triumph (a lot no doubt stayed to keep Pontoise); even
had
> >> >they left the bulk of the baggage train behind he would have had
> >his
> >> >own stuff brought up with him, and most of the men following him
> >> >would been footsoldiers.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not going into dates at all - I'm merely addressing whether
he
> >could
> >> have reached Cecily 73 miles away in 4 days at the time and had
the
> >energy
> >> to father a child at that time.
> >>
> >> And yes, he definitely could. The roads were worse, but speaking
> >from very
> >> personal experience here as a long-distance horserider. even
riding
> >a very
> >> rutted and hard-dried old road instead of a modern one, he could
> >have made
> >> it with energy to spare. In fact, *especially* under those
> >circumstances.
> >> Unlike me last year, he was travelling in a country where
transport
> >was
> >> animal-based and amenities and layout were geared that way. He's
> >also in a
> >> pre-enclosure society and of sufficiently high status that he can
> >cut
> >> across private forests, etc. Compare that with trying to
manoeuvre
> >around
> >> motorways and main roads and, unless there's a bridleway, you
can't
> >go
> >> faster than a trot, and not even many of those if you're
protecting
> >your
> >> horse's legs on tarmac or concrete.
> >>
> >> I see no reason why York would have travelled with footsoldiers
on
> >such a
> >> trip, but a small group of horsemen would have had no difficulty
> >with the
> >> trip and would have had the facilities to bring extra horses with
> >them and
> >> swap over, depending on the tiredness of the horses. A small
group
> >heading
> >> home from war, especially if it's only for a short break, will do
> >so at a
> >> far faster pace than a cavalcade which needs to keep reasonable
> >pace with
> >> the slowest member.
> >>
> >> Also York wouldn't have ridden his battle horse, he'd have ridden
> >his
> >> palfrey, since even by the 15th century, war horses were big,
> >lumbering
> >> beasts that are *hell* to ride long distances - this is why the
> >Crusaders
> >> used palfreys to travel and had their chargers led.
> >>
> >> The "bouncing up and down" bit just doesn't apply to an
experienced
> >> horseman as York had to be. The only being seriously affected
> >by "bouncing
> >> up and down" is the horse, who gets a sore back from a rider's
bad
> >seat. I
> >> don't know if English riders were posting at the trot at that
time,
> >but due
> >> to the construction of medieval saddles, it's irrelevant.
European
> >> tradition riders post, American (Western) riders don't.
> >Australians can do
> >> either - the Aussie saddle is cut on an European dressage tree
but
> >has the
> >> comfort features of a Western saddle and I'm equally comfortable
> >rising or
> >> sitting at the trot. Any other pace involves sitting, except for
> >gallop,
> >> and even then standing to gallop is a relatively recent
development
> >in
> >> equitation.
> >>
> >> Have you seen "Return of the King"? It's a dead giveaway in
> >equitation
> >> traditions. (There's no spoilers here, btw.) Bernard Hill rides
> >like an
> >> Englishman, rising to the trot and able to speak at the same
time.
> >> Similarly, those trained in stockman traditions (America and Down
> >Under)
> >> sit at the trot, since it's what they're taught. You absorb the
> >impact with
> >> your lower body and it really doesn't affect you. After a while,
> >it's an
> >> automatic reflex for the rider - they can do really long times
at a
> >trot,
> >> and so can a well-trained horse.
> >>
> >> I've done equestrian travel. Not a week, but four months of it,
> >finding my
> >> route along the way, with all my kit and the horse's kit in
> >saddlebags.
> >> After a while, you and the horse begin to read each other's
pacing,
> >to the
> >> extent that on one day where I was deliberately giving my mare a
> >quiet day,
> >> she got very stroppy until she got a chance to have a good
canter.
> >(Well,
> >> it was supposed to be a canter, she pushed it into a gallop.)
This
> >was
> >> after about six hour's travelling and we'd done about 20 miles
(my
> >mare is
> >> of a type that's basically packhorse so not actually bred for
> >riding
> >> travellers). She'd been travelling, with only one rest day, for
> >more than
> >> 10 days at that point, including very hilly territory.
> >>
> >> So yes, purely on time, York could have travelled 73 miles
without
> >fatigue
> >> in four days. If he swapped horses halfway through, and with his
> >status,
> >> he'd have had good horses, then twice that distance wouldnt' have
> >been a
> >> problem at all.
> >>
> >> Jenny
> >
> >I bow to your superior knowledge of horsemanship. I'm afraid that,
> >despite having two gt-grandfathers in the Ist Life Guards, I don't
> >ride at all. However, I'm not sure where it's supposed to be taking
> >us. Whether he bounced is really not an issue, is it? I think the
> >question of horsemanship is a distraction. The real issue is what
> >speed of travel politic demands, social conventions and safety
> >considerations would have dictated.
> >
> >Would York and a few mates have gone ahead of the footsoldiers
> >(including those vital archers), perhaps taking shortcuts through
the
> >woods? I don't think so. As I say, the return journey would have
been
> >propaganda as much as anything else. There were no newspapers or TV
> >back then. He would have displayed at least a core of his
victorious
> >troops en route, particularly as his chief advisors were apparently
> >very taken with the Roman way of doing things, including
> >the "triumphs" held after military victories.
> > Quite apart from it not being the way things were done, I suggest
it
> >would have been very foolhardy for the Duke to go "of piste" with a
> >small entourage in what was very lawless occupied territory, full
of
> >ecorcheurs. Bear in mind also that somebody would have had to carry
> >changes of clothes, personal effects, etc, for the journey. It
seems
> >he'd already stopped in the Pontoise area for some while after the
> >end of the action, presumably to sort out remaining problems. I
don't
> >see any reason to suppose he would suddenly have rushed the return
> >journey. In fact I believe he would at the very least have paused
at
> >places which figure in the campaigns of that period, such as Vernon
> >and Vaudreuil.
> >Just as a comparison, Tewkesbury was fought on 4th May, and Edward
> >didn't enter London until 21st. Ross says he waited in Coventry
until
> >14th, which leaves a full week for him to travel the 100 miles from
> >there to London. He arrived to a very big staged "triumph".
> >
> >Marie
> >
>
> Marie
>
> English armies of the period frequently included a considerable
number
> of mounted archers thus Richard of York could possibly have moved
in
> company with a mounted detachment composed of both archers and men
at
> arms. The larger the party the lower the rate of movement?
>
> It is quite possible that Richard moved on ahead of the 'foot'
portion
> of his troops. Equally it is possible that his some or all of his
men
> were attached to the force under John Talbot which was campaigning
> around Pontoise until September or went into garrison. Archival
research
> would be required in order to demonstrate which if any option is
> appropriate.



> I am new to this group so forgive me if what follows seems somewhat
> foolish. If Richard was making a victorious journey back to Rouen
after
> the Pontoise affair what was to stop Cecily from rushing out to
meet
> him? Is there evidence to the contrary that she stayed in Rouen
rather
> than rushing to greet the returning hero? Whatever the reasons for
it
> Cicely did seem to accompany the Duke on many (most?) of his
journeys.
>
> I have read Michael K Jones' book on Bosworth but I find it
disturbing
> and unsatisfactory that his hypothesis concerning Edward IV's
> illegitimacy is not examined with more obvious statement of facts
and
> dates in support of his argument. This is a pity because
irrespective of
> whether one subscribes to Jones' interpretations or not it is
evident he
> does get stuck in with his research.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill

I'd agree with you about Jones' book, Bill. It is frustratingly vague
about the evidence. Most books on the French war are also very vague
on people's movements. I don't know if it is the fault of the
authors, lack of documentary evidence or lack of research.
It is possible that Cecily could have met York some of the way along
the route, but I'm not sure how far down towards Paris would have
been considered safe. It's a very long time (like about 20 years)
since I've read anything at all about the Hundred Years War.
Generally, though, thinking of the Wars to the Roses, the returns
home tended to be very slow affairs. York had only just gone over to
France when he went zooming off to Pontoise, and my own feeling is
that he would have wanted to show himself properly on the way back.
My main point is that at least part of the road home must have been
dangerous because I think I am right in saying that Paris, which had
to be bypassed, was in French hands at the time, and the whole
country was pretty lawless. So the idea of Cecily riding down to
Pontoise, or York returning to Rouen by a quick gallop home through
the woods without proper back-up, seems fanciful. However, the whole
argument is a bit pointless at this point as we don't really know,
from the little that Jones has given away, what date York actually
left Pontoise.

But I do insist that Jones has done us a service in opening up a
possibility that was simply not being looked at, and that what is
needed now is some good follow-up research. But perhaps we won't get
anything that can be accepted as proof unless we could demonstrate
that Edward's Y chromosome was not the same as York's. At least
Joness says he found this info in the Rouen cathedral records whilst
researching the Hundred Years War, so perhaps he's saving the details
of the Pontoise campaign for that (I hope).

I think as regards Cecily following York everywhere, that tends to be
based on birthplaces of children, and some of these places have been
misinterpreted, giving an exaggerated impression of her constantly
scurrying around after itinerant husband. Henry's birthplace of
Hatfield, for instance, was until recently mistaken for Hatfield in
Herts, which belonged to the Bishop of Ely (Thomas Bourchier at the
time); the Hatfield where he was born in fact belonged to York, and
he was resident there right through the first half of 1441. John's
birthplace (I can't recall the spelling in the original document) is
often identified as Neath in South Wales but was almost certainly the
Neyte, the Abbot of Westminster's private mansion, which York was
using as his London base at that time. All three of the children born
in Normandy were born in Rouen.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , Bill Braham
> <bill@w...> wrote:
> > >
>
Marie

Some comments follow:
>

>
> I'd agree with you about Jones' book, Bill. It is frustratingly
vague
> about the evidence. Most books on the French war are also very
vague
> on people's movements. I don't know if it is the fault of the
> authors, lack of documentary evidence or lack of research.


Bill: Almost certainly a combination of all the above. The account
of the Pontosie campaign by Alfred Burne in `The Agincourt War' is
hardly festooned with dates. Burne offers as scant a chronological
framework as Jones does but states that he was working from an
amalgam of 3 or 4 French contemporary/near contemporary accounts.

There is also a biography of John Talbot `The English Achilles' which
has something about Pontoise. Very exciting until I realised it was
all derived from Burne's Agincourt War!

Jonathon Sumption has commenced a multi-volume history of the 100
Years war but the published volumes so far only get to the late
C14th. Guess we will have to wait for his C15th volume or whatever
Michael K Jones may chose to publish to get the Pontosie campaign in
context. Unfortunately Jones does not believe in Burne's kind of
narrative military history so he may not provide a straight foward
chronology or account of who was where and when.




> It is possible that Cecily could have met York some of the way
along
> the route, but I'm not sure how far down towards Paris would have
> been considered safe. It's a very long time (like about 20 years)
> since I've read anything at all about the Hundred Years War.


Bill: I am not sure this is a problem as York would be returning to
Rouen from Pontoise (by whatever route) and Cicely could have come
out to meet him. Paris and `bandit country' lay to the rear. Plus
bear in mind that John Talbot was still in the field and keeping the
French busy. If York was taking his time then there would be
opportunity to summon Cicely to join him at some intermediate point
particularly if he is on a propaganda jaunt.



> Generally, though, thinking of the Wars to the Roses, the returns
> home tended to be very slow affairs. York had only just gone over
to
> France when he went zooming off to Pontoise,

It seems he arrived in time to take part in a campaign put together
by John Talbot. This makes some of Jones' assertions about

and my own feeling is
> that he would have wanted to show himself properly on the way back.
> My main point is that at least part of the road home must have been
> dangerous because I think I am right in saying that Paris, which
had
> to be bypassed, was in French hands at the time, and the whole
> country was pretty lawless.


Bill: Geographically Pontoise lies between Paris and Rouen. That is
why the campaign was of military significance as an English position
in the Seine/Oise area would be sufficient to block/threaten the
western edge of Paris. Paris was not on York's way home to Rouen



So the idea of Cecily riding down to
> Pontoise, or York returning to Rouen by a quick gallop home through
> the woods without proper back-up, seems fanciful.


Bill: But surely this is more less what York did in 1460 when he went
North to quell the disturbances in Yorkshire with inadequate support
and unfortunate consequences at Wakefield?



However, the whole
> argument is a bit pointless at this point as we don't really know,
> from the little that Jones has given away, what date York actually
> left Pontoise.


Bill: Nor does he give us any information as to whether Cicely was in
Rouen the whole time.


>
> But I do insist that Jones has done us a service in opening up a
> possibility that was simply not being looked at, and that what is
> needed now is some good follow-up research.


Bill: I agree but he does not do his arguments any service by not
stating his evidence clearly and unequivocally. The fact that some
of the material in the book has prompted a wide ranging discussion is
proof enough of its value irrespective of the veracity or otherwise
of his assertions.


But perhaps we won't get
> anything that can be accepted as proof unless we could demonstrate
> that Edward's Y chromosome was not the same as York's. At least
> Joness says he found this info in the Rouen cathedral records
whilst
> researching the Hundred Years War, so perhaps he's saving the
details
> of the Pontoise campaign for that (I hope).


Bill: I doubt that there will ever be any proof as such. All that can
be hoped for is that enough evidence may be unearthed that permits a
reasonable hypothesis.

The whole paternity issue seems to me to be a red herring in that
common law presumed a wife's child was by her husband and as far as
we can tell York treated Edward as his son. Whether he was or was not
the father does not seem to me to be the root of the 1483 problem.
The tensions within the `Royal Family' engendered by Edward's
marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, his behaviour (both private and
public) coupled with placing Edward Prince of Wales under the
tutelage of his wife's family seem to be enough to create a
problematic situation.

Richard of Gloucester had to make a choice between survival or
extinction (remember the fate of Clarence). He chose the former. In
taking that course of action he displayed statesman like qualities of
which Macchiavelli would have approved. Richard's difficulty seems
to have been that his power base in the south was not extensive
enough. Thus once he had disposed of Hastings (harsh but necessary)
and Buckingham (as slippery as an eel) he had to bring down a number
of his northern supporters to fill the administration. His powerbase
was not extensive enough in the long run. Henry Tudor's grab for the
crown was a `rainbow coalition' of malcontents who could expect no
favours from Richard. Oops got sidetracked sorry about that.

What Jones has done is to show to the reading public that Richard III
was not the sterotypical schemer depicted in Shakespeare but a more
complex and appealing character entirely.


>
> I think as regards Cecily following York everywhere, that tends to
be
> based on birthplaces of children, and some of these places have
been
> misinterpreted, giving an exaggerated impression of her constantly
> scurrying around after itinerant husband. Henry's birthplace of
> Hatfield, for instance, was until recently mistaken for Hatfield in
> Herts, which belonged to the Bishop of Ely (Thomas Bourchier at the
> time); the Hatfield where he was born in fact belonged to York, and
> he was resident there right through the first half of 1441. John's
> birthplace (I can't recall the spelling in the original document)
is
> often identified as Neath in South Wales but was almost certainly
the
> Neyte, the Abbot of Westminster's private mansion, which York was
> using as his London base at that time. All three of the children
born
> in Normandy were born in Rouen.

Bill: What you say sort of demonstrates that Cicely (for whatever
reason) was not the kind of woman to mind the family estates in
England.

Regards

Bill

--- In , "billbraham1957"
<bill@w...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , Bill Braham
> > <bill@w...> wrote:
> > > >
> >
> Marie
>
> Some comments follow:
> >
>
> >
> > I'd agree with you about Jones' book, Bill. It is frustratingly
> vague
> > about the evidence. Most books on the French war are also very
> vague
> > on people's movements. I don't know if it is the fault of the
> > authors, lack of documentary evidence or lack of research.
>
>
> Bill: Almost certainly a combination of all the above. The account
> of the Pontosie campaign by Alfred Burne in `The Agincourt War' is
> hardly festooned with dates. Burne offers as scant a chronological
> framework as Jones does but states that he was working from an
> amalgam of 3 or 4 French contemporary/near contemporary accounts.
>
> There is also a biography of John Talbot `The English Achilles'
which
> has something about Pontoise. Very exciting until I realised it was
> all derived from Burne's Agincourt War!
>
> Jonathon Sumption has commenced a multi-volume history of the 100
> Years war but the published volumes so far only get to the late
> C14th. Guess we will have to wait for his C15th volume or whatever
> Michael K Jones may chose to publish to get the Pontosie campaign
in
> context. Unfortunately Jones does not believe in Burne's kind of
> narrative military history so he may not provide a straight foward
> chronology or account of who was where and when.
>
>
>
>
> > It is possible that Cecily could have met York some of the way
> along
> > the route, but I'm not sure how far down towards Paris would have
> > been considered safe. It's a very long time (like about 20 years)
> > since I've read anything at all about the Hundred Years War.
>
>
> Bill: I am not sure this is a problem as York would be returning to
> Rouen from Pontoise (by whatever route) and Cicely could have come
> out to meet him. Paris and `bandit country' lay to the rear. Plus
> bear in mind that John Talbot was still in the field and keeping
the
> French busy. If York was taking his time then there would be
> opportunity to summon Cicely to join him at some intermediate point
> particularly if he is on a propaganda jaunt.
>
>
>
> > Generally, though, thinking of the Wars to the Roses, the returns
> > home tended to be very slow affairs. York had only just gone over
> to
> > France when he went zooming off to Pontoise,
>
> It seems he arrived in time to take part in a campaign put together
> by John Talbot. This makes some of Jones' assertions about
>
> and my own feeling is
> > that he would have wanted to show himself properly on the way
back.
> > My main point is that at least part of the road home must have
been
> > dangerous because I think I am right in saying that Paris, which
> had
> > to be bypassed, was in French hands at the time, and the whole
> > country was pretty lawless.
>
>
> Bill: Geographically Pontoise lies between Paris and Rouen. That is
> why the campaign was of military significance as an English
position
> in the Seine/Oise area would be sufficient to block/threaten the
> western edge of Paris. Paris was not on York's way home to Rouen

Sorry, you're right. It is quite close to Paris though.
>
>
>
> So the idea of Cecily riding down to
> > Pontoise, or York returning to Rouen by a quick gallop home
through
> > the woods without proper back-up, seems fanciful.
>
>
> Bill: But surely this is more less what York did in 1460 when he
went
> North to quell the disturbances in Yorkshire with inadequate
support
> and unfortunate consequences at Wakefield?

Hardly. He did have an army with his, but not large enough. And he
took ages getting from London to Yorkshire.
>
>
>
> However, the whole
> > argument is a bit pointless at this point as we don't really
know,
> > from the little that Jones has given away, what date York
actually
> > left Pontoise.
>
>
> Bill: Nor does he give us any information as to whether Cicely was
in
> Rouen the whole time.

I have discussed this with him. He feels that it would have been
impossible. Just too far and too unsafe. And it just wasn't the sort
of thing that happened anyway.
>
>
> >
> > But I do insist that Jones has done us a service in opening up a
> > possibility that was simply not being looked at, and that what is
> > needed now is some good follow-up research.
>
>
> Bill: I agree but he does not do his arguments any service by not
> stating his evidence clearly and unequivocally. The fact that some
> of the material in the book has prompted a wide ranging discussion
is
> proof enough of its value irrespective of the veracity or otherwise
> of his assertions.
>
>
> But perhaps we won't get
> > anything that can be accepted as proof unless we could
demonstrate
> > that Edward's Y chromosome was not the same as York's. At least
> > Joness says he found this info in the Rouen cathedral records
> whilst
> > researching the Hundred Years War, so perhaps he's saving the
> details
> > of the Pontoise campaign for that (I hope).
>
>
> Bill: I doubt that there will ever be any proof as such.

Me too.

All that can
> be hoped for is that enough evidence may be unearthed that permits
a
> reasonable hypothesis.

>
> The whole paternity issue seems to me to be a red herring in that
> common law presumed a wife's child was by her husband and as far as
> we can tell York treated Edward as his son. Whether he was or was
not
> the father does not seem to me to be the root of the 1483 problem.

I don't quite agree. All would have been well if the mother herself
had not testified to his alternative paternity. After that there was
no going back. It is my reading of the situation that Richard
actually started out perpared to acknowledge Edward V but was unable
to carry on because the Woodvilles just weren't prepared to trust him
given what he knew.



> The tensions within the `Royal Family' engendered by Edward's
> marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, his behaviour (both private and
> public) coupled with placing Edward Prince of Wales under the
> tutelage of his wife's family seem to be enough to create a
> problematic situation.
>
> Richard of Gloucester had to make a choice between survival or
> extinction (remember the fate of Clarence). He chose the former. In
> taking that course of action he displayed statesman like qualities
of
> which Macchiavelli would have approved. Richard's difficulty seems
> to have been that his power base in the south was not extensive
> enough. Thus once he had disposed of Hastings (harsh but necessary)

I have actually come round to believe there was a plot. Quite apart
from the apparently genuine panic in the letters Richard sent north
on 99th & 10th June, you know the note about the events of 13th June
in the Cely papers? written on the back of an inventory in George
Cely's hand, giving information from the Prior of St John's (a royal
councillor hostile to Richard) in odd half sentences, and sent over
to Calais (Hastings' Calais, no less)? Well, it contains some odd
symbols very deliberately placed above some of the words, and they
are very similar-looking to the secret code used by Perkin Warbeck 10
years later. So it would appear that the Prior and someone in Calais
had a diplomatic code which they were using in the context of a note
(it isn't even a letter in that it is not actually addressed to
anyone, or signed) about Hastings' death.
Also am I right in thinking Hastings' brother Ralph remained
Richard's man?


> and Buckingham (as slippery as an eel) he had to bring down a
number
> of his northern supporters to fill the administration. His
powerbase
> was not extensive enough in the long run.

Or not southern enough.

Henry Tudor's grab for the
> crown was a `rainbow coalition' of malcontents who could expect no
> favours from Richard. Oops got sidetracked sorry about that.
>
> What Jones has done is to show to the reading public that Richard
III
> was not the sterotypical schemer depicted in Shakespeare but a more
> complex and appealing character entirely.
>
>
> >
> > I think as regards Cecily following York everywhere, that tends
to
> be
> > based on birthplaces of children, and some of these places have
> been
> > misinterpreted, giving an exaggerated impression of her
constantly
> > scurrying around after itinerant husband. Henry's birthplace of
> > Hatfield, for instance, was until recently mistaken for Hatfield
in
> > Herts, which belonged to the Bishop of Ely (Thomas Bourchier at
the
> > time); the Hatfield where he was born in fact belonged to York,
and
> > he was resident there right through the first half of 1441.
John's
> > birthplace (I can't recall the spelling in the original document)
> is
> > often identified as Neath in South Wales but was almost certainly
> the
> > Neyte, the Abbot of Westminster's private mansion, which York was
> > using as his London base at that time. All three of the children
> born
> > in Normandy were born in Rouen.
>
> Bill: What you say sort of demonstrates that Cicely (for whatever
> reason) was not the kind of woman to mind the family estates in
> England.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill