Emailing: Archer thread reply

Your files are attached and ready to send with this message.

----------



Marie,

Thanks for the information, but now I have More questions (sorry about the pun!).

You wrote: 'Thomas More says Doctor Shaa preached a sermon that was supposed to justify Richard's claim to the throne. Shaa supposedly said: "... neither King Edward himself nor the Duke of Clarence were lawfully begot, nor were the very children of the Duke of York who were got unlawfully by other persons by the adultery of the Dutchess their mother." (Richard III, the
great debate, ed. by Paul Murray Kendall, p. 86)'

My problem is - who is Shaa talking about? If I read the excerpt from More correctly, first Shaa mentions King Edward and the Duke of Clarence; THEN he switches to the "very children" of Duchess Cecily??

Is he talking about Edward V and the SON of Clarence and then about all (or some) of Cecily's children? Maybe it's just me, but that is certainly an unusual sentence construction.

Change of subject:

A thought about prematurity; not mine, but Sir Winston Churchill's. In a previous thread (I regret I don't know which one) someone doubted that Edward IV would have turned out as well (physically and mentally) as he did had he been premature. Sir Winston lived to be ninety and until the last three or four years was in remarkable health for his age and habits - even after suffering at least one major stroke, several minor strokes, and at least one heart attack (in 1942 or '43, I believe).

The only medical advances that come to mind between the 1440/50's and 1870/80's was sterilization and smallpox vaccination. And I'm not too certain about when sterilization became widespread. Other than those I would have thought the physical conditions for raising upper-class children wouldn't have been too dissimilar?

Anyway, thanks for the interesting exchanges - hope you find this if some interest.

Doug

--- In , "Doug Stamate"
<destama@k...> wrote:
>
> Your files are attached and ready to send with this message.
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> Marie,
>
> Thanks for the information, but now I have More questions (sorry
about the pun!).
>
> You wrote: 'Thomas More says Doctor Shaa preached a sermon that was
supposed to justify Richard's claim to the throne. Shaa supposedly
said: "... neither King Edward himself nor the Duke of Clarence were
lawfully begot, nor were the very children of the Duke of York who
were got unlawfully by other persons by the adultery of the Dutchess
their mother." (Richard III, the
> great debate, ed. by Paul Murray Kendall, p. 86)'
>
> My problem is - who is Shaa talking about? If I read the excerpt
from More correctly, first Shaa mentions King Edward and the Duke of
Clarence; THEN he switches to the "very children" of Duchess Cecily??
>
> Is he talking about Edward V and the SON of Clarence and then about
all (or some) of Cecily's children? Maybe it's just me, but that is
certainly an unusual sentence construction.

Sorry Doug, that wasn't my message. I try to ignore More as much as
possible! I've just checked in Vitellius A XVI (London Chronicle),
and it doesn't say what grounds were mentioned at Paul's Cross
(viz: "And vpon the sonday after was declared at powles Crosse, that
kyng Edwardes children wer not Ryghtfull Enheritours vnto the Crowne,
but that the Duke of Glowcetir's title was bettir than thers.")
So I can't help, I'm afraid, but I do believe we're not reliant on
More for the claim that Edward's bastardy was brought up at Paul's
Cross, and indeed Titulus Regius hints at same claim. More's Richard
III is online somewhere, actually, if you want to check the quotation.


>
> Change of subject:
>
> A thought about prematurity; not mine, but Sir Winston Churchill's.
In a previous thread (I regret I don't know which one) someone
doubted that Edward IV would have turned out as well (physically and
mentally) as he did had he been premature. Sir Winston lived to be
ninety and until the last three or four years was in remarkable
health for his age and habits - even after suffering at least one
major stroke, several minor strokes, and at least one heart attack
(in 1942 or '43, I believe).
>
> The only medical advances that come to mind between the 1440/50's
and 1870/80's was sterilization and smallpox vaccination. And I'm not
too certain about when sterilization became widespread. Other than
those I would have thought the physical conditions for raising upper-
class children wouldn't have been too dissimilar?

I'd be interested if someone could come up with an example other than
Winnie. One swallow doesn't make a summer, as we say. Particularly as
with a baby born so soon after the marriage there has to be a
questionmark over dates. The fact is that 5 weeks 4 days early is
still regarded as physically premature and therefore risky. I have
never denied the possibility that Edward could have been fathered by
York, but still insist that this is statistically by far the less
likely option. There is besides absolutely no evidence that Edward
believed himself to have been premature; in fact there is evidence to
the contrary. His date of birth innocently suggests a date of
conception based around 5th August, which just happens to be bang in
the middle of York's absence.
If there were no documentary evidence that Edward was believed to
have been conceived in adultery we might leave it at that. But with
Mancini being informed in 1483 that Cecily had confessed to this
adultery in a public row after Edward's marriage, and the Duke of
Burgundy having named the father, and Edward's brother having spent
his whole adult life conniving at the throne because of it.... Well!
Also worth remembering that this claim was made at Paul's Cross while
Richard was living in his mother's house, and it doesn't seem to have
harmed their relations.

Marie

>