Katherine Woodville's birth date

I have come across some fiction and non fiction books stating two very different ages for Elizabeth Woodville's sister Katherine at the time of her wedding to the 12 years old Duke of Buckingham.

Some sources seem to be based on her brother Richard's 1492 postmortem inquisition names her as being 34 or more, placing her birthdate at about 1458. (See Calendar of Inquisitions Post-Mortem, Henry VII, vol. I, No. 681 (Richard, Earl of Ryvers), thus making her 9 at the time of the wedding.

Some other sources give her as old as 24 when she married the 12 years old Henry Stafford, who seem to have resented not only her low birth, but also her too early phisical attentions. What is this assumption based on?

Their first child is reported to have been born in 1478 when Henry was 23 (my source being Wikipedia, please don't shoot me...) - how old was Katherine then? Mac

Nico,

I wonder, are you at all familiar with medieval astrology? I am keen to find someone who can analyse Edward IV's horoscope (I can provide the exact birth details, which don't tally with the online horoscopes I've found btw) in the light of the methods used in his day to calculate lifespan, in order to understand the basis for the astrologer John Stacy's conclusion (allegedly divulged publicly in 1475) that he didn't have long to live.

Marie

Hi Nico,

I'm only interested in this for academic reasons - not because I think it works so I don't care whether modern or medieval is better. I'm completely agnostic about astrology in general and I just need to know how people in the 15th century were reading their world. I've studied Stacy's trial, and would like to be able to understand what he was up to. Also, there is a 15thC astrologer's notebook in the National Archives, which they think was probably impounded in relation to a treason trial, and looking at Edward IV's chart might help to determine whether it is likely to have belonged to Stacy (other candidates, of course, would include Roger Bolingbroke & Thomas Nandyke).

Medieval astrology seems to have been a complicated business; what it lacked in planets it made up for in procedures; and I suppose I'm looking for someone who is familiar with it. I don't know if you've come across Robert Zoller's website. He seems to have made a lifetime study of medieval astrology and rates it very his sniffy about modern astrology, which he sees as degraded, so there are clearly different ways of looking at this issue. But, as I say, I don't really believe in astrology at all although I'm willing to be convinced.

Zoller offers various online courses. I once thought I had an E. European aficionado of medieval astrology willing to do EIV's horoscope for me, but he disappeared again although not before he had sent me copies of the chapters of Robert Zoller's course that deal with the calculation of lifespan. So I could let you have a look at those as well.

I've sometimes toyed with the idea of taking Zoller's courses just so I could understand a bit more about how people were viewing their world at the time - astrology was such a ubiquitous tool for making high-level decisions (particularly when embarking on rebellions). Even Mancini's patron, Angelo Cato, was a renowned astrologer and I wonder if he may have been interested in Edward V's fate for astrological reasons (Stacy had made the same prediction about the future EV).

Predictions, of course, can be self-fulfilling.

Marie

Hi again Nico,

I think, rereading your post, that you probably wouldn't want to do the work on Edward IV's chart that I am looking because it would take you into morally unacceptable realms, and I can quite understand that.

I think I could have worded my last post better - eg. by "I don't care whether modern or medieval is better" I mean that it doesn't matter for my purposes. In fact, unless and until I become a believer in astrologer per se it is obviously a not a debate that can have any meaning for me.

Can I just say that I have nothing but admiration for people who can cast horoscopes of medieval people. The nine days difference in the calendar is enough for me, never mind coping with the changes in the night sky over time (the precession of the equinoxes, yes?) and lack of summertime/wintertime changes and use of strictly local time. Do you have software you can use, or how is it done?

If you do want to cast Edward's chart, then his birth details according to William Worcester's list (probably copied from a list kept by the Yorks) are:

Date: 28 April 1442

Time: 2. 44 am

Place: Rouen.

The last time I looked (which was some while ago) none of the online horoscopes for EIV was based on the correct birth time. I don't know where these people come up with the times they do.

The same is true for Richard, As Carol rightly says, William Worcester failed to note down his time of birth. We do have some clue, however, because Rous says his rising sign was Scorpio. A word of warning in that Rous does get Richard's birth date wrong - the one he gives (21 October) was Clarence's, but according to William Worcester's list Clarence was born at noon so I think Scorpio would *not* have been his rising sign but perhaps you could confirm that for me. Anyway, if that is the case then I guess Scorpio probably was Richard's ascendant sign. Would I be right in thinking that would narrow it down to a two-hour window in the morning?

How did you go about it with Margaret Beaufort? I assume we don't know the time of day she was born.

Marie

Hi Tamara,

No, I don't recall looking at this site before - it's absolutely fascinating. They seem to be mainly concerned with classical texts, but they may be able to throw light on how astrology was practised in the 15th century.

I think it would definitely be worth my while contacting them. Will do. Thanks.

Marie

"The same is true for Richard, As Carol rightly says, William Worcester failed to note down his time of birth. We do have some clue, however, because Rous says his rising sign was Scorpio. A word of warning in that Rous does get Richard's birth date wrong - the one he gives (21 October) was Clarence's, but according to William Worcester's list Clarence was born at noon so I think Scorpio would *not* have been his rising sign but perhaps you could confirm that for me. Anyway, if that is the case then I guess Scorpio probably was Richard's ascendant sign. Would I be right in thinking that would narrow it down to a two-hour window in the morning?"

Hi Nico,

I look forward to Edward IV's chart with great interest. J-AH probably published his list after Baldwin, and it was based on all the versions of William Worcestre/Worcestre/Wyrcestre/Botoner's lists that seem to be extant - I know he did quite a lot of trawling.* As far as I'm aware, these plus Rous are all we have for Richard's birth (plus the note written into his book of hours against 2nd October to the effect that on that date in 1452 King Richard was born at Fotheringhay).

*It's spelled Wyrcestre in the heading of his Annales published in Stevenson's Letters & Papers relating to the War in France, but has other spellings elsewhere, as you'd expect for that period.

I have a copy of Gairdner's 'Richard III' so I've looked up what he has to say about Richard's birth - he gives only Monday 2nd October 1452, Fotheringhay. He used Wyrcester's Annales as his source. There is nothing about 9.02 am anywhere that I can see so that must have been the guess of the individual who cast the horoscope..

We have three horoscopes for Richard in the Barton Papers Library. The astrologers who did two of them were unaware of Rous and so went for the rising sign that best fitted their preconceptions of his personality: one went for Capricorn, but the other, interestingly enough, plumped for Scorpio. The third knew about Rous' comment - and assumed it to be correct. Of the two Scorpio charts, one settled on 9.15 am (bang in the middle of Scorpio at the time, I think) and the other with 8.05 am for time of birth.

As Carol has indicated, there has been disagreement on the forum as to whether Rous made up the Scorpio Rising, but at the beginning of that debate there was an assumption by many members of the forum - misled by some very erudite historians - that Rous was talking about Richard's Sun Sign. If that is what Rous had meant then he would evidently have been wrong. Also, once you realise his incorrect birth date for Richard was actually Clarence's birthday then that starts to look less like tampering with the facts and more like a genuine slip.

My own view is that you don't knowingly make claims that can easily be disproved. Ergo Rous based his comments on Richards appearance on the scoliosis he actually had, but made it sound like the sign of a bad character. I feel he would have done the same with Richard's birth chart. No point in saying his rising sign was Scorpio in a book to be presented at court if all his former doctors, etc, knew it was really Virgo! Better to tell the truth but make it sound bad. So I find it very interesting (but not surprising) that you don't see Scorpio as intrinsically negative. (Just as well because someone cast my horoscope when I was young, and I seem to recall it was my rising sign too.)

You were losing me a bit with the arcs and stuff, I'm afraid. I really will have to start learning some astrology if I can just squeeze in a few extra minutes a day....

Marie

Eva said:
Who, at the Tudor Court would care, if Rous' statements were correct or not? His book was anti Richard propaganda.Any doctors etc.who knew better would see it for what it was and not take it seriously. Those
who believed in the propaganda did not care for the truth (as is the way with propaganda even today).
The fact that Rous was right about the raised shoulder does not mean he was right about everything.
Some things he wrote were facts,others fiction.Chosing Scorpio as the rising sign at Richard's birth gave
him the wonderful opportunity to compare Richard with a most "hideous" and fearsome creature-the
scorpion.
Maybe Richard's ascendant was Scorpio, but it could be any other astrological sign as well. I have no
problem, if it was, but I can't take Rous word for truth.

Marie:

This isn't provable either way, of course, unless another source comes to light. But these arguments do have a ring of deja vue for me, I'm afraid. Back in the days when Katy who used to post on this forum and myself were arguing that there was probably something at the root of Rous' statement about Richard's uneven shoulders and the York schoolmaster's labelling of him as a crookback - all within a very few years of Bosworth - we were shot down in flames of outrage. Propaganda, in actual fact, always uses as much of the truth as it can otherwise it is too easily exposed for what it is. No, Rous wasn't right about everything (evidently Richard didn't lie two years in his mother's womb, though it is just possible that there was an unusually long gap - for Cecily, that is - between him and his predecessor Thomas), but I suspect he took an interest in astrology, and he would have had access to family information.

Had Richard's rising sign been something visually difficult to spin as evil (say, Virgo or Aquarius) then I personally think Rous would have left it alone and focused on something else - some allegedly malign influence of Mars or Saturn, or being a child of the darkness or whatever there was in the chart that could be used, or simply have ignored the astrology. But other rising signs could have been quite well spun too: cancer scuttling crab, for instance, its fingers and toes sharp weapons. Or Sagittarius - half man, half beast, taking aim at all those he wishes to bring low. Taurus the raging bull. Aries the raging ram. Capricorn the devil-goat.

Eva said:
Who, at the Tudor Court would care, if Rous' statements were correct or not? His book was anti Richard propaganda.Any doctors etc.who knew better would see it for what it was and not take it seriously. Those
who believed in the propaganda did not care for the truth (as is the way with propaganda even today).
The fact that Rous was right about the raised shoulder does not mean he was right about everything.
Some things he wrote were facts,others fiction.Chosing Scorpio as the rising sign at Richard's birth gave
him the wonderful opportunity to compare Richard with a most "hideous" and fearsome creature-the
scorpion.
Maybe Richard's ascendant was Scorpio, but it could be any other astrological sign as well. I have no
problem, if it was, but I can't take Rous word for truth.

Marie:

This isn't provable either way, of course, unless another source comes to light. But these arguments do have a ring of deja vue for me, I'm afraid. Back in the days when Katy who used to post on this forum and myself were arguing that there was probably something at the root of Rous' statement about Richard's uneven shoulders and the York schoolmaster's labelling of him as a crookback - all within a very few years of Bosworth - we were shot down in flames of outrage. Propaganda, in actual fact, always uses as much of the truth as it can otherwise it is too easily exposed for what it is. No, Rous wasn't right about everything (evidently Richard didn't lie two years in his mother's womb, though it is just possible that there was an unusually long gap - for Cecily, that is - between him and his predecessor Thomas), but I suspect he took an interest in astrology, and he would have had access to family information.

Had Richard's rising sign been something visually difficult to spin as evil (say, Virgo or Aquarius) then I personally think Rous would have left it alone and focused on something else - some allegedly malign influence of Mars or Saturn, or being a child of the darkness or whatever there was in the chart that could be used, or simply have ignored the astrology. But other rising signs could have been quite well spun too: cancer scuttling crab, for instance, its fingers and toes sharp weapons. Or Sagittarius - half man, half beast, taking aim at all those he wishes to bring low. Taurus the raging bull. Aries the raging ram. Capricorn the devil-goat.

Pammy wrote:

"Marie, like so many things, astrology is debatable. And, as Carol said, there are both good and bad in every birth sign. Even if one has the absolute details, down to the absolute time, date, place, as Nico said (I think) there is choice and free will which often separates the horoscope."

Marie:

Hi Pammy, I don't disagree with any of these points. What I've got into debate with Carol & Eva about is not astrology (about which, as I've said, I am completely agnostic) but the interpretation of Rous. And it all started just by my pointing out for Nico's benefit the sole clue we may have (and I'm pretty sure I did use the word 'possible') as to Richard's birth time. I accept that even if reliable (and I suspect it is, which is what the debate has been about) this would still give us no better than a two-hour window.

My motivation for wanting the horoscopes cast accurately is to try to understand how they may have been interpreted by astrologers of the day. Of course those astrologers believed the horoscope left room for free will - that is precisely why people wanted astrological advice, in order to avoid walking blindly into any possible traps, to know the propitious and unpropitious times to embark on enterprises, and to be aware of personal tendencies which might need to be consciously countered.

So we seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet?

Nico, I am also Scorpio Rising, as is my husband, my father and my brother, and my best friend.

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 7:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Edward IV's birth chart (was K Woodville's birth date)

Hi Marie,

Because of the very precise time 9:02, I had taken Rous for granted as correct. I'm going to have another look at Richard's chart, with other timings and then with a clean slate. Actually, I remember being not entirely happy with the 9:02 chart when I looked at it in relation to Bosworth, although I can't remember exactly what the problem was. What time did the Capricorn rising chart say (or degree of Ascendant?) I wouldn't be surprised if I do come back to Scorpio though, as his appearance does suggest it. I'm a Scorpio rising too, and I can often spot them. Maybe it is why I feel a natural sympathy with him.

Sorry to confuse you with the technicalities, but once you get used to them they are quite easy. For anyone wanting to learn about astrology, I would recommend Parker's Astrology by Derek and Julia Parker. Also, you can draw up any chart you need with astrodienst (astro.com), you don't need to actual calcualations.

Nico

On Monday, 17 November 2014, 12:01, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

Marie, like so many things, astrology is debatable. And, as Carol said, there are both good and bad in every birth sign. Even if one has the absolute details, down to the absolute time, date, place, as Nico said (I think) there is choice and free will which often separates the horoscope.

On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:43 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Eva said:
Who, at the Tudor Court would care, if Rous' statements were correct or not? His book was anti Richard propaganda.Any doctors etc.who knew better would see it for what it was and not take it seriously. Those
who believed in the propaganda did not care for the truth (as is the way with propaganda even today).
The fact that Rous was right about the raised shoulder does not mean he was right about everything.
Some things he wrote were facts,others fiction.Chosing Scorpio as the rising sign at Richard's birth gave
him the wonderful opportunity to compare Richard with a most "hideous" and fearsome creature-the
scorpion.
Maybe Richard's ascendant was Scorpio, but it could be any other astrological sign as well. I have no
problem, if it was, but I can't take Rous word for truth.

Marie:

This isn't provable either way, of course, unless another source comes to light. But these arguments do have a ring of deja vue for me, I'm afraid. Back in the days when Katy who used to post on this forum and myself were arguing that there was probably something at the root of Rous' statement about Richard's uneven shoulders and the York schoolmaster's labelling of him as a crookback - all within a very few years of Bosworth - we were shot down in flames of outrage. Propaganda, in actual fact, always uses as much of the truth as it can otherwise it is too easily exposed for what it is. No, Rous wasn't right about everything (evidently Richard didn't lie two years in his mother's womb, though it is just possible that there was an unusually long gap - for Cecily, that is - between him and his predecessor Thomas), but I suspect he took an interest in astrology, and he would have had access to family information.

Had Richard's rising sign been something visually difficult to spin as evil (say, Virgo or Aquarius) then I personally think Rous would have left it alone and focused on something else - some allegedly malign influence of Mars or Saturn, or being a child of the darkness or whatever there was in the chart that could be used, or simply have ignored the astrology. But other rising signs could have been quite well spun too: cancer scuttling crab, for instance, its fingers and toes sharp weapons. Or Sagittarius - half man, half beast, taking aim at all those he wishes to bring low. Taurus the raging bull. Aries the raging ram. Capricorn the devil-goat.

Nico wrote:

"Because of the very precise time 9:02, I had taken Rous for granted as correct. I'm going to have another look at Richard's chart, with other timings and then with a clean slate. Actually, I remember being not entirely happy with the 9:02 chart when I looked at it in relation to Bosworth, although I can't remember exactly what the problem was. What time did the Capricorn rising chart say (or degree of Ascendant?) I wouldn't be surprised if I do come back to Scorpio though, as his appearance does suggest it. I'm a Scorpio rising too, and I can often spot them. Maybe it is why I feel a natural sympathy with him."

Marie:

Funny how so many of us who are currently posting are Scorpio rising, isn't it?

I've pulled out the Capricorn Ascendant lady's article, and she doesn't actually give a time of day. Also, she says "October 2nd is, of course, an 'old style' date which accords with 12/13 October 'new style.'" That would be correct for ostyle date of 18th century, just before we changed over to Gregorian calendar, but in the 15th century the old calendar wasn't yet quite that out of synch with real solar time, and 9 days is what's reckoned to be the correct difference between 15th century time and Gregorian time, so she should have based the chart on "new style" birth date of 11th October, yes?

I can scan the chart so you can see for yourself - I can't see any line at all going through Capricorn but you would be able to make sense of it. Just let me know if you would like to see it and I'll post it to files.

Carol wrote:

"I agree with Eva. Even if any of Richard's doctors was present at the Tudor court, why would they be more likely than anyone else to know Richard's time of birth? Babies were delivered by midwives, not physicians or surgeons.
I think that one reason (in addition to those that Eva and I have already noted) why Rous chose the rising sign over the birth sign was that it could *not* readily be disproved."

Marie:

I've only come back on this again because we are so obviously at cross purposes in understanding the evidence.

Q. Why would Richard's doctors be more likely than anyone else to know Richard's time of birth?

A. Because astrology was a normal tool of the physician. The correct treatment could not be decided without studying the patient's chart. I was not for one minute suggesting that any physicians, let alone those at court in the late 1480s, would have attended Richard's birth.

Statement. Richard's rising sign could not be readily disproved. "Then, again, the part about Richard's being two years in his mother's womb could be disputed not only by anyone present at the birth, most notably his mother...."

Response. Oh but it could. Richard's mother actually could not prove that she hadn't been pregnant with Richard for two years (and actually I think this claim just shows Rous's priestly naivete) - it wasn't something you could know by witnessing his birth, particularly if he had been born with hair and at least one baby tooth (both surprisingly common). But Cecily and everyone else present would have known for a fact what time of day he had been born; apart from anything else, it would have been carefully recorded so that his horoscope could be cast. William Worcester's list shows every sign of having been copied from this very list of nativity details as kept by the Duke and Duchess of York - just a pity that he missed noting Richard's birth time.

No point, therefore, in saying Richard was Scorpio rising (therefore, for a Libran, a morning birth) if his mother and all her attendants well remembered hearing the strains of evensong wafting from the castle chapel as she was giving birth, or the Evening Star twinkling in the newly darkened sky. Richard's mother, sisters, doctors and best friends would have been amongst the many people who would have known his rising sign for sure.

This isn't provable either way, of course, unless another source comes to light. But these arguments do have a ring of deja vue for me, I'm afraid. Back in the days when Katy who used to post on this forum and myself were arguing that there was probably something at the root of Rous' statement about Richard's uneven shoulders and the York schoolmaster's labelling of him as a crookback - all within a very few years of Bosworth - we were shot down in flames of outrage. Propaganda, in actual fact, always uses as much of the truth as it can otherwise it is too easily exposed for what it is. No, Rous wasn't right about everything (evidently Richard didn't lie two years in his mother's womb, though it is just possible that there was an unusually long gap - for Cecily, that is - between him and his predecessor Thomas), but I suspect he took an interest in astrology, and he would have had access to family information.

Had Richard's rising sign been something visually difficult to spin as evil (say, Virgo or Aquarius) then I personally think Rous would have left it alone and focused on something else - some allegedly malign influence of Mars or Saturn, or being a child of the darkness or whatever there was in the chart that could be used, or simply have ignored the astrology. But other rising signs could have been quite well spun too: cancer scuttling crab, for instance, its fingers and toes sharp weapons. Or Sagittarius - half man, half beast, taking aim at all those he wishes to bring low. Taurus the raging bull. Aries the raging ram. Capricorn the devil-goat.

Eva says.

Marie, you need not fear flames of outrage from me.As I said earlier,stating that somebody's ascendant sign

is Scorpio is no defamation of the person concerned. But the way Rous uses this possible fact certainly is.I don't agree, however, with your opinion, that other signs of the Zodiac could be used as effectively as

Scorpio to denigrate Richard. Other signs may be fearsome and dangerous too, but none will be perceived as insidious as Rous describes the scorpion.

And I do have a problem with your assertion that Rous had access to family information. I can't see that Richard had any personal connection with Rous. Rous was, I think connected to the Beauchamp family,

not the Plantagenets. And I can not imagine the Countess of Warwick intimating Richard's exact birth dates to Rous. Maybe you know something I don't know about this. But I think people, especially important people,

would be rather circumspect with their birth dates, because of the possibility to cast horoscopes.

Eva

Eva to Marie:

"And I do have a problem with your assertion that Rous had access to family information. I can't see that Richard had any personal connection with Rous. Rous was, I think connected to the Beauchamp family,

not the Plantagenets. And I can not imagine the Countess of Warwick intimating Richard's exact birth dates to Rous. Maybe you know something I don't know about this. But I think people, especially important people,

would be rather circumspect with their birth dates, because of the possibility to cast horoscopes."

Marie:

It isn't a question of Richard's having a personal connection with Rous.

Rous was connected to the lords of Warwick, who happened to be the Beauchamps in the early part of his career. Between 1471 and 1478 his master was Richard's brother Clarence. Clarence was probably aware of his siblings' horoscopes - they would all have had their horoscopes cast as infants. There was no secret about birth dates, even within the royal family, but exact *times* don't seem to have been generally published but of course they could be got, which is why it had been declared treason for anyone to cast the horoscopes of the King or his heir without the King's permission. There are references, with regard to early-Tudor conspiracies, to individuals refusing to take part unless they could first see the 'nativity' of the pretender in question. Buckingham had an astrologer, Thomas Nandyke, with him at Brecon as he prepared for his rebellion. I find it impossible to believe that Clarence never had his brother's horoscopes cast in the course of his scheming, and Rous is one Oxford academic in his employ who may have been privy to the details (he is also our source for the Prophecy of G).

As for York's family, William Worcester clearly got access to the list of his children's nativities not once but twice - once after George's birth and again after Richard's or Ursula's (I forget which was the last one in his list). They may have been hurried, surreptitious looks because he made quite a few mistakes and omissions in noting the information down, but evidently this list was not kept locked away in a sealed vault.

We don't know whether the Countess of Warwick was present at Richard's birth, but Fotheringhay is not such a terribly long journey from Warwick and Rous tells us the Countess loved attending women in childbirth. We do know that Cecily was Isabel's godmother so it is quite likely the two women attended each other's births when they could.

Dare I suggest your hostility to Rous' Scorpio rising, whatever you say, was initially based on acceptance of his claim that it is a bad sign, and that this hostility is now fixed? It may be wrong, and Nico is quite right to look at other signs as well, but I don't know why my putting forward as a possible lead Rous' information - which is the only source we have for Richard's time of birth - is causing such a stir.

I"'ve only come back on this again because we are so obviously at cross purposes in understanding the evidence.

Q. Why would Richard's doctors be more likely than anyone else to know Richard's time of birth?

A. Because astrology was a normal tool of the physician. The correct treatment could not be decided without studying the patient's chart. I was not for one minute suggesting that any physicians, let alone those at court in the late 1480s, would have attended Richard's birth.

Statement. Richard's rising sign could not be readily disproved. "Then, again, the part about Richard's being two years in his mother's womb could be disputed not only by anyone present at the birth, most notably his mother...."

Response. Oh but it could. Richard's mother actually could not prove that she hadn't been pregnant with Richard for two years (and actually I think this claim just shows Rous's priestly naivete) - it wasn't something you could know by witnessing his birth, particularly if he had been born with hair and at least one baby tooth (both surprisingly common). But Cecily and everyone else present would have known for a fact what time of day he had been born; apart from anything else, it would have been carefully recorded so that his horoscope could be cast. William Worcester's list shows every sign of having been copied from this very list of nativity details as kept by the Duke and Duchess of York - just a pity that he missed noting Richard's birth time.

No point, therefore, in saying Richard was Scorpio rising (therefore, for a Libran, a morning birth) if his mother and all her attendants well remembered hearing the strains of evensong wafting from the castle chapel as she was giving birth, or the Evening Star twinkling in the newly darkened sky. Richard's mother, sisters, doctors and best friends would have been amongst the many people who would have known his rising sign for sure."

Carol responds:

Sorry for not snipping. Just a few points as we obviously will never agree on this. As I read Rous's description of the infant Richard, it means hair *flowing* to his shoulders (newborn infants have no neck to speak of but a fifteen-month-old child would, so the hair could flow. (Of course, many infants, perhaps most, are born with hair, but normally it covers only the head. Often it sticks out like a baby chick's down.) As for a tooth or two, that's rarer but still normal, but Rous is describing a freak of nature. The implication is a full set of teeth. As for naivete, not even a priest would be so naive as to think that a woman would be pregnant for two years.

Rous clearly did not inquire of Richard's mother or sisters when he was born. He might, as you said some time ago, have consulted the Countess of Warwick, who might or might not have been present.

As for the physicians knowing his rising sign because astrology was important in their treatments, that's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. But do we know any of Richard's physicians who would also have known Rous? And did Rous actually spend time at the Tudor court? I was not aware that he interviewed anybody; I thought that he simply recorded his "facts" (including opinion, rumors, and legend) out of his own head. He was, after all, an old man who probably lacked the time and energy to interview physicians to see if they knew Richard's birth sign.

I thought perhaps he had read William of Worcester and "accidentally" given him George's rising sign, but (according to J A-H, quoting Worcester) George was born at noon.

At any rate, I wouldn't trust Rous with the time of day, and even if he was right about the rising sign, he was using it (along with the raised shoulder, the supposed unnatural gestation, and the "murders") for propaganda purposes (as I think you'll agree).

I didn't want to argue about this again as we will never agree.

Carol

Carol wrote:

"As I read Rous's description of the infant Richard, it means hair *flowing* to his shoulders (newborn infants have no neck to speak of but a fifteen-month-old child would, so the hair could flow. (Of course, many infants, perhaps most, are born with hair, but normally it covers only the head. Often it sticks out like a baby chick's down.) As for a tooth or two, that's rarer but still normal, but Rous is describing a freak of nature. The implication is a full set of teeth. As for naivete, not even a priest would be so naive as to think that a woman would be pregnant for two years.

Rous clearly did not inquire of Richard's mother or sisters when he was born. He might, as you said some time ago, have consulted the Countess of Warwick, who might or might not have been present.

As for the physicians knowing his rising sign because astrology was important in their treatments, that's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. But do we know any of Richard's physicians who would also have known Rous?"

Marie:

Just a couple of points. I actually see Rous as having probably got Richard's nativity details from either the Countess or Clarence; since he doesn't give Richard's birthdate in the Rous Roll it's probable that his source wasn't Richard or Anne, and I've no doubt it wasn't Richard's doctors and never suggested it was. My reading of Rous' Historia is not the one commonly given (ie that it was entirely composed for Henry after Bosworth) because it contains a lot of passages of glowing praise for Richard, particularly those relating to the early parts of his reign. To my mind this whole end section of his history looks like a complimentary account of Richard's reign that was unfinished at the time of Bosworth, and then revised and completed up to end 1488 for presentation to Henry VII. This exercise may not have been voluntary because Henry and Elizabeth stayed at Warwick for some time during 1487 and Henry could have come across the draft then and demanded changes (just as Terry Jones has suggested Henry IV leant on chroniclers to rewrite their accounts of Richard II's reign). H & E may even have been the source of the story of Rivers' hair shirt displayed by the monks of Doncaster, and his trial before the Earl of Northumberland (Henry had been through Doncaster but I bet Rous hadn't). Rous can actually find nothing complimentary to say about Henry except the birth to him of a son, and avoids all mention of the Lambert Simnel business. Also, it's hard to see why the old man would have bothered with the rewrites left to himself since Henry VII was never going to be his patron in the same way as Richard and Anne.

Rous is awkward because his account contains so much palpable nonsense, but it also contains real gems. The age he gives for Prince Edward at the time of his investiture, for instance, accords completely with the birth year given by the monks of Tewkesbury for Richard's son (whose name they did not have and which was unfortunately later filled in as George). It is Rous we have to thank for the details about Richard's disafforestation of parts of Wychwood on his progress and his refusal of monetary gifts offered by the towns he passed through.

I'm puzzled when you say not even a priest would think a woman could be pregnant for two years. Why do you think Rous wrote this, then? It clearly was viewed as palpable nonsense by everyone else because it was never copied by any other writer, but the only reason I can think of for Rous including this tale knowing it to be risible would be to alert his readers to the fact that his denigration of Richard was all baloney.

And of course Rous himself can't have been present at Richard's birth, so if his description of the hair and teeth is based on reality it is all second hand. Again, it is important to distinguish what he says from the way he tells it.

Also, I'm not sure this has really been taken on board, but bear in mind that the rising sign is the simple result of the time of day the person was born on the date they were born, and the birth of a baby is no secret when it occurs in a household. We're talking about something that can be worked out on one's fingers - there's no need to actually draw up a chart, and no need even for the services of an astrologer.

"Just a couple of points. I actually see Rous as having probably got Richard's nativity details from either the Countess or Clarence; since he doesn't give Richard's birthdate in the Rous Roll it's probable that his source wasn't Richard or Anne, and I've no doubt it wasn't Richard's doctors and never suggested it was."

Carol responds:

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I can't go back to your original post to see what you actually wrote, but we can drop that point if you like.

Marie wrote:

"My reading of Rous' Historia is not the one commonly given (ie that it was entirely composed for Henry after Bosworth) because it contains a lot of passages of glowing praise for Richard, particularly those relating to the early parts of his reign. To my mind this whole end section of his history looks like a complimentary account of Richard's reign that was unfinished at the time of Bosworth, and then revised and completed up to end 1488 for presentation to Henry VII. This exercise may not have been voluntary because Henry and Elizabeth stayed at Warwick for some time during 1487 and Henry could have come across the draft then and demanded changes (just as Terry Jones has suggested Henry IV leant on chroniclers to rewrite their accounts of Richard II's reign). [snip]"

Carol responds:

Very interesting suggestion. Maybe you should write another article.

Marie wrote:

"Rous is awkward because his account contains so much palpable nonsense, but it also contains real gems. The age he gives for Prince Edward at the time of his investiture, for instance, accords completely with the birth year given by the monks of Tewkesbury for Richard's son (whose name they did not have and which was unfortunately later filled in as George). It is Rous we have to thank for the details about Richard's disafforestation of parts of Wychwood on his progress and his refusal of monetary gifts offered by the towns he passed through."

Carol responds:

I know about the "gems," which are valuable for matters like EoM's age and the trial under Northumberland of Rivers et al. I mentioned his praise of Richard as a builder and his courage in battle. But the "gems" contrast oddly with the "palpable nonsense" of the paragraph we're discussing. Your theory would help to explain the clashing viewpoints within the same work (as well as the hurried deletions in the Latin version of the Rous Roll--thank goodness the English version escaped the scissors). My problem, which has nothing to do with our discussion, is that so far as I know, Rous's book is not available in translation except in snippets (not always translated exactly the same way). My Latin is too weak for me to attempt to read the Latin version even if I could obtain it. I wonder why one of our Ricardian scholars hasn't attempted to translate it, at least the portion relating to Richard III. If you know of a translation, preferably accessible online since it's difficult for me to deal with interlibrary loan in my present location, I would appreciate it.

Marie wrote:

"I'm puzzled when you say not even a priest would think a woman could be pregnant for two years. Why do you think Rous wrote this, then? It clearly was viewed as palpable nonsense by everyone else because it was never copied by any other writer, but the only reason I can think of for Rous including this tale knowing it to be risible would be to alert his readers to the fact that his denigration of Richard was all baloney."

Carol responds:

Actually, it was repeated by Sir Thomas More, who expressed scepticism, as I stated earlier: "It is for trouth reported, that the Duches his mother had so muche a doe in her travaile, that shee coulde not bee deliuered of hym uncutte: and that hee came into the worlde with the feete forwarde, as menne bee borne outwarde, and (as the fame runneth) also not vntothed, whither menne of hatred reporte aboue the trouthe, or elles that nature chaunged her course in hys beginninge, whiche in the course of his lyfe many thinges vnnaturallye committed."

Possibly, this skepticism was the reaction Rous intended (though readers have certainly taken the rest of his paragraph at face value). On a side note, as you may remember, I have suggested (and I know others have as well, perhaps Alison Hanham, whose book I haven't read for thirty years) that Sir Thomas More's surely deliberate misstatement of Edward IV's age at death (in years, months, and days, all wildly wrong) may have been intended to call attention to the fact that the rest of the book was equally false. Possibly Rous (whom I picture as less sophisticated and probably with less awareness of irony) used a similar tactic. Or maybe he was terrified of Henry!

Marie wrote:

"[snip] Also, I'm not sure this has really been taken on board, but bear in mind that the rising sign is the simple result of the time of day the person was born on the date they were born, and the birth of a baby is no secret when it occurs in a household. We're talking about something that can be worked out on one's fingers - there's no need to actually draw up a chart, and no need even for the services of an astrologer."

Carol responds:

Yes and no. All he would need is someone who was present at the birth and remembered that it took place in, say, the middle of the morning (perhaps in relation to a church service or a meal), so if your earlier suggestion that the Countess of Warwick was present, she might have some memory of when it took place (even though it was by then some thirty-seven years earlier and she may have attended many births). Or he might have found an old nativity horoscope lying around, but I doubt it. If, as you suggest, he made hurried changes after Henry found the manuscript, he might have just written the most arrant nonsense that occurred to him. I really don't think it was provably false or that king's birth dates were all that easy to determine (though I can see him having access to William of Worcester and somehow mixing up the birth dates and inventing a rising sign for Richard because the birth sign didn't fit his purpose and he knew he wouldn't be asked for supporting evidence.

Anyway, I simply think that someone who is considering casting a horoscope for Richard, medieval or otherwise (or is reading the one that's already online) should bear in mind that the Scorpio rising sign is part of a paragraph of blatantly anti-Richard propaganda, some of it nonsensical, and should for that reason be viewed with caution, especially since his birth time is not recorded elsewhere (Worcester is remarkably unhelpful when it comes to Richard as far as I can determine, and the genealogical poem only provides the birth order and a few deaths.)

I don't have any interest in astrology myself (though I'd read Richard's and Edward's horoscopes as cast by medieval astrologers if I could find them for their historical value). No offense to Nico and others who are interested in astrology for its own sake. I simply wanted him to know the source of his information (I still don't know the source for the 9:02--as you said, it wasn't Gairdner) and take it with a grain of salt.

Carol, who really did not want to start an argument on this topic!

Marie wrote:

"I'm puzzled when you say not even a priest would think a woman could be pregnant for two years. Why do you think Rous wrote this, then? It clearly was viewed as palpable nonsense by everyone else because it was never copied by any other writer, but the only reason I can think of for Rous including this tale knowing it to be risible would be to alert his readers to the fact that his denigration of Richard was all baloney."

Carol responded:

Actually, it was repeated by Sir Thomas More, who expressed scepticism, as I stated earlier: "It is for trouth reported, that the Duches his mother had so muche a doe in her travaile, that shee coulde not bee deliuered of hym uncutte: and that hee came into the worlde with the feete forwarde, as menne bee borne outwarde, and (as the fame runneth) also not vntothed, whither menne of hatred reporte aboue the trouthe, or elles that nature chaunged her course in hys beginninge, whiche in the course of his lyfe many thinges vnnaturallye committed."

Marie again:

Actually, when I said no one repeated it, I was referring specifically to the two years in the womb claim. More rejected that in favour of a footling birth.

Also, to pick up on the Prophecy of G again. I'm quite prepared to believe it was, like most prophecies, invented with hindsight, but given Rous's position within the Warwick household it is possible that he was genuinely aware of such a prophecy. It could easily have come about. If Clarence had put pressure on one of his men to predict the next king then he could well have ended up telling Clarence that said king's name would begin with G because any other answer would displease. I agree that, if Rous had been correct in saying that the prophecy was the cause of George's death then we might expect to find it in his Act of Attainder, but possibly not, because Edward would not have wanted to create the impression that he had killed Clarence in order to avert fate rather than for anything he had done wrong. There are actually a lot of omissions from Clarence's Act of Attainder - the Ankarette Twynyho business, his likely involvement with the Earl of Oxford, for instance - in short, anything that hadn't directly contributed to his arrest. Also, Edward would have been well aware that his other brother's title began with G.

Rous, however, doesn't give this information until he is talking about Richard's succession. It may therefore be one of these hindsight yarns, but even if it wasn't the placing in the text suggests Rous didn't write it down until Henry VII's reign. By that time the details of the charges against Clarence would have been fading from memory, particularly for someone like Rous who was not present in London when he was condemned. There could, in other words, have been such a prophecy but Edward IV didn't know about it. The other possibility, of course, is that the prophecy allegedly emanated from one of Edward's magic men (I don't think for one moment they'd have dared tell Edward such a thing). Edward didn't actually accuse Clarence of using magic at all, but Clarence did accuse Edward of using magic against him. Clarence might have spread it about at Warwick that Edward feared him because his magicians had told him the next king would be G,

My real concern over Rous' apparent knowledge of Richard's rising sign is that he didn't have Richard's right birth date. He didn't attempt to give birth dates for either George or Richard in the Roll, then in the Historia he gives a birthdate for Richard but it's actually George's. So if he was scrabbling about for information on Richard's actual birthday (and got it wrong), how was he able to give us his rising sign? Either he'd heard someone mention it in the past, or he had the birth time and worked it out - but if he'd worked it out based on 21st October birthday he may have got a wrong answer. But then again maybe he had got hold of the full nativity details for George and Richard but simply made an error with the birthdate when writing it into his history. I don't accept that Rous is wrong every time he is sounding hostile to Richard - he was right about his uneven shoulders and slight frame.

I'm not aware of any translation of Rous. Unfortunately, the Society is now short on really good latinists, and those there are simply don't have the time to spare for new projects. The MS version of Vergil's account of Richard's reign has already had to be put out to an outside translator. Rous' Latin isn't easy but I do think that a translation of the few pages dealing with Edward and Richard would be possible for the Society given enough commitment. The problem is that there are understandably mixed feelings about publishing an accessible version of what Rous has to say about Richard! I wonder - perhaps an unpublished translation to go in the Papers Library would be the way to go.

Marie (who didn't want an argument either)

"Just a couple of points. I actually see Rous as having probably got Richard's nativity details from either the Countess or Clarence; since he doesn't give Richard's birthdate in the Rous Roll it's probable that his source wasn't Richard or Anne, and I've no doubt it wasn't Richard's doctors and never suggested it was."

Carol responds:

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I can't go back to your original post to see what you actually wrote, but we can drop that point if you like.

Marie wrote:

"My reading of Rous' Historia is not the one commonly given (ie that it was entirely composed for Henry after Bosworth) because it contains a lot of passages of glowing praise for Richard, particularly those relating to the early parts of his reign. To my mind this whole end section of his history looks like a complimentary account of Richard's reign that was unfinished at the time of Bosworth, and then revised and completed up to end 1488 for presentation to Henry VII. This exercise may not have been voluntary because Henry and Elizabeth stayed at Warwick for some time during 1487 and Henry could have come across the draft then and demanded changes (just as Terry Jones has suggested Henry IV leant on chroniclers to rewrite their accounts of Richard II's reign). [snip]"

Carol responds:

Very interesting suggestion. Maybe you should write another article.

Marie wrote:

"Rous is awkward because his account contains so much palpable nonsense, but it also contains real gems. The age he gives for Prince Edward at the time of his investiture, for instance, accords completely with the birth year given by the monks of Tewkesbury for Richard's son (whose name they did not have and which was unfortunately later filled in as George). It is Rous we have to thank for the details about Richard's disafforestation of parts of Wychwood on his progress and his refusal of monetary gifts offered by the towns he passed through."

Carol responds:

I know about the "gems," which are valuable for matters like EoM's age and the trial under Northumberland of Rivers et al. I mentioned his praise of Richard as a builder and his courage in battle. But the "gems" contrast oddly with the "palpable nonsense" of the paragraph we're discussing. Your theory would help to explain the clashing viewpoints within the same work (as well as the hurried deletions in the Latin version of the Rous Roll--thank goodness the English version escaped the scissors). My problem, which has nothing to do with our discussion, is that so far as I know, Rous's book is not available in translation except in snippets (not always translated exactly the same way). My Latin is too weak for me to attempt to read the Latin version even if I could obtain it. I wonder why one of our Ricardian scholars hasn't attempted to translate it, at least the portion relating to Richard III. If you know of a translation, preferably accessible online since it's difficult for me to deal with interlibrary loan in my present location, I would appreciate it.

Marie wrote:

"I'm puzzled when you say not even a priest would think a woman could be pregnant for two years. Why do you think Rous wrote this, then? It clearly was viewed as palpable nonsense by everyone else because it was never copied by any other writer, but the only reason I can think of for Rous including this tale knowing it to be risible would be to alert his readers to the fact that his denigration of Richard was all baloney."

Carol responds:

Actually, it was repeated by Sir Thomas More, who expressed scepticism, as I stated earlier: "It is for trouth reported, that the Duches his mother had so muche a doe in her travaile, that shee coulde not bee deliuered of hym uncutte: and that hee came into the worlde with the feete forwarde, as menne bee borne outwarde, and (as the fame runneth) also not vntothed, whither menne of hatred reporte aboue the trouthe, or elles that nature chaunged her course in hys beginninge, whiche in the course of his lyfe many thinges vnnaturallye committed."

Possibly, this skepticism was the reaction Rous intended (though readers have certainly taken the rest of his paragraph at face value). On a side note, as you may remember, I have suggested (and I know others have as well, perhaps Alison Hanham, whose book I haven't read for thirty years) that Sir Thomas More's surely deliberate misstatement of Edward IV's age at death (in years, months, and days, all wildly wrong) may have been intended to call attention to the fact that the rest of the book was equally false. Possibly Rous (whom I picture as less sophisticated and probably with less awareness of irony) used a similar tactic. Or maybe he was terrified of Henry!

Marie wrote:

"[snip] Also, I'm not sure this has really been taken on board, but bear in mind that the rising sign is the simple result of the time of day the person was born on the date they were born, and the birth of a baby is no secret when it occurs in a household. We're talking about something that can be worked out on one's fingers - there's no need to actually draw up a chart, and no need even for the services of an astrologer."

Carol responds:

Yes and no. All he would need is someone who was present at the birth and remembered that it took place in, say, the middle of the morning (perhaps in relation to a church service or a meal), so if your earlier suggestion that the Countess of Warwick was present, she might have some memory of when it took place (even though it was by then some thirty-seven years earlier and she may have attended many births). Or he might have found an old nativity horoscope lying around, but I doubt it. If, as you suggest, he made hurried changes after Henry found the manuscript, he might have just written the most arrant nonsense that occurred to him. I really don't think it was provably false or that king's birth dates were all that easy to determine (though I can see him having access to William of Worcester and somehow mixing up the birth dates and inventing a rising sign for Richard because the birth sign didn't fit his purpose and he knew he wouldn't be asked for supporting evidence.

Anyway, I simply think that someone who is considering casting a horoscope for Richard, medieval or otherwise (or is reading the one that's already online) should bear in mind that the Scorpio rising sign is part of a paragraph of blatantly anti-Richard propaganda, some of it nonsensical, and should for that reason be viewed with caution, especially since his birth time is not recorded elsewhere (Worcester is remarkably unhelpful when it comes to Richard as far as I can determine, and the genealogical poem only provides the birth order and a few deaths.)

I don't have any interest in astrology myself (though I'd read Richard's and Edward's horoscopes as cast by medieval astrologers if I could find them for their historical value). No offense to Nico and others who are interested in astrology for its own sake. I simply wanted him to know the source of his information (I still don't know the source for the 9:02--as you said, it wasn't Gairdner) and take it with a grain of salt.

Carol, who really did not want to start an argument on this topic!

Hilary wrote:

"He could have got it from Anne Beauchamp. I (and it is just me) see the alteration in the Rous Roll as a bid to help get back the Beauchamp lands. Rous was a Beacuhamp man; he must have begrudged the end of the line and the passage of the lands to the Nevilles in the first place, even though he had to applaud them and their prodigy whilst they lived"

Marie responds:

I certainly think that restoration of the family would have been a motivating factor - have you read Lowry's article? There was also the question of young Warwick's imprisonment in the Tower. Of course, Warwick was the Countess's heir anyway, and the fact that he held the Warwick lands prematurely may have bothered Rous less than it bothered Anne Beauchamp.

I used to think that was explanation enough for what Rous did, but I'm no longer quite convinced. What was niggling away in the back of my mind is the fact that he did such a cock-eyed job of rewriting Richard as a monster, leaving in so much that was good and going so totally over the top with the bad. If he'd really been motivated by a desire to please Henry in order to help the Countess he would perhaps have done a more thorough and sensible job of it. It was when I listened to Terry Jones' talk on the subject of the rewriting of Richard II's reign that the penny dropped for me. Was he merely basically just making changes that he had been commanded to make? Having since then spent much time on that passage about Richard's bravery at Bosworth I have been brought up short every time I read it by Rous' plea: "However, if I might speak the truth to his honour" ('Attamen si ad ejus honorem veritatem dicam'). It's almost as though he's begging permission to say something good about Richard, as though he had been briefed by his imagined reader to write only bad things.

Henry certainly did visit Warwick and would almost certainly have met Rous, and so he may very well have seen the Roll and the unfinished Historia and got a bit cross.

I may be wrong about this but I think we both agree that we should cut Rous a bit of slack because he was essentially a decent man and his motive in rewriting his work does not seem to have been personal ambition.

Carol, I agree with you totally about schools here not teaching Latin. When I first worked in education it was taught on a regular basis, now hardly at all.
I have no knowledge of Latin myself which is regrettable, but for those studying history, botany, biology or medicine, the lack of Latin could be a real disadvantage.
I find it very sad.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Apologies for not quoting Marie's long post. Even if the Prophecy of G actually existed, it originally had nothing to do with Richard and was only applied to him in hindsight. After all, the next king's name was supposed to start with G and no one would have referred to Richard as "King Gloucester."

I like your idea of an unpublished translation of Rous for the Society's papers. As you say, he does make good points in other portions of the manuscript, and it would be very useful for serious Ricardian scholars. (Side note--I think it was a mistake for schools in Britain and the U.S. to stop teaching Latin. How will we train new historians for the ancient and medieval periods? Will they even be able to decipher the handwriting of *English* manuscripts? Will history even be taught in this forward-looking age where nothing is important except technology? Sorry--had to get that off my chest.)

It isn't that I reject everything unfavorable that Rous says about Richard. It's that particular paragraph I regard as suspect. I won't repeat my views on the rising sign, which haven' changed, but I do appreciate the discussion and the airing of new perspectives. Since we seem to have reached an impasse, I would really like to drop the subject.

Carol

Carol, I agree with you totally about schools here not teaching Latin. When I first worked in education it was taught on a regular basis, now hardly at all.
I have no knowledge of Latin myself which is regrettable, but for those studying history, botany, biology or medicine, the lack of Latin could be a real disadvantage.
I find it very sad.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Apologies for not quoting Marie's long post. Even if the Prophecy of G actually existed, it originally had nothing to do with Richard and was only applied to him in hindsight. After all, the next king's name was supposed to start with G and no one would have referred to Richard as "King Gloucester."

I like your idea of an unpublished translation of Rous for the Society's papers. As you say, he does make good points in other portions of the manuscript, and it would be very useful for serious Ricardian scholars. (Side note--I think it was a mistake for schools in Britain and the U.S. to stop teaching Latin. How will we train new historians for the ancient and medieval periods? Will they even be able to decipher the handwriting of *English* manuscripts? Will history even be taught in this forward-looking age where nothing is important except technology? Sorry--had to get that off my chest.)

It isn't that I reject everything unfavorable that Rous says about Richard. It's that particular paragraph I regard as suspect. I won't repeat my views on the rising sign, which haven' changed, but I do appreciate the discussion and the airing of new perspectives. Since we seem to have reached an impasse, I would really like to drop the subject.

Carol