Medieval children (particularly gentry and nobility)

If you were really top notch (ie royalty and probably the odd duke) then the eldest male soon had their own household with a regulated routine such as Edward IV laid down for Edward V and Henry VII for Arthur (see Wilkinson if you want the fine detail of the former). These children rarely saw mummy - they were miniature adults, as were all children. You'll recall Edward and Edmund wrote to the DOY complaining about their tutor and Richard, being a younger child with his mother, rarely saw his father. Younger children stayed in mummy's household - which is why Henry VIII grew up devoted to EOY (and to women) because, as second son, he'd been in her household. Other aristocratic boys were sent to other households for military training (like Richard) or to university, for a career in the Church. So little playtime, except practising adult things like chess or archery. Lots of time learning the catechism. As you say, play rather than training, is a very twentieth century thing apart from the odd doll, as is child development as something separate from preparing for adulthood. If you took your child along with you it would be to impress or to protect them, not so that they didn't miss a cuddle. Grammar schools, like the one Shakespeare attended at Stratford, or St Peter's York (the Minster's school) which dates from about 647AD were set up for the benefit of middle class children - boys only of course, sometimes by the Guilds and sometimes by wealthy benefactors. They reached their peak by Henry VIII and were the pathway for a poorish child to gain an education and occasionally to go to Oxford and Cambridge. Some are still with us despite a purge in the middle of last century. Education of girls (in housecraft of course) didn't start until the odd charity appeared at the end of the eighteenth century and wasn't made law until the 1870s. Hope this helps. I'm sure others will give examples. H
From: "khafara@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 17 April 2015, 1:49
Subject: Medieval children (particularly gentry and nobility)

I was wondering how medieval English parents, particularly those of the upper classes, dealt with rearing their children.
Did the parents sometimes take their kiddies with them on their travels? Were they just dropped off with a relative for knightly (or lady-ly, to make a particularly ugly word coinage) training until they were considered adult enough to be fit company? (Being that current Anglo-Western notions of "traditional family life" and aseem to be quite recent in origin.)
And what of those families that were above the salt, but only just? The sons of knights, for instance? Or who were the offspring of wealthy commoners, like merchants, drapers, and grocers? Would the parents of those kids be doing much of the sort of educating in manners, deportment, warfare, etc. that the higher nobility left up to others?
Tamara

I think growing up in the Household of mothers, who were grand ladies, also was quite differnt from our ideas of motherhood. The mother supervised the upbringing, but there would not be much cuddling.
First they had nurses and later tutors. I personally don't believe, that EOY had such a close relationship to HVIII, because he grew up in her household. Is there any proof for this? The same goes for Richard. He surely respected his mother, but in his childhood she would be occupied with other things than sitting in the nursery
and watch her boys playing.
Eva

Two cents from the Brooklyn Contingent:
To quote the Duke of York in _Man for All Seasons_, "This isn't Spain, this is England!" - however, I'm going to use the Trastamara family as an example of how at least one highly-placed fifteenth century family seemed to treat its children:
Starting with Enrique IV of Castile, who was born in 1425:  he definitely seemed to have grown up away from his parents, and to have been brought up, mainly, by his tutor, Bishop Lope de Barrientos (there's a story of Barrientos carrying Enrique to safety during an earthquake.  This same Barrientos was rebuked by Enrique many years later when the Bishop advocated promoting civil war and Enrique observed that, as a childless man it was easy for the bishop to support the idea of sending young men to death.  Barrientos exploded that Enrique would go down in history as the worst king Castile would ever have.  Nice meeting of minds there...).
Enrique was the only surviving child of Juan II's first marriage, and grew up as heir presumptive.  Juan's second marriage produced Isabel the Catholic and her brother Alfonso.  Juan died when Isabel was about three years old.  Her mother, herself and Alfonso lived in the town of Arevalo, where it seems they were pretty much left on their own for about a decade.  
During that time, the children were not brought up as royalty.  Isabel learned country-woman arts like weaving; and she and Alfonso seemed to be close to their mother, living in the same space and getting to know their mother in all her difficult phases.  The siblings were called to court after Enrique's putative daughter, Juana "la Beltraneja" was born, and they stayed there until the civil war began, in 1465.  After Alfonso died, in 1468, and Isabel made tentative peace with Enrique, she was made heiress presumptive and had her own household.
When Isabel became a mother, she seems to have been close to all her surviving five children - she was actively involved in their education; they traveled with their parents; and there's a story about Prince Juan not wanting to give away his old clothes, and Isabel calling him to her to lecture him about the importance of charity - Juan,the only boy, did have his own household, but it seems to have been closely supervised by Isabel.  The girls were much more carefully educated than Isabel had been, and both parents seemed proud of them:  Hieronymous Munzer, who was in Castile after 1492, was on hand to be invited hear Juana play the guitar.
Fernando *may* also have been a sort of hands-on parent - when Juana returned to Castile with husband Philip the Handsome, Philip came down with a case of measles, and Fernando rode (I forget where to) to meet them.  Juana had no qualms about losing any dignity when she saw him and went running to hug him.
So there's at least one royal example of a close-living as well as close-knit family.
Mariaejbronte@...
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:27 PM, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
 

I think growing up in the Household of mothers, who were grand ladies, also was quite differnt from our ideas of motherhood. The mother supervised the upbringing, but there would not be much cuddling.
First they had nurses and later tutors. I personally don't believe, that EOY had such a close relationship to HVIII, because he grew up in her household. Is there any proof for this? The same goes for Richard. He surely respected his mother, but in his childhood she would be occupied with other things than sitting in the nursery
and watch her boys playing.
Eva

Thanks, everyone!
By the way: The reason I was asking was that I was wondering how Robert Percy's son, who was apparently known as Robert Percy of Knaresborough to distinguish him from his father who was from Scotton, would have been brought up in a time where he may well have been of one of the last generations to have been brought up in that fashion. Truly a pivotal time.
My guess is that, like his father, he would have been brought up at Middleham, and learned there to revere the cause of York as well as his father's friends, Richard Gloucester and Francis Lovell - he would fight alongside Lovell at Stoke and be attainted for it, though apparently he still had friends, or Henry needed allies, for the attainder was lifted two years later if I recall correctly.
Tamara.