Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle

I just finished Michael Jone's Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle and I was wondering for those of you who have been to Bosworth, what you thought about his placement of the battle elsewhere? Also what do you think of his suggestion that Cecily was telling the truth about Edward not being York's son?

Carol

--- In , "Carol Rondou"
<lilith@e...> wrote:
> I just finished Michael Jone's Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a
Battle and I was wondering for those of you who have been to
Bosworth, what you thought about his placement of the battle
elsewhere? Also what do you think of his suggestion that Cecily was
telling the truth about Edward not being York's son?
>
> Carol
>
>
>

Personally I do not believe Edward was York's son. It can't be proved
as York was not away at Pontoise so long as to make it physically
impossible, but he was away for long enough to make it extremely
probable. Also, for me it makes sense of a lot of odd things about
the Yorkist period. For instance, it is often argued that the
precontract is the reason Elizabeth Woodville wanted Clarence dead,
and why she wanted Edward V crowned before Richard could get near.
But it's worth remembering that Stillington wasn't imprisoned until
after Clarence was dead, that the Act of Attainder says Clarence had
been calling Edward a bastard but makes no mention of slurs on his
marriage. Also, and most tellingly, in 1483 the Woodvilles made no
move whatever to get control of Stillington.
It's my hunch that Stillington felt bad after Clarence's execution
and confided to someone that he was, even if not rightful king, then
at least the rightful heir because the King was a bigamist. I believe
this indiscretion was passed on to Edward, but he absolutely made
sure it never got to his wife's ears (as you would). What made
izabeth "jealous" of Gloucester after Clarence's execution, and made
Richard avoid her, has to have been something else. That can only
have been Richard's knowledge of her husband's true paternity, which
is alluded to in Titulus Regius.

I don't go along with Jones, though, in believing Richard had decided
to take the throne from the start. His scenario of Richard rushing
down in a pre-emptive strike against the Woodvilles just isn't
factual. There was no rush and nothing decisive until Northampton.
But what really swings it for me is the oath of loyalty to Edward V
he had administered at York before he went south. The force of such
oaths perhaps eludes our modern minds, but they were a huge tie in
those days and later gave Richard a lot of trouble. It would seem he
was actively removing any temptation he might have felt to take the
throne. When he does claim it, it is in the contexct of Hastings'
plot and Stillington's revelation - and also of his wife's arrival in
London. Could she have helped talk him round, perhaps?

I don't think either that Edward's bastardy throws any light on the
question of the Princes. Jones' scenario of Cecily persuading Richard
to purge the bloodline a) could still be put forward even if it were
only Edward'scchildren who were illegitimate, and b) just doesn't
work for me anyway. There were plenty of other family bastards, all
safe & sound. And there were all those sisters. If there was a
decision to kill them then we are back to political necessity. But
that's another question altogether.

My feeling on the battle site is also pretty pro Jones in a general
way, though again some of the specifics of his battle plan seem
problematic. There's been a long debate with me on this earlier, and
I know there are strong feelings against. Just going by early
evidence, we have:-

a) John Sponer reporting to York council about the battle at
Redemore. A medieval document makes mention of meadowland named
Redemore in "the fields of Dadlington", but it is a tiny area

b) After the battle:
i) the Abbot of Merevale sent a messenger to Henry pointing
out "the great hurts, charrges and losses by the occasion of the
great repair and resort that our people coming toward our late field
made"
ii) Sir john Atherston and the parson of Witherley came to Henry
personally to complain about the losses "of corns and grains by us
and our company at our late victorious field.... that is to say,
Atherstone. . Witherley... Atterton. .. Fenny Drayton... Mancetter."
Merevale Abbey got 1000 marks (£66 13s 4d) compensation.
the compensation to the five towns was:-
Atherstone: £20
Witherley: £13
Atterton: £8 10s
Fenny Drayton: £20
Mancetter: £5 19s
Atherstone [again!]: £4 13s 4d
Even for those who like myself accept this means what it says, and
this was the area of the battle, I suggest caution is required in
using the sums to pinpoint the areas of heaviest fighting. Atherstone
and Witherly perhaps did better than they deserved because this is
where the two representative belonged, and they would be trying to
get the best outcome for their own village. Perhaps the second sum to
Atherstone actually represents the fair compensation, but Sir John
managed to talk it up and the sum got duplicated by mistake. Also, of
course, it will have been the townlands whose actual crop areas were
involved which will have required the greatest compensation.

c) Working from memory, I think Diego de Valera heard from Salazar,
who was present, that the battle took place near Coventry.

d) The Act of Attainder against Richard's supporters in November 1485
says on 22nd August Richard's army took up a position "within the
said shire of Leicester" ("kept together from [sic] the 22nd day of
the said month then next following, and then conduced them to a field
within the said shire of Leicester"

d) Writing in the spring of 1486, Crowland, who appears to have been
at Leicester during the battle, and to have witnessed the executions
there afterwards, tells us:-
i) when Richard rode out of Leicester on 21st "he was adequately
informed by scouts as to where the enemy were likely to rest the
following night, and set up camp eight miles from the town, near
Merevale Abbey" [per intercursores edoctus ubi hostes sequenti nocte
de verisimili maner volebant, ad octo milaria ab eo opido distantia
juxta abbanthiam de Mirivall castrametatus est]. Evidently Merevale
and eight miles cannot both be correct as a camp near Merevale would
have been about 18 miles from Leicester. Perhaps the word "decimo"
after octo [octo decimo = 18] has been accidentally omitted. Perhaps
Crowland meant somewhere other than Merevale. However, Merevale was a
great abbey and Crowland, as a churchman, must have known it. Also
ii) Further on - something I had overlooked during the earlier
discussion - Crowland refers to the battle as "this battle of
Merevale which occurred on 22 August 1485" [hoc bellum Mirivallense
quod actum est vicesimo secundo die mensis August, anno domino
millesimo quadringentesimo octogesimo quinto].

If anyone else knows of any other genuinely early sources for the
site, I'd be really interested to hear of them. I can't engage on the
level of topography or suitable terrain, but I feel we must take all
these early written sources seriously and try to make sense of them.
I am personally convinced that Henry spent his last night before the
battle at Merevale, and that this explains his later interest in the
abbey.

I don't think, however, that his "late glorious victory" was
something of which he had good memories, and this may be why the
details were not properly recorded at the time. The letter Spont
cited from one of his French soldiers, if it is genuine, suggests he
behaved less than honourably, trying to crouch down and hide amongst
them; and I imagine all he got when he reminisced about his great day
was post-traumatic stress disorder. Nor would Sir William Stanley's
last-minute rescue have made him very happy. He had no doubt expected
the Stanleys to come over, both brothers, in full force, and join his
army in good time before the battle. As it was Lord Stanley appears
to have stayed at home altogether pleading sickness, and Henry came
within a hair's breadth of getting chopped to death with an axe. He
must, as Jones argues, have realised that if fate hadn't handed Sir
William that one risk-free moment of opportunity to help Henry he
wouldn't have done it.

Marie

PS. I'd love some pizza, but sadly I'm on a gluten-free, dairy-free
diet. Perhaps that's my problem

Carol

Marie and I (and others) argued the bastardy issue exhaustively a year or so ago.

I am sceptical about it because the Jones thesis is just a bit too 'convenient' (real life is messy!) and because it is far from impossible that Edward IV WAS the Duke of York's son. Given the dates, he needs only to have been born about three weeks early or three weeks late, neither of which is at all unusual (before the modern practice of induction once the child was two weeks overdue came in), nor incompatible with good health in later life. I was myself three weeks early, as was my brother, and though we were both a bit small to begin with (I was not quite 6lb and my brother 5 1/2lb, we both caught up pretty rapidly (he is 5ft 11 now). Moreover, given the dates involved, I can only have been conceived during my parents' one-week honeymoon and quite possibly on their wedding night! My feeling is that the most likely scenario was that the Duke and Duchess celebrated the Duke's success at Pontoise by falling into bed, the infant was early and on the small side and baptised in a
hurry just in case...

Ann

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Carol
>
> Marie and I (and others) argued the bastardy issue exhaustively a
year or so ago.
>
> I am sceptical about it because the Jones thesis is just a bit
too 'convenient' (real life is messy!) and because it is far from
impossible that Edward IV WAS the Duke of York's son. Given the
dates, he needs only to have been born about three weeks early or
three weeks late, neither of which is at all unusual (before the
modern practice of induction once the child was two weeks overdue
came in), nor incompatible with good health in later life. I was
myself three weeks early, as was my brother, and though we were both
a bit small to begin with (I was not quite 6lb and my brother 5
1/2lb, we both caught up pretty rapidly (he is 5ft 11 now). Moreover,
given the dates involved, I can only have been conceived during my
parents' one-week honeymoon and quite possibly on their wedding
night! My feeling is that the most likely scenario was that the Duke
and Duchess celebrated the Duke's success at Pontoise by falling into
bed, the infant was early and on the small side and baptised in a
> hurry just in case...
>
> Ann


It's true that we did argue at great length, though not perhaps
exhaustively. And I freely admit that it is not impossible Edward was
conceived the night York returned from Pontoise. However, this
presupposes that Cecily was also ovulating at that time, so we have
that to add to the equation.

However, my main point is that to concentrate wholly on the physical
possibility of York having fathered Edward is to ignore all the other
evidence. I admit most of it is circumstantial but to my mind the
weight of it is compelling.

As another for instance, there are the events of 1469. Mancini states
quite plainly that "his [Edward's] mother fell into such a frenzy
[over his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville] that he offered to submit
to public inquiry, and asserted that Edward was not the offspring of
her husband the Duke of York but was conceived in adultery and
therefore in no wise worthy of the honour of kingship."
Mancini does not tell us when this quarrel took place but, as Jones
points out, some rift between Edward and his mother really does
appear to have occurred early in 1469. On 8th February Cecily
surrendered Fotheringhay, on which she had lavished much money in
improvements over the previous few years. She was not granted
Berkhamsted until a month later and the grant includes a promise
that "if she be removed in any way from the same she shall be fully
recompensed", which suggests to me that the surrender of Fotheringhay
was not voluntary and she was determined she shouldn't be deprived
like that again.
In June, when the royal family went on progress to Walsingham, Cecily
didn't join them, but after they were out of the way went down to
Sandwich to meet with Warwick and Clarence. Whatever she learned of
their plans she did not pass on to the King, who was taken completely
by surprise when he heard of their rebellion. We learn from French
sources that Warwick was saying at that time that Edward was not
York's son.
Incidentally, early the following year (as you all know) there was
more Robin of Redesdale rebellion aimed at putting Clarence on the
throne - the trouble between Welles and Burgh. Welles' fight with
Burgh was to be used as a decoy for his son's political role as Robin
of Redesdale. Just as Edward was about to leave London to go and
deal with the problem, Clarence joined him AT BAYNARD'S CASTLE and,
presumably using his brotherly charms, succeeded in delaying the
King's departure by two days. Cecily was surely the hostess on this
occasion.

Evidently Cecily would have felt differently about the whole thing
after the re-adeption of Henry VI, but it does appear she was
probably involved on Clarence's side up to that point. This may have
been the case also later in Edward's second reign, when reinstatement
of the Lancastrians no longer seemed to be a likely outcome of a rift
within the house of York. In 1477, for instance, Clarence had a plan
to smuggle his son abroad in case Edward killed him, replacing him
with a "strange child". One of the men he asked to help him, a priest
named John Tapton, appears from his will (written 1488) to have been
resident much of the time at Cecily's college of Stoke by Clare in
Suffolk (he had bedlinen there). So did he work for Clarence and his
mother, and did Clarence's approach to Tapton suggest he believed he
would have his mother's blessing?

And you've got to wonder why Clarence - who only modern historians -
not his contemporaries, think to have been a bit crazed - was so
convinced Edward was out to destroy his issue.

Marie

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that Cecily would
have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison outside marriage,
when she had not yet produced the all important heir. Then I thought
of the fact that, for her times, she married quite late in life and
was a late starter on the children front. Next I thought of Margaret
of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI was not the father
of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on both of these
ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both assumed, from their
failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale, that they could
not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In those days it was
widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was not conceived.
Just a thought, but how accurate is the information relating to the
date of Edward IV's birth?

Marie

The reason I have concentrated on the physical aspect - i.e. that it is very far from impossible that the Duke of York did father Edward IV - is that Jones ignores that entirely.

Ann

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:

However, my main point is that to concentrate wholly on the physical
possibility of York having fathered Edward is to ignore all the other
evidence. I admit most of it is circumstantial but to my mind the
weight of it is compelling.

--- In , "dixonian2004"
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that Cecily would
> have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison outside marriage,
> when she had not yet produced the all important heir. Then I thought
> of the fact that, for her times, she married quite late in life and
> was a late starter on the children front. Next I thought of
Margaret
> of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI was not the
father
> of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on both of these
> ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both assumed, from their
> failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale, that they could
> not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In those days it was
> widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was not conceived.
> Just a thought, but how accurate is the information relating to the
> date of Edward IV's birth?

Actually, Cecily had produced a son, Henry, just five months before the
time in question. He was certainly dead by late 1444, but exactly when
he died is an unknown. He could very well still have been alive aand
thriving at this point. I believe the information on Edward's birthdate
is reliable.

Cecily had actually married very young (it was one of those child
marriages) - she just started producing children late. There could
have been three possible reasons, of course: abence of physical
opportunity, lack of luck in conceiving or repeated miscarriage.
However, there is no record that I know of of the couple having
travelled together before this time - no evidence, even, that Cecily
was with York during his first stint in France. It is quite likely that
York would initially have resented this marriage to the complete tail
end of the Beaufort line, which was far more advantageous to York's
guardian Westmoreland than it was to the bridegroom. I'm not sure even
what sort of a dowry Cecily came with - York certainly wasn't in a
position to negotiate and had no one to do so on his behalf.
They were set up with their own household when Cecily was 14, but did
not start producing children for several more years, not until after
York's return from his first short period of office in France. Even
then, there was 18 months between Anne and Henry, although we have seen
that Cecily was pretty much capable of conceiving to order. Do we
possibly have a case of a neglected and resentful bride here?

I certainly agree about Margaret of Anjou, as I think a lot of us do -
she was under tremendous pressure, and may well have been tempted in
the end to do the job by proxy.

I think it's also worth remembering that the medievals weren't
Victorians. They believed implicitly that women were more sexually
hungry than men, and had an absolute right to sexual satisfaction
within marriage.

Marie

I am new to the forum so please bear with me if I have
got anything wrong. I have LOADS of questions I
would like to ask & would like to begin with Cecily.
I really struggle with the idea of Cecily (proud Cis)
risking all to commit adultery let alone with an
archer (or was this said in a jocular way & not meant
to be taken seriously). Surely ladies of Cecily's
breeding would have found it impossible to find the
privacy needed to conduct an affair being surrounded
from morning to bedtime by servants/retainers etc.,
Can any credence be given to the dates (of conception)
they may well be a tad out - look at the rubbish
written about Richard being 2 yrs in womb! In the
recent Tony Robinson programme it was said Edward's
christening was low key implying York had found out
about his wife unfaithfulness - but if so is it likely
that he would have forgiven her/brought the child up
as his legitimate heir especially when other sons were
later born. In the circumstances wouldnt it have been
simple to say the child had died and then had him sent
off somewhere to be raised in secret. Also if he had
found out what become of his wife's lover? Is it
proven fact Cecily herself announced Edward was a
bastard on finding out about his diabolical marriage.
If she did say it, did she lie, incandescant with rage
over Edwards stupidity, in the heat of the moment. I
must admit though doesnt seem much of a family
resemblence in the portraits of Edward and
Richard..... Other things I would appreciate someone
enlightening me on please - the papal pardon placed
around her neck when she was buried - what was that
all about?- was it common occurence in those
v.religious days. Also why on earth would she
bequeath items in her will to the ghastly Henry and
his even more ghastly mother? Maybe a stupid question
but it beggers belief! Hope I have not rambled on too
much - am a novice at this messaging business - Eileen

--- dixonian2004 <dixonian2004@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that
Cecily would
have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison
outside marriage,
when she had not yet produced the all important heir.
Then I thought
of the fact that, for her times, she married quite
late in life and
was a late starter on the children front. Next I
thought of Margaret
of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI
was not the father
of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on
both of these
ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both
assumed, from their
failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale,
that they could
not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In
those days it was
widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was
not conceived.
Just a thought, but how accurate is the information
relating to the
date of Edward IV's birth?




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I haven't studied intensively for some time but I do seem to remember that The EArl of Salisbury was the Duke of Yorks biggest supporter together with his retainers in the north. He even died with him. Wasn't this Earl of Salisbury Cicely's father and the Earl of Warwick her brother. It was always known that Edward resembled the Neville's as did Clarence whilst Richard favoured their father. I do tend to think that Cicely was bitterely hurt when she found out Edward had turned against her brother by marrying a Lancastrian widow, she had lost her father, husband and son (Edmund who was said to resemble Richard) in the battle and this may have seemed the ultimate betrayal and a very hard call to make. Maybe she was unfaithful but it didn;t appear to have been mentioned until (in my opionion) the disastrous marriage Edward made. Cicely was also known as The Rose of Raby which suggested she was beautiful, she was always said to have been very pious. It is all very confusing and I am sorry I cannot post on the site, I have forgotten my password but would be very interested to hear other views.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "dixonian2004"
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that Cecily would
> have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison outside marriage,
> when she had not yet produced the all important heir. Then I thought
> of the fact that, for her times, she married quite late in life and
> was a late starter on the children front. Next I thought of
Margaret
> of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI was not the
father
> of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on both of these
> ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both assumed, from their
> failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale, that they could
> not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In those days it was
> widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was not conceived.
> Just a thought, but how accurate is the information relating to the
> date of Edward IV's birth?

Actually, Cecily had produced a son, Henry, just five months before the
time in question. He was certainly dead by late 1444, but exactly when
he died is an unknown. He could very well still have been alive aand
thriving at this point. I believe the information on Edward's birthdate
is reliable.

Cecily had actually married very young (it was one of those child
marriages) - she just started producing children late. There could
have been three possible reasons, of course: abence of physical
opportunity, lack of luck in conceiving or repeated miscarriage.
However, there is no record that I know of of the couple having
travelled together before this time - no evidence, even, that Cecily
was with York during his first stint in France. It is quite likely that
York would initially have resented this marriage to the complete tail
end of the Beaufort line, which was far more advantageous to York's
guardian Westmoreland than it was to the bridegroom. I'm not sure even
what sort of a dowry Cecily came with - York certainly wasn't in a
position to negotiate and had no one to do so on his behalf.
They were set up with their own household when Cecily was 14, but did
not start producing children for several more years, not until after
York's return from his first short period of office in France. Even
then, there was 18 months between Anne and Henry, although we have seen
that Cecily was pretty much capable of conceiving to order. Do we
possibly have a case of a neglected and resentful bride here?

I certainly agree about Margaret of Anjou, as I think a lot of us do -
she was under tremendous pressure, and may well have been tempted in
the end to do the job by proxy.

I think it's also worth remembering that the medievals weren't
Victorians. They believed implicitly that women were more sexually
hungry than men, and had an absolute right to sexual satisfaction
within marriage.

Marie




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On May 9, 2005, at 17:07, eileen bates wrote:

> I am new to the forum so please bear with me if I have
> got anything wrong. I have LOADS of questions I
> would like to ask & would like to begin with Cecily.

Feel free to ask!
> I really struggle with the idea of Cecily (proud Cis)
> risking all to commit adultery let alone with an
> archer (or was this said in a jocular way & not meant
> to be taken seriously). Surely ladies of Cecily's
> breeding would have found it impossible to find the
> privacy needed to conduct an affair being surrounded
> from morning to bedtime by servants/retainers etc.,

Everyone would obey the orders of a duchess, and she may well have
had someone to help out. Think of Katherine Howard and Lady Rochford
in the 16th century.
> Can any credence be given to the dates (of conception)
> they may well be a tad out - look at the rubbish
> written about Richard being 2 yrs in womb!

Well that was part of the Tudor mythology so we can discount that
straight away.
Rous proving to the new regime how in favour of it he was having already
published documents praising Richard by going over the top in the
opposite
direction.
> In the
> recent Tony Robinson programme it was said Edward's
> christening was low key implying York had found out
> about his wife unfaithfulness - but if so is it likely
> that he would have forgiven her/brought the child up
> as his legitimate heir especially when other sons were
> later born. In the circumstances wouldnt it have been
> simple to say the child had died and then had him sent
> off somewhere to be raised in secret. Also if he had
> found out what become of his wife's lover? Is it
> proven fact Cecily herself announced Edward was a
> bastard on finding out about his diabolical marriage.
Yes to the last part, Anything to do with Tony Robinson gets my goat
so I hated that programme which was mainly about getting TR to
Australia<!!>
Think of the scandal had York tried to get out of the marriage. Anyway
the evidence is there that theirs was a real love match so anything
could have been possible. Of course, Edward looked nothing like his
father
by all accounts, like York I mean that is, and Richard later played on
his own resemblance physically
to York. But then think of the gossip and rumour surrounding our Prince
Harry's parentage
because of the difference between Harry and both parents.

> If she did say it, did she lie, incandescant with rage
> over Edwards stupidity, in the heat of the moment.
She did say it, and I found Michael Jones evidence of her
involvement with Richard's usurpation fascinating. But then her
priority would have been with her own sons rather than those of an
unpopular daughter in law imo.

> I
> must admit though doesnt seem much of a family
> resemblence in the portraits of Edward and
> Richard..... Other things I would appreciate someone
> enlightening me on please - the papal pardon placed
> around her neck when she was buried - what was that
> all about?- was it common occurence in those
> v.religious days.
Good question. I'd like to hear more about this one.

> Also why on earth would she
> bequeath items in her will to the ghastly Henry and
> his even more ghastly mother? Maybe a stupid question
> but it beggers belief!
Why did Anne Boleyn praise the king as she stood on the scaffold
knowing she was innocent of the charges laid against her?
And there may have the idea that what she left to her enemy would
earn her points in Heaven, and eventually go to her grand daughter
anyway.

> Hope I have not rambled on too
> much - am a novice at this messaging business - Eileen
Ramble on Eileen!
Paul

>
> --- dixonian2004 <dixonian2004@...> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------
> Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that
> Cecily would
> have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison
> outside marriage,
> when she had not yet produced the all important heir.
> Then I thought
> of the fact that, for her times, she married quite
> late in life and
> was a late starter on the children front. Next I
> thought of Margaret
> of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI
> was not the father
> of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on
> both of these
> ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both
> assumed, from their
> failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale,
> that they could
> not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In
> those days it was
> widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was
> not conceived.
> Just a thought, but how accurate is the information
> relating to the
> date of Edward IV's birth?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends
> online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Paul - you may not be able to shut me up once my confidence grows!
Eileen







--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2005, at 17:07, eileen bates wrote:
>
> > I am new to the forum so please bear with me if I have
> > got anything wrong. I have LOADS of questions I
> > would like to ask & would like to begin with Cecily.
>
> Feel free to ask!
> > I really struggle with the idea of Cecily (proud Cis)
> > risking all to commit adultery let alone with an
> > archer (or was this said in a jocular way & not meant
> > to be taken seriously). Surely ladies of Cecily's
> > breeding would have found it impossible to find the
> > privacy needed to conduct an affair being surrounded
> > from morning to bedtime by servants/retainers etc.,
>
> Everyone would obey the orders of a duchess, and she may well have
> had someone to help out. Think of Katherine Howard and Lady Rochford
> in the 16th century.
> > Can any credence be given to the dates (of conception)
> > they may well be a tad out - look at the rubbish
> > written about Richard being 2 yrs in womb!
>
> Well that was part of the Tudor mythology so we can discount that
> straight away.
> Rous proving to the new regime how in favour of it he was having already
> published documents praising Richard by going over the top in the
> opposite
> direction.
> > In the
> > recent Tony Robinson programme it was said Edward's
> > christening was low key implying York had found out
> > about his wife unfaithfulness - but if so is it likely
> > that he would have forgiven her/brought the child up
> > as his legitimate heir especially when other sons were
> > later born. In the circumstances wouldnt it have been
> > simple to say the child had died and then had him sent
> > off somewhere to be raised in secret. Also if he had
> > found out what become of his wife's lover? Is it
> > proven fact Cecily herself announced Edward was a
> > bastard on finding out about his diabolical marriage.
> Yes to the last part, Anything to do with Tony Robinson gets my goat
> so I hated that programme which was mainly about getting TR to
> Australia<!!>
> Think of the scandal had York tried to get out of the marriage. Anyway
> the evidence is there that theirs was a real love match so anything
> could have been possible. Of course, Edward looked nothing like his
> father
> by all accounts, like York I mean that is, and Richard later played on
> his own resemblance physically
> to York. But then think of the gossip and rumour surrounding our Prince
> Harry's parentage
> because of the difference between Harry and both parents.
>
> > If she did say it, did she lie, incandescant with rage
> > over Edwards stupidity, in the heat of the moment.
> She did say it, and I found Michael Jones evidence of her
> involvement with Richard's usurpation fascinating. But then her
> priority would have been with her own sons rather than those of an
> unpopular daughter in law imo.
>
> > I
> > must admit though doesnt seem much of a family
> > resemblence in the portraits of Edward and
> > Richard..... Other things I would appreciate someone
> > enlightening me on please - the papal pardon placed
> > around her neck when she was buried - what was that
> > all about?- was it common occurence in those
> > v.religious days.
> Good question. I'd like to hear more about this one.
>
> > Also why on earth would she
> > bequeath items in her will to the ghastly Henry and
> > his even more ghastly mother? Maybe a stupid question
> > but it beggers belief!
> Why did Anne Boleyn praise the king as she stood on the scaffold
> knowing she was innocent of the charges laid against her?
> And there may have the idea that what she left to her enemy would
> earn her points in Heaven, and eventually go to her grand daughter
> anyway.
>
> > Hope I have not rambled on too
> > much - am a novice at this messaging business - Eileen
> Ramble on Eileen!
> Paul
>
> >
> > --- dixonian2004 <dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that
> > Cecily would
> > have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison
> > outside marriage,
> > when she had not yet produced the all important heir.
> > Then I thought
> > of the fact that, for her times, she married quite
> > late in life and
> > was a late starter on the children front. Next I
> > thought of Margaret
> > of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI
> > was not the father
> > of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on
> > both of these
> > ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both
> > assumed, from their
> > failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale,
> > that they could
> > not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In
> > those days it was
> > widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was
> > not conceived.
> > Just a thought, but how accurate is the information
> > relating to the
> > date of Edward IV's birth?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends
> > online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Just curious.

We have been told that Richard looked alot like his father but Edward and George not much at all. Maybe OT but do we know what any of their sisters looked like?

Helen






---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

Sorry, Coral but I have just consulted Hicks "Clarence" and, if he is right:
Richard, Earl of Salisbury (m. Alice Montagu, d. Wakefield) was her brother.
Richard, Earl of Warwick was her nephew.
Thus her sons married her great-nieces but this kind of generational overlap is not unknown.

According to Castelli:
Her father was Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, ancestor of the Earl who retook Scarborough in 1557.
He agrees with Hicks on the above.

As I have also pointed out, Richard, his father, brother George, great-nephew Montagu and (possibly) great-great-nephew Henry Pole all married Neville women. Two died in battle, two were executed and young Henry died in the Tower.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


I haven't studied intensively for some time but I do seem to remember that The EArl of Salisbury was the Duke of Yorks biggest supporter together with his retainers in the north. He even died with him. Wasn't this Earl of Salisbury Cicely's father and the Earl of Warwick her brother. It was always known that Edward resembled the Neville's as did Clarence whilst Richard favoured their father. I do tend to think that Cicely was bitterely hurt when she found out Edward had turned against her brother by marrying a Lancastrian widow, she had lost her father, husband and son (Edmund who was said to resemble Richard) in the battle and this may have seemed the ultimate betrayal and a very hard call to make. Maybe she was unfaithful but it didn;t appear to have been mentioned until (in my opionion) the disastrous marriage Edward made. Cicely was also known as The Rose of Raby which suggested she was beautiful, she was always said to have been very pious.&nb sp; It is all very confusing and I am sorry I cannot post on the site, I have forgotten my password but would be very interested to hear other views.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "dixonian2004"
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that Cecily would
> have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison outside marriage,
> when she had not yet produced the all important heir. Then I thought
> of the fact that, for her times, she married quite late in life and
> was a late starter on the children front. Next I thought of
Margaret
> of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI was not the
father
> of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on both of these
> ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both assumed, from their
> failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale, that they could
> not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In those days it was
> widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was not conceived.
> Just a thought, but how accurate is the information relating to the
> date of Edward IV's birth?

Actually, Cecily had produced a son, Henry, just five months before the
time in question. He was certainly dead by late 1444, but exactly when
he died is an unknown. He could very well still have been alive aand
thriving at this point. I believe the information on Edward's birthdate
is reliable.

Cecily had actually married very young (it was one of those child
marriages) - she just started producing children late. There could
have been three possible reasons, of course: abence of physical
opportunity, lack of luck in conceiving or repeated miscarriage.
However, there is no record that I know of of the couple having
travelled together before this time - no evidence, even, that Cecily
was with York during his first stint in France. It is quite likely that
York would initially have resented this marriage to the complete tail
end of the Beaufort line, which was far more advantageous to York's
guardian Westmoreland than it was to the bridegroom. I'm not sure even
what sort of a dowry Cecily came with - York certainly wasn't in a
position to negotiate and had no one to do so on his behalf.
They were set up with their own household when Cecily was 14, but did
not start producing children for several more years, not until after
York's return from his first short period of office in France. Even
then, there was 18 months between Anne and Henry, although we have seen
that Cecily was pretty much capable of conceiving to order. Do we
possibly have a case of a neglected and resentful bride here?

I certainly agree about Margaret of Anjou, as I think a lot of us do -
she was under tremendous pressure, and may well have been tempted in
the end to do the job by proxy.

I think it's also worth remembering that the medievals weren't
Victorians. They believed implicitly that women were more sexually
hungry than men, and had an absolute right to sexual satisfaction
within marriage.

Marie




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

There is at least one portrait of Margaret of Burgundy in which she bears some resemblance to Richard, and, presumably, to their father.

On a purely practical level, in a big family like that the probability is that you will get some offspring looking like the father, some like the mother, and the majority in between. However, it doesn't always work out like that - there are some powerful genes in my father's family because everyone on that side looks much the same; fairish hair, blue eyes, and same cast of feature, apparently inherited from my father's maternal grandfather.

Ann

Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:



Just curious.

We have been told that Richard looked alot like his father but Edward and George not much at all. Maybe OT but do we know what any of their sisters looked like?

Helen






---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Sorry, Coral but I have just consulted Hicks "Clarence" and, if he is
right:
> Richard, Earl of Salisbury (m. Alice Montagu, d. Wakefield) was her
{Cecily Neville's] brother.
> Richard, Earl of Warwick was her nephew.
> Thus her sons married her great-nieces but this kind of generational
overlap is not unknown.



Cecily was the youngest of the 14 children of Ralph Neville, Earl of
Westmoreland, his 8th child by his second wife, Joan Beaufort. Cecily
was 35 years younger than her eldest half-brother, Richard Neville, the
father of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, Anne's father.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > Sorry, Coral but I have just consulted Hicks "Clarence" and, if
he is
> right:
> > Richard, Earl of Salisbury (m. Alice Montagu, d. Wakefield) was
her
> {Cecily Neville's] brother.
> > Richard, Earl of Warwick was her nephew.
> > Thus her sons married her great-nieces but this kind of
generational
> overlap is not unknown.
>
>
>
> Cecily was the youngest of the 14 children of Ralph Neville, Earl
of
> Westmoreland, his 8th child by his second wife, Joan Beaufort.
Cecily
> was 35 years younger than her eldest half-brother, Richard Neville,
the
> father of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, Anne's father.
>
> Katy

She was probably 35 years younger than her eldest half-brother, but
Salisbuty (Warwick's father) was her eldest full brother, about 15
years her senior.

Can I use this reply to pick up some of the other points on this
subject, please? Firstly Eileen:-
The "Proud Cis" epithet - this is one she earned during Edward's
reign, apparently by her rather imperious behaviour as 'Queen that
should have been'. It probably tells us a lot about what she thought
of Elizabeth Woodville, but not a lot about how she might have
behaved in a simpler and more passionate youth. I think all we can
really glean about her early on is that she liked to make a show and
have nice things.
Is the date of conception accurate? Well, we don't have one, only a
date of birth - and that is known for sure. The likeliest date of
conception has been calculated backwards from that, and falls bang in
the middle of York's five-week absence at Pontoise.
Whether York exactly "found out about" Edward not being his son, I'm
not sure. I agree with Ann, actually - life is messy. He may have
found out about her adultery, or suspected it, but that's not quite
the same thing. As to what he could do even if he knew for sure: a)
try for a parliamentary ruling. I've recently come across a
contemporary case of this, although I haven't got all the details yet
awaiting that parliament rolls CD- William Beamont of Devon, whose
wife had been impregnated by the infamous Sir Henry Bodrugan.
Although Beaumont was eventually recognised as Bodrugan's son,
parliament at first refused "to make a bastard of one born in
wedlock", no doubt for the reason Diomedes suggests. As for sending
him away to the country - well, secretly reared children have a habit
of popping up again, at least in legend. And he would have to be sure
the child could absolutely not be his.
What became of the lover? We have no idea. Was he really an archer
named Blayborne, or was that just Burgundy's slur? Was every English
soldier an archer to the Duke of Burgundy? There was such an English
surname, but no likely candidate has ever been noted in the records.

I'd like to know more about the pardon too. It was found when her
tomb was opened, and the description I've read just says it was "a
pardon from Rome" and "fair and fresh". I've not heard of another
example. I guess a pardon direct from the Pope was a 1st class
pardon. The Pope at the time of her death was Alexander VI, Rodrigo
Borgia, and the one before that was Innocent VIII (d.1492), the one
who put all Yorkist rebels under an interdict! So you pays your money
and you takes your pick. Incidentally, Cecily had a tapestry with a
picture of the Pope on it (she doesn't say which one, or whether it
was just an abstract sort of pope) - she left it to Prince Arthur.
I'd also like to know if it was a pardon for anything specific or
a "general pardon". What was written on it?

Why did she leave stuff to Henry and his mum? One reason is that she
wanted her will to be honoured, and she particularly wanted to be
buried at Fotheringhay but, since she was dying at Berkhamstead, that
was an expensive option. She worries in her will about whether the
money will stretch to it and whether the King will allow it ("if my
executors, by the sufferance of the King, find good sufficient
thereto"). She also had vulnerable relatives, particularly her
grandson Warwick, and vulnerable friends. A whole group of people
tried that January for complicity with "Richard Duke of York" had
included the Dean of her Chapel, Richard Lessy, and the eldest
surviving son of her friend and kinsman Alexander Cressoner. Thomas
Cressoner, apparently, had only been reprieved from death at the last
moment on account of his youth, and when Cecily wrote her will Lessy
had just been released on a bond of £200, for which she sought to
reimburse him by leaving him various moneys owed to her. But she had
to persuade Henry she herself was loyal. Actually, all she left him
was "such money as is owing to me from the customs and two cups of
gold". The first item was very likely part dig.

Diomedes that Edward's true paternity was irrelevant since York had
recognised him:-

1) I'm afraid I don't know the wording of the law, but is it possible
that the critical factor is not whether the mother's husband
acknowledges the child (William Beaumont didn't, but that didn't
initially get him very far) but whether it could be proved to have
been fathered by someone else. I recently came across a batpism in
an 18th century parish register, where the vicar had written down the
name of the child's mother and father, of different surnames, and
added a note to the effect htat, although she was married to X, it
had been proved beyond doubt that the father of the child was Y.
Anyhow, Mancini seems to have thought Cecily had offered to submit to
an inquiry, so presumably this was still a possibility. In any case,
had Clarence become king, he could easily have got Parliament to
enshrine Edward's bastardy in law, just as Parliament attainted the
King's enemies at will.
2) If this was just a slur put about by Edward's enemies to
destabilise him, then his enemies included his own mother.
3) Far from being irrelevant, the circumstances of Edward's
conception were probably responsible for Clarence and Warwick's
rebellion, thereby of the Re-adeption of Henry VI, Clarence's later
treasonsand execution, and all the events of 1483 culminating in
Richard's assumption of power.

Coral:-

I don't know if the epithet 'Rose of Raby' is actually contemporary.
Does anyone else? Edward was known as 'The Rose of Rouen', and
there's obviously an echo there, but I on't know whether Cecily was
called that in her lifetime or by later romanticists. I don't know of
any contemporary references to her beauty either; does anyone else?

If the bones in the Clarence vault at Tewkesbury are George &
Isabel's then he was about 5ft 5 in. The only contemporary
description I've read is from Mancini (who of course had never seen
him), who says "the Queen's alarm was intensified by the comeliness
of the Duke of Clarence, which would make him appear worthy of the
crown".
Looking in Weightman's biography, I see Margaret of York was
described at her wedding by an eye witness as tall "like her brother
Edward", "with an air of intelligence and will". There is a portrait
of a woman who may be her (it looks a lot like the other portraits
but more lifelike). The thing is, this particular portrait shows some
resemblance to Edward IV, particularly about the cheeks and jawline,
and the smallness of the mouth (not the same shape, though). The chin
is quuite different, however - very weak. It's on page 70 of my copy.

She was a pious old lady, but as with a lot of pious old ladies this
was something which came on in later life. She didn't actually start
to live under the Benedictine rule until 1480. Even after that she
didn't totally retreat. There's apparently no evidence of particular
piety from her youth, and she even seems to have been initially drawn
into the patronage of Syon Abey by her husband. Of course, by 1480
she had suffered incredible griefs, the last being the execution of
one of her sons by the other, and would have been in need of
spiritual consolation. Hers was a long and eventful life, and we
change as events carve us out.

Just to finish - it really would be a pity if a what seems to be a
common dislike of Tony Robinson (again, one I don't share) were to
affect people's views of Michael K Jones' work. Paul, I know you're
pro Jones even if anti-Robinson, but for anyone who doesn't like Tony
Robinson and hasn't read Jones - don't let your feelings about TR put
you off! These are not really his ideas!

Since it won't go away, I feel I ought to make clear that the belief
I expressed that the affair was not ongoing at the start of the
marriage was based on something - three things:-
1) Diana's TV interview with Martin Bashir. As I recall he asked her
something like was there a genuine commitment to the marriage from
both parties in the beginning, and she replied in the affirmative.
2) Charles' later TV interview, where he said he had only committed
adultery once his marriage with Diana had completely broken down. Of
course, you may say he was lying, but then he could have denied
adultery altogether
3) An outburst by Bob Geldof immediately after her death, which I
heard on the BBC radio news but then it seemed to disappaear. The
gist was that the old story of Charles & Camilla being ongoing behind
her back from the start of the marriage had been dredged up again. He
spoke as a friend of hers, saying it wasn't true, the media knew it
wasn't, she had made the accusation when her mind was in turmoil
during the breakup of her marriage and had later regretted it as it
wasn't the case. He really was pretty steamed up.

Now all this is from memory, and I may have it all wrong, but I see
from the internet ads that Andrew Morton's second book is based on
unused notes he had from writing the first book - ie this is not
information based on Diana's last view of things.

I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm just
old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with royal
stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of responding
(which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did it do
him).

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.

Marie

> I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm just
> old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with royal
> stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of responding

Sorry - that should have been "not responding"


> (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did it do
> him).
>
> Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
>
> Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> > duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> > persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm
just
> > old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with
royal
> > stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of
responding
>
> Sorry - that should have been "not responding"
>
>
> > (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did
it do
> > him).
> >
> > Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
> >
> > Marie

Absolutely right. Over the centuries, the Royal family has almost
never gone to law over the rubbish written about them. Of course,
Richard had another way of dealing with the situation (as
Collingbourne found out).
I am still worried about a red-haired second son called Henry, though.

Thanks Stephen. I knew they were related but couldn't remember how. Cicely turned against Edward after his marriage and turning against Warwick. At that time Richard supported his brother possibly against his mother's wishes. It really puzzles me and I would welcome any theories
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


Sorry, Coral but I have just consulted Hicks "Clarence" and, if he is right:
Richard, Earl of Salisbury (m. Alice Montagu, d. Wakefield) was her brother.
Richard, Earl of Warwick was her nephew.
Thus her sons married her great-nieces but this kind of generational overlap is not unknown.

According to Castelli:
Her father was Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, ancestor of the Earl who retook Scarborough in 1557.
He agrees with Hicks on the above.

As I have also pointed out, Richard, his father, brother George, great-nephew Montagu and (possibly) great-great-nephew Henry Pole all married Neville women. Two died in battle, two were executed and young Henry died in the Tower.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


I haven't studied intensively for some time but I do seem to remember that The EArl of Salisbury was the Duke of Yorks biggest supporter together with his retainers in the north. He even died with him. Wasn't this Earl of Salisbury Cicely's father and the Earl of Warwick her brother. It was always known that Edward resembled the Neville's as did Clarence whilst Richard favoured their father. I do tend to think that Cicely was bitterely hurt when she found out Edward had turned against her brother by marrying a Lancastrian widow, she had lost her father, husband and son (Edmund who was said to resemble Richard) in the battle and this may have seemed the ultimate betrayal and a very hard call to make. Maybe she was unfaithful but it didn;t appear to have been mentioned until (in my opionion) the disastrous marriage Edward made. Cicely was also known as The Rose of Raby which suggested she was beautiful, she was always said to have been very pious.&nb sp; It is all very confusing and I am sorry I cannot post on the site, I have forgotten my password but would be very interested to hear other views.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "dixonian2004"
<dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> Up until quite recently I had thought it unlikely that Cecily would
> have jeopardised herself by indulging in a liaison outside marriage,
> when she had not yet produced the all important heir. Then I thought
> of the fact that, for her times, she married quite late in life and
> was a late starter on the children front. Next I thought of
Margaret
> of Anjou and the widespread suspicion that Henry VI was not the
father
> of her son. I would imagine that the pressure was on both of these
> ladies to produce an heir, Could it be that both assumed, from their
> failure to conceive within an acceptable time scale, that they could
> not do so and were safe to indulge elsewhere. In those days it was
> widely held to be the woman's "fault" if a child was not conceived.
> Just a thought, but how accurate is the information relating to the
> date of Edward IV's birth?

Actually, Cecily had produced a son, Henry, just five months before the
time in question. He was certainly dead by late 1444, but exactly when
he died is an unknown. He could very well still have been alive aand
thriving at this point. I believe the information on Edward's birthdate
is reliable.

Cecily had actually married very young (it was one of those child
marriages) - she just started producing children late. There could
have been three possible reasons, of course: abence of physical
opportunity, lack of luck in conceiving or repeated miscarriage.
However, there is no record that I know of of the couple having
travelled together before this time - no evidence, even, that Cecily
was with York during his first stint in France. It is quite likely that
York would initially have resented this marriage to the complete tail
end of the Beaufort line, which was far more advantageous to York's
guardian Westmoreland than it was to the bridegroom. I'm not sure even
what sort of a dowry Cecily came with - York certainly wasn't in a
position to negotiate and had no one to do so on his behalf.
They were set up with their own household when Cecily was 14, but did
not start producing children for several more years, not until after
York's return from his first short period of office in France. Even
then, there was 18 months between Anne and Henry, although we have seen
that Cecily was pretty much capable of conceiving to order. Do we
possibly have a case of a neglected and resentful bride here?

I certainly agree about Margaret of Anjou, as I think a lot of us do -
she was under tremendous pressure, and may well have been tempted in
the end to do the job by proxy.

I think it's also worth remembering that the medievals weren't
Victorians. They believed implicitly that women were more sexually
hungry than men, and had an absolute right to sexual satisfaction
within marriage.

Marie




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

I really dislike that slur about Prince Harry. Diana didn't take up with Hewitt until after Harry's birth when Charles had undoubtedly resumed his affair with Camilla. If you ever see pictures of Diana's sisters children, you will see how like Harry they are. Even Hewitt has never opined this slur no doubt because he would be in court as fast as you can because that is one slur Charles wouldn;t let go. Sorry Stephen but that young lad has had enough on his plate without all the paternity claims.
----- Original Message -----
From: stephenmlark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> > duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> > persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm
just
> > old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with
royal
> > stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of
responding
>
> Sorry - that should have been "not responding"
>
>
> > (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did
it do
> > him).
> >
> > Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
> >
> > Marie

Absolutely right. Over the centuries, the Royal family has almost
never gone to law over the rubbish written about them. Of course,
Richard had another way of dealing with the situation (as
Collingbourne found out).
I am still worried about a red-haired second son called Henry, though.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Many thanks for the detailed responses to my questions about Cecily

TO MARIE
Blimey! Marie I never knew he( York) was away that long!!!

Re the Papal Pardon - of all people I should have thought Cecily least needed one after all
the tragedies she suffered - how she could even function after seeing so many members
of her family dying one by one sometimes in most awful circumstances - what a
courageous woman - at least she did not live to see poor Warwick and Margaret his sister
executed. Speaking of papal pardons I should think the 2 people who needed them most
were Elizabeth Woodville & Margaret Beaufort - to my mind I think these two and their
endless plotting were the major reason that led to Richard's violent death and many
honourable men at Bosworth. Margaret was probably been plotting at the very moment
she carried Queen Anne's train at the coronation! It would seem though that Elizabeth did
get her come uppance finally which leads to my next question:
Elizabeth's 'incarceration' in Bermondsey Abbey - this is something that has been bugging
me and if anyone could enlighten me on this matter I would appreciate it.
Was it fact that Elizabeth was sent there as punishment - as I understand it I thought it
was a common practice for ladies of noble birth etc to end their days in nunneries - I
thought Eleanor Butler was one, and also Cicely. Were they not regarded as a kind of
nursing home. I think Isabel Neville, Clarences wife, died in one after being ill for a long
time after childbirth. I think this is quite an important issue because there is a big
difference in being sent to a nunnery in disgrace and opting to go into one of your own
free will. Maybe she was sick & tired of the sight of Henry and Margarets faces - from
their portraits they both look like they were weaned on lemons! However I do know Henry
V widow Catherine had been sent to Bermondsey in disgrace - & Elizabeths Will was pretty
pathetic so maybe that is how it happened but if anyone has any thoughts on this one I
would love to hear them
Eileen






--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > > Sorry, Coral but I have just consulted Hicks "Clarence" and, if
> he is
> > right:
> > > Richard, Earl of Salisbury (m. Alice Montagu, d. Wakefield) was
> her
> > {Cecily Neville's] brother.
> > > Richard, Earl of Warwick was her nephew.
> > > Thus her sons married her great-nieces but this kind of
> generational
> > overlap is not unknown.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cecily was the youngest of the 14 children of Ralph Neville, Earl
> of
> > Westmoreland, his 8th child by his second wife, Joan Beaufort.
> Cecily
> > was 35 years younger than her eldest half-brother, Richard Neville,
> the
> > father of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, Anne's father.
> >
> > Katy
>
> She was probably 35 years younger than her eldest half-brother, but
> Salisbuty (Warwick's father) was her eldest full brother, about 15
> years her senior.
>
> Can I use this reply to pick up some of the other points on this
> subject, please? Firstly Eileen:-
> The "Proud Cis" epithet - this is one she earned during Edward's
> reign, apparently by her rather imperious behaviour as 'Queen that
> should have been'. It probably tells us a lot about what she thought
> of Elizabeth Woodville, but not a lot about how she might have
> behaved in a simpler and more passionate youth. I think all we can
> really glean about her early on is that she liked to make a show and
> have nice things.
> Is the date of conception accurate? Well, we don't have one, only a
> date of birth - and that is known for sure. The likeliest date of
> conception has been calculated backwards from that, and falls bang in
> the middle of York's five-week absence at Pontoise.
> Whether York exactly "found out about" Edward not being his son, I'm
> not sure. I agree with Ann, actually - life is messy. He may have
> found out about her adultery, or suspected it, but that's not quite
> the same thing. As to what he could do even if he knew for sure: a)
> try for a parliamentary ruling. I've recently come across a
> contemporary case of this, although I haven't got all the details yet
> awaiting that parliament rolls CD- William Beamont of Devon, whose
> wife had been impregnated by the infamous Sir Henry Bodrugan.
> Although Beaumont was eventually recognised as Bodrugan's son,
> parliament at first refused "to make a bastard of one born in
> wedlock", no doubt for the reason Diomedes suggests. As for sending
> him away to the country - well, secretly reared children have a habit
> of popping up again, at least in legend. And he would have to be sure
> the child could absolutely not be his.
> What became of the lover? We have no idea. Was he really an archer
> named Blayborne, or was that just Burgundy's slur? Was every English
> soldier an archer to the Duke of Burgundy? There was such an English
> surname, but no likely candidate has ever been noted in the records.
>
> I'd like to know more about the pardon too. It was found when her
> tomb was opened, and the description I've read just says it was "a
> pardon from Rome" and "fair and fresh". I've not heard of another
> example. I guess a pardon direct from the Pope was a 1st class
> pardon. The Pope at the time of her death was Alexander VI, Rodrigo
> Borgia, and the one before that was Innocent VIII (d.1492), the one
> who put all Yorkist rebels under an interdict! So you pays your money
> and you takes your pick. Incidentally, Cecily had a tapestry with a
> picture of the Pope on it (she doesn't say which one, or whether it
> was just an abstract sort of pope) - she left it to Prince Arthur.
> I'd also like to know if it was a pardon for anything specific or
> a "general pardon". What was written on it?
>
> Why did she leave stuff to Henry and his mum? One reason is that she
> wanted her will to be honoured, and she particularly wanted to be
> buried at Fotheringhay but, since she was dying at Berkhamstead, that
> was an expensive option. She worries in her will about whether the
> money will stretch to it and whether the King will allow it ("if my
> executors, by the sufferance of the King, find good sufficient
> thereto"). She also had vulnerable relatives, particularly her
> grandson Warwick, and vulnerable friends. A whole group of people
> tried that January for complicity with "Richard Duke of York" had
> included the Dean of her Chapel, Richard Lessy, and the eldest
> surviving son of her friend and kinsman Alexander Cressoner. Thomas
> Cressoner, apparently, had only been reprieved from death at the last
> moment on account of his youth, and when Cecily wrote her will Lessy
> had just been released on a bond of £200, for which she sought to
> reimburse him by leaving him various moneys owed to her. But she had
> to persuade Henry she herself was loyal. Actually, all she left him
> was "such money as is owing to me from the customs and two cups of
> gold". The first item was very likely part dig.
>
> Diomedes that Edward's true paternity was irrelevant since York had
> recognised him:-
>
> 1) I'm afraid I don't know the wording of the law, but is it possible
> that the critical factor is not whether the mother's husband
> acknowledges the child (William Beaumont didn't, but that didn't
> initially get him very far) but whether it could be proved to have
> been fathered by someone else. I recently came across a batpism in
> an 18th century parish register, where the vicar had written down the
> name of the child's mother and father, of different surnames, and
> added a note to the effect htat, although she was married to X, it
> had been proved beyond doubt that the father of the child was Y.
> Anyhow, Mancini seems to have thought Cecily had offered to submit to
> an inquiry, so presumably this was still a possibility. In any case,
> had Clarence become king, he could easily have got Parliament to
> enshrine Edward's bastardy in law, just as Parliament attainted the
> King's enemies at will.
> 2) If this was just a slur put about by Edward's enemies to
> destabilise him, then his enemies included his own mother.
> 3) Far from being irrelevant, the circumstances of Edward's
> conception were probably responsible for Clarence and Warwick's
> rebellion, thereby of the Re-adeption of Henry VI, Clarence's later
> treasonsand execution, and all the events of 1483 culminating in
> Richard's assumption of power.
>
> Coral:-
>
> I don't know if the epithet 'Rose of Raby' is actually contemporary.
> Does anyone else? Edward was known as 'The Rose of Rouen', and
> there's obviously an echo there, but I on't know whether Cecily was
> called that in her lifetime or by later romanticists. I don't know of
> any contemporary references to her beauty either; does anyone else?
>
> If the bones in the Clarence vault at Tewkesbury are George &
> Isabel's then he was about 5ft 5 in. The only contemporary
> description I've read is from Mancini (who of course had never seen
> him), who says "the Queen's alarm was intensified by the comeliness
> of the Duke of Clarence, which would make him appear worthy of the
> crown".
> Looking in Weightman's biography, I see Margaret of York was
> described at her wedding by an eye witness as tall "like her brother
> Edward", "with an air of intelligence and will". There is a portrait
> of a woman who may be her (it looks a lot like the other portraits
> but more lifelike). The thing is, this particular portrait shows some
> resemblance to Edward IV, particularly about the cheeks and jawline,
> and the smallness of the mouth (not the same shape, though). The chin
> is quuite different, however - very weak. It's on page 70 of my copy.
>
> She was a pious old lady, but as with a lot of pious old ladies this
> was something which came on in later life. She didn't actually start
> to live under the Benedictine rule until 1480. Even after that she
> didn't totally retreat. There's apparently no evidence of particular
> piety from her youth, and she even seems to have been initially drawn
> into the patronage of Syon Abey by her husband. Of course, by 1480
> she had suffered incredible griefs, the last being the execution of
> one of her sons by the other, and would have been in need of
> spiritual consolation. Hers was a long and eventful life, and we
> change as events carve us out.
>
> Just to finish - it really would be a pity if a what seems to be a
> common dislike of Tony Robinson (again, one I don't share) were to
> affect people's views of Michael K Jones' work. Paul, I know you're
> pro Jones even if anti-Robinson, but for anyone who doesn't like Tony
> Robinson and hasn't read Jones - don't let your feelings about TR put
> you off! These are not really his ideas!
>
> Since it won't go away, I feel I ought to make clear that the belief
> I expressed that the affair was not ongoing at the start of the
> marriage was based on something - three things:-
> 1) Diana's TV interview with Martin Bashir. As I recall he asked her
> something like was there a genuine commitment to the marriage from
> both parties in the beginning, and she replied in the affirmative.
> 2) Charles' later TV interview, where he said he had only committed
> adultery once his marriage with Diana had completely broken down. Of
> course, you may say he was lying, but then he could have denied
> adultery altogether
> 3) An outburst by Bob Geldof immediately after her death, which I
> heard on the BBC radio news but then it seemed to disappaear. The
> gist was that the old story of Charles & Camilla being ongoing behind
> her back from the start of the marriage had been dredged up again. He
> spoke as a friend of hers, saying it wasn't true, the media knew it
> wasn't, she had made the accusation when her mind was in turmoil
> during the breakup of her marriage and had later regretted it as it
> wasn't the case. He really was pretty steamed up.
>
> Now all this is from memory, and I may have it all wrong, but I see
> from the internet ads that Andrew Morton's second book is based on
> unused notes he had from writing the first book - ie this is not
> information based on Diana's last view of things.
>
> I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm just
> old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with royal
> stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of responding
> (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did it do
> him).
>
> Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
>
> Marie

Sorry, I was being complex.
I meant that Henry VII's second son was red-haired and called Henry. That makes me nervous!
----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


I really dislike that slur about Prince Harry. Diana didn't take up with Hewitt until after Harry's birth when Charles had undoubtedly resumed his affair with Camilla. If you ever see pictures of Diana's sisters children, you will see how like Harry they are. Even Hewitt has never opined this slur no doubt because he would be in court as fast as you can because that is one slur Charles wouldn;t let go. Sorry Stephen but that young lad has had enough on his plate without all the paternity claims.
----- Original Message -----
From: stephenmlark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> > duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> > persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm
just
> > old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with
royal
> > stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of
responding
>
> Sorry - that should have been "not responding"
>
>
> > (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did
it do
> > him).
> >
> > Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
> >
> > Marie

Absolutely right. Over the centuries, the Royal family has almost
never gone to law over the rubbish written about them. Of course,
Richard had another way of dealing with the situation (as
Collingbourne found out).
I am still worried about a red-haired second son called Henry, though.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
There is a portrait of Margaret of Burgundy in Charles Ross' Edward
IV. To my mind she looks like Richard.

There is a church in Barnard Castle which has two stone heads either
side of an arch, which are supposed to be of Edward IV and Richard
III. I've never seen a close up of them and wonder if there are any,
as this was a church Richard favoured and it seems likely that he
would have seen these busts, so presumably would have wanted them to
be accurate.
>


>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> Many thanks for the detailed responses to my questions about Cecily
>
> TO MARIE
> Blimey! Marie I never knew he( York) was away that long!!!
>
> Re the Papal Pardon - of all people I should have thought Cecily
least needed one after all
> the tragedies she suffered - how she could even function after
seeing so many members
> of her family dying one by one sometimes in most awful
circumstances - what a
> courageous woman - at least she did not live to see poor Warwick
and Margaret his sister
> executed. Speaking of papal pardons I should think the 2 people
who needed them most
> were Elizabeth Woodville & Margaret Beaufort - to my mind I think
these two and their
> endless plotting were the major reason that led to Richard's
violent death and many
> honourable men at Bosworth. Margaret was probably been plotting at
the very moment
> she carried Queen Anne's train at the coronation! It would seem
though that Elizabeth did
> get her come uppance finally which leads to my next question:
> Elizabeth's 'incarceration' in Bermondsey Abbey - this is something
that has been bugging
> me and if anyone could enlighten me on this matter I would
appreciate it.
> Was it fact that Elizabeth was sent there as punishment - as I
understand it I thought it
> was a common practice for ladies of noble birth etc to end their
days in nunneries - I
> thought Eleanor Butler was one, and also Cicely. Were they not
regarded as a kind of
> nursing home. I think Isabel Neville, Clarences wife, died in one
after being ill for a long
> time after childbirth. I think this is quite an important issue
because there is a big
> difference in being sent to a nunnery in disgrace and opting to go
into one of your own
> free will. Maybe she was sick & tired of the sight of Henry and
Margarets faces - from
> their portraits they both look like they were weaned on lemons!
However I do know Henry
> V widow Catherine had been sent to Bermondsey in disgrace - &
Elizabeths Will was pretty
> pathetic so maybe that is how it happened but if anyone has any
thoughts on this one I
> would love to hear them
> Eileen

Sorry, me again. I'm actually slowly gathering materials to write an
article on the question of Elizabeth Woodville After the Party, so to
speak. It it has been fashionable in recent years to suggest it was a
voluntary retirement and there is nothing untoward aout it, but I'm
afraid I can't see it myself. Because not only did she enter a
nunnery (which was common) but she simultaneously "surrendered" her
estates & sources of income to the King (which was not usual at all).
Was this voluntary? Not according to her will, in which she
explicitly states that she was unhappy about the fact that she had
nothing to leave her children ("I have no worldly goods to do the
Queen's Grace, my dearest daughter, a pleasure with, neither to
reward any of my children according to my heart and mind"). Her
problem was that the value of her goods was not even going to cover
her debts, so she couldn't even bequeath her children keepsakes. She
was, in fact, reduced to suggesting that when the goods were sold to
raise money to settle her affairs her children might be given first
refusal. Also, as we were talking about the weirdness of Cecily
leaving Henry things in her will, surely it is an even more
extraordinary fact that Elizabeth Woodville didn't so much as mention
him.

It was Vergil who said she was banished to Bermondsey by Henry as a
result of the Great Council which met to discuss the Lambert Simnel
threat because he'd not forgiven her for making terms with Richard. I
must say I'm not inclined to take Vergil at face value. He could be
very accurate, but where the truth ran counter to the tudor interests
he oftens suppressed it (as he no doubt had to). So I like to look
for corroborative evidence from contemporary documents. Given that it
was not in the interests of the Tudor regime to make out that Henry
so disrusted his mother-in-law* that he had her incarcerated in a
nunnery, it is a bit hard to believe Vergil would have made this up
if her retirement had been perfectly innocent. As for contemporary
corroboration - I believe we have it in Elizabeth's will and the sad
facts of her funeral. Exactly what Henry's reasons were - whether
there was anything more politically sensitive which Vergil ould not
relay - we can only speculate. All ideas welcome.

*who, according to the tudor line, Henry had rescued from the
murderer of her little sons

Marie

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:

> Re the Papal Pardon - of all people I should have thought Cecily
least needed one after all
> the tragedies she suffered - how she could even function after
seeing so many members
> of her family dying one by one sometimes in most awful
circumstances - what a
> courageous woman -

Cecily was, indeed, an admirable and courageous woman, and a very
able one. But such tragedies were not, after all, nearly as
uncommon in the 15th century as in our times, and when viewing the
events of those days we have to guard against doing so with a modern-
day mindset. Many many women were expected to function, and did,
after seeing their children and husbands, brothers and fathers, die
in awful circumstances.

Katy

Sorry I jumped down your throat. I would never have named a royal son Henry. Most of the Henry's had very hot tempers and you have to worry that it was inherited through the hair. Henry II used be practically pyschotic during his rages.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


Sorry, I was being complex.
I meant that Henry VII's second son was red-haired and called Henry. That makes me nervous!
----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


I really dislike that slur about Prince Harry. Diana didn't take up with Hewitt until after Harry's birth when Charles had undoubtedly resumed his affair with Camilla. If you ever see pictures of Diana's sisters children, you will see how like Harry they are. Even Hewitt has never opined this slur no doubt because he would be in court as fast as you can because that is one slur Charles wouldn;t let go. Sorry Stephen but that young lad has had enough on his plate without all the paternity claims.
----- Original Message -----
From: stephenmlark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> > duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> > persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm
just
> > old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with
royal
> > stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of
responding
>
> Sorry - that should have been "not responding"
>
>
> > (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did
it do
> > him).
> >
> > Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
> >
> > Marie

Absolutely right. Over the centuries, the Royal family has almost
never gone to law over the rubbish written about them. Of course,
Richard had another way of dealing with the situation (as
Collingbourne found out).
I am still worried about a red-haired second son called Henry, though.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Now think of that name since 1547. James I's elder son (predeceased him), James II's younger grandson (died an exiled Cardinal in Rome), probably at least one of Anne's children, not to mention the red-headed monster's own sons, were all unlucky. Our patron's father (3rd son of George V) also bore that name.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


Sorry I jumped down your throat. I would never have named a royal son Henry. Most of the Henry's had very hot tempers and you have to worry that it was inherited through the hair. Henry II used be practically pyschotic during his rages.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


Sorry, I was being complex.
I meant that Henry VII's second son was red-haired and called Henry. That makes me nervous!
----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


I really dislike that slur about Prince Harry. Diana didn't take up with Hewitt until after Harry's birth when Charles had undoubtedly resumed his affair with Camilla. If you ever see pictures of Diana's sisters children, you will see how like Harry they are. Even Hewitt has never opined this slur no doubt because he would be in court as fast as you can because that is one slur Charles wouldn;t let go. Sorry Stephen but that young lad has had enough on his plate without all the paternity claims.
----- Original Message -----
From: stephenmlark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> > duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> > persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm
just
> > old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with
royal
> > stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of
responding
>
> Sorry - that should have been "not responding"
>
>
> > (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did
it do
> > him).
> >
> > Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
> >
> > Marie

Absolutely right. Over the centuries, the Royal family has almost
never gone to law over the rubbish written about them. Of course,
Richard had another way of dealing with the situation (as
Collingbourne found out).
I am still worried about a red-haired second son called Henry, though.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900-74) did live to a decent age, but in his late 60s he had a series of strokes that left him paralysed and speechless for the last few years of his life - a most upleasant way to finish up.

Prince Harry was, of course, baptised Henry, and we can but hope that the press will leave him alone to sort himself out.

Ann

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
Now think of that name since 1547. James I's elder son (predeceased him), James II's younger grandson (died an exiled Cardinal in Rome), probably at least one of Anne's children, not to mention the red-headed monster's own sons, were all unlucky. Our patron's father (3rd son of George V) also bore that name.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


Sorry I jumped down your throat. I would never have named a royal son Henry. Most of the Henry's had very hot tempers and you have to worry that it was inherited through the hair. Henry II used be practically pyschotic during his rages.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


Sorry, I was being complex.
I meant that Henry VII's second son was red-haired and called Henry. That makes me nervous!
----- Original Message -----
From: Coral Nelson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


I really dislike that slur about Prince Harry. Diana didn't take up with Hewitt until after Harry's birth when Charles had undoubtedly resumed his affair with Camilla. If you ever see pictures of Diana's sisters children, you will see how like Harry they are. Even Hewitt has never opined this slur no doubt because he would be in court as fast as you can because that is one slur Charles wouldn;t let go. Sorry Stephen but that young lad has had enough on his plate without all the paternity claims.
----- Original Message -----
From: stephenmlark
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > I know we freely argue the toss about the doings of 15th century
> > duchesses, etc, but I do worry about doing the same with living
> > persons - it's nothing to do with my views of the monarchy. I'm
just
> > old-fashioned, and also wary of the media, particularly with
royal
> > stuff as it's free season as they have a firm policy of
responding
>
> Sorry - that should have been "not responding"
>
>
> > (which Charles broke with his TV interview, and little good did
it do
> > him).
> >
> > Anyway, that's my last word on the subject.
> >
> > Marie

Absolutely right. Over the centuries, the Royal family has almost
never gone to law over the rubbish written about them. Of course,
Richard had another way of dealing with the situation (as
Collingbourne found out).
I am still worried about a red-haired second son called Henry, though.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.







---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.