Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Digest Number 931
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Digest Number 931
2005-11-09 22:30:46
Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes, women can bear children as long as they ovulate, which goes on well into the 40's and 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is that the eggs get old and are more liable to have genetic abnormalities (unlike men who continue to make new sperm as long as they're breathing, a woman's eggs are all present and accounted for at birth, and age along with the rest of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women.
- MargaretA
- MargaretA
Re: Digest Number 931
2005-11-09 23:00:47
--- In , Margaret Anderson
<megander@e...> wrote:
>
> Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes, women can bear
children as long as they ovulate, which goes on well into the 40's and
50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is that the eggs get
old and are more liable to have genetic abnormalities (unlike men who
continue to make new sperm as long as they're breathing, a woman's eggs
are all present and accounted for at birth, and age along with the rest
of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome babies are born of older
women.
> - MargaretA
Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman who's had children,
although the ageing of the eggs is something I didn't mention and
probably should have. Again, however, 37 just isn't that old. More
Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but also more Downs
Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs Syndrome in the family and
the majority of babies born to older women are perfectly healthy. I
suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the rate of ageing (ie
genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by nutrition. As I say,
there has been a tendency in modern times to play up the problems of
childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s and 1970s a policy was
even operated in British hospitals of labelling any women of 28 or
older having her first baby an "elderly primipara" - ie on high-risk
alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I had mine.
By the by, very young women also have higher incidences of genetic
abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly mature, but we don't
hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are fond of pointing out to
their more mature, suffering first-timers what an easy labour such-and-
such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
I do feel there is a certain attitude these days to women over 35
having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is not expected (or
accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt she should get it
all over and done with good and early.
So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had Richard, but she
definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from having a clapped-out
mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to have been due to
Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her being 37.
Marie
By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have experienced the same
phenomenon. I have a photograph of a great-grandmother which gives me
the feeling of staring at myself in a strange mirror. Very strange as,
despite the small number of generations separating us, due to wilful
habit of late childbearing on my father's side it was some time between
1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing a half-crinoline. My
daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as it's so like a ghost of
me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my daughter and me the
other week that we gave her the creeps as we were so alike. Yet my
daughter and my great-grandmother do not particularly resemble each
other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance. It seems to be just
a certain number of characteristics needed to give the 'clone' effect,
but if you look more critically the differences are just as clear.
Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of Edward's most recent
antecedents, and the ones from further back, such as Edward III, don't
look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were interbred, which is just
part of the problem. As I suggested, any resemblance between Edward and
earlier royals could equally have been got from his mother.
The one resemblance in portraits that does spring to mind, of course,
is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is that coincidence,
clever planning, or proof of relationship?
Marie
>
<megander@e...> wrote:
>
> Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes, women can bear
children as long as they ovulate, which goes on well into the 40's and
50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is that the eggs get
old and are more liable to have genetic abnormalities (unlike men who
continue to make new sperm as long as they're breathing, a woman's eggs
are all present and accounted for at birth, and age along with the rest
of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome babies are born of older
women.
> - MargaretA
Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman who's had children,
although the ageing of the eggs is something I didn't mention and
probably should have. Again, however, 37 just isn't that old. More
Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but also more Downs
Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs Syndrome in the family and
the majority of babies born to older women are perfectly healthy. I
suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the rate of ageing (ie
genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by nutrition. As I say,
there has been a tendency in modern times to play up the problems of
childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s and 1970s a policy was
even operated in British hospitals of labelling any women of 28 or
older having her first baby an "elderly primipara" - ie on high-risk
alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I had mine.
By the by, very young women also have higher incidences of genetic
abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly mature, but we don't
hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are fond of pointing out to
their more mature, suffering first-timers what an easy labour such-and-
such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
I do feel there is a certain attitude these days to women over 35
having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is not expected (or
accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt she should get it
all over and done with good and early.
So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had Richard, but she
definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from having a clapped-out
mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to have been due to
Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her being 37.
Marie
By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have experienced the same
phenomenon. I have a photograph of a great-grandmother which gives me
the feeling of staring at myself in a strange mirror. Very strange as,
despite the small number of generations separating us, due to wilful
habit of late childbearing on my father's side it was some time between
1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing a half-crinoline. My
daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as it's so like a ghost of
me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my daughter and me the
other week that we gave her the creeps as we were so alike. Yet my
daughter and my great-grandmother do not particularly resemble each
other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance. It seems to be just
a certain number of characteristics needed to give the 'clone' effect,
but if you look more critically the differences are just as clear.
Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of Edward's most recent
antecedents, and the ones from further back, such as Edward III, don't
look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were interbred, which is just
part of the problem. As I suggested, any resemblance between Edward and
earlier royals could equally have been got from his mother.
The one resemblance in portraits that does spring to mind, of course,
is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is that coincidence,
clever planning, or proof of relationship?
Marie
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Digest Number 931
2005-11-09 23:52:36
It's O.K to call me Bill, Marie. If I had my 'druthers, I'd go by the
more medieval appellation, 'Will'.
I live to the west of Toronto, but grew up about fifty miles north of
here in a rural area where, until recently, people used more archaic
name forms. So I did get 'Will' a lot. As a result of some sort of Anglo
Saxon throwback people pronounced the name 'Harold' as 'Hah-ruld'.
Unfortunately, much of the old dialect has disappeared in the past
generation as city folk moved out into the country. I'm sure television
had a lot to do with it as well.
Sorry to digress, but language is another reason I love the study of
history. My degree was in English literature, and I graduated in the
last year that Anglo Saxon studies was mandatory.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Margaret Anderson
> <megander@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes, women can bear
> children as long as they ovulate, which goes on well into the 40's and
> 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is that the eggs get
> old and are more liable to have genetic abnormalities (unlike men who
> continue to make new sperm as long as they're breathing, a woman's eggs
> are all present and accounted for at birth, and age along with the rest
> of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome babies are born of older
> women.
> > - MargaretA
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman who's had children,
> although the ageing of the eggs is something I didn't mention and
> probably should have. Again, however, 37 just isn't that old. More
> Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but also more Downs
> Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs Syndrome in the family and
> the majority of babies born to older women are perfectly healthy. I
> suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the rate of ageing (ie
> genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by nutrition. As I say,
> there has been a tendency in modern times to play up the problems of
> childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s and 1970s a policy was
> even operated in British hospitals of labelling any women of 28 or
> older having her first baby an "elderly primipara" - ie on high-risk
> alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I had mine.
> By the by, very young women also have higher incidences of genetic
> abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly mature, but we don't
> hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are fond of pointing out to
> their more mature, suffering first-timers what an easy labour such-and-
> such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
> I do feel there is a certain attitude these days to women over 35
> having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is not expected (or
> accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt she should get it
> all over and done with good and early.
> So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had Richard, but she
> definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from having a clapped-out
> mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to have been due to
> Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her being 37.
>
> Marie
>
> By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have experienced the same
> phenomenon. I have a photograph of a great-grandmother which gives me
> the feeling of staring at myself in a strange mirror. Very strange as,
> despite the small number of generations separating us, due to wilful
> habit of late childbearing on my father's side it was some time between
> 1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing a half-crinoline. My
> daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as it's so like a ghost of
> me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my daughter and me the
> other week that we gave her the creeps as we were so alike. Yet my
> daughter and my great-grandmother do not particularly resemble each
> other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance. It seems to be just
> a certain number of characteristics needed to give the 'clone' effect,
> but if you look more critically the differences are just as clear.
> Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of Edward's most recent
> antecedents, and the ones from further back, such as Edward III, don't
> look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were interbred, which is just
> part of the problem. As I suggested, any resemblance between Edward and
> earlier royals could equally have been got from his mother.
> The one resemblance in portraits that does spring to mind, of course,
> is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is that coincidence,
> clever planning, or proof of relationship?
>
> Marie
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
more medieval appellation, 'Will'.
I live to the west of Toronto, but grew up about fifty miles north of
here in a rural area where, until recently, people used more archaic
name forms. So I did get 'Will' a lot. As a result of some sort of Anglo
Saxon throwback people pronounced the name 'Harold' as 'Hah-ruld'.
Unfortunately, much of the old dialect has disappeared in the past
generation as city folk moved out into the country. I'm sure television
had a lot to do with it as well.
Sorry to digress, but language is another reason I love the study of
history. My degree was in English literature, and I graduated in the
last year that Anglo Saxon studies was mandatory.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Margaret Anderson
> <megander@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes, women can bear
> children as long as they ovulate, which goes on well into the 40's and
> 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is that the eggs get
> old and are more liable to have genetic abnormalities (unlike men who
> continue to make new sperm as long as they're breathing, a woman's eggs
> are all present and accounted for at birth, and age along with the rest
> of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome babies are born of older
> women.
> > - MargaretA
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman who's had children,
> although the ageing of the eggs is something I didn't mention and
> probably should have. Again, however, 37 just isn't that old. More
> Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but also more Downs
> Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs Syndrome in the family and
> the majority of babies born to older women are perfectly healthy. I
> suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the rate of ageing (ie
> genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by nutrition. As I say,
> there has been a tendency in modern times to play up the problems of
> childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s and 1970s a policy was
> even operated in British hospitals of labelling any women of 28 or
> older having her first baby an "elderly primipara" - ie on high-risk
> alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I had mine.
> By the by, very young women also have higher incidences of genetic
> abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly mature, but we don't
> hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are fond of pointing out to
> their more mature, suffering first-timers what an easy labour such-and-
> such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
> I do feel there is a certain attitude these days to women over 35
> having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is not expected (or
> accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt she should get it
> all over and done with good and early.
> So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had Richard, but she
> definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from having a clapped-out
> mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to have been due to
> Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her being 37.
>
> Marie
>
> By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have experienced the same
> phenomenon. I have a photograph of a great-grandmother which gives me
> the feeling of staring at myself in a strange mirror. Very strange as,
> despite the small number of generations separating us, due to wilful
> habit of late childbearing on my father's side it was some time between
> 1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing a half-crinoline. My
> daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as it's so like a ghost of
> me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my daughter and me the
> other week that we gave her the creeps as we were so alike. Yet my
> daughter and my great-grandmother do not particularly resemble each
> other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance. It seems to be just
> a certain number of characteristics needed to give the 'clone' effect,
> but if you look more critically the differences are just as clear.
> Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of Edward's most recent
> antecedents, and the ones from further back, such as Edward III, don't
> look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were interbred, which is just
> part of the problem. As I suggested, any resemblance between Edward and
> earlier royals could equally have been got from his mother.
> The one resemblance in portraits that does spring to mind, of course,
> is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is that coincidence,
> clever planning, or proof of relationship?
>
> Marie
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Digest Number 931
2005-11-10 12:47:43
As to age at childbearing I agree entirely. My paternal grandmother married for the second time at 41, and produced two children over the next two years, both still going strong at 77 and shortly-to-be 79 (my father, aged 77, has rarely had a day's illness in his life and has a private pilot's licence for which he has to pass a stringent annual medical!) My maternal grandmother married at 28; she and her huband then had a stillbirth and at least one miscarriage before their first surviving child was born when my grandmother was 32. Three more followed in the next six years. My mother was 30 when she had me and 33 when she had my brother.
As to family resemblances, there are some very powerful ones in my father's family. I have a photograph taken around 1897 showing my paternal grandmother and six of her nine siblings.The eldest brother (aged 17) looks just like photographs of my father at the same age, the youngest brother (about 5) just like my brother as a small boy). And at a family funeral a few years ago I was able to identify a cousin of my father's whom I had never seen before on the basis that I had been told he was a 'stretched out version' of my father.
As to Charles I, he was apparently in poor health as a boy and had rickets, which may have accounted for his stunted growth.
Ann
As to family resemblances, there are some very powerful ones in my father's family. I have a photograph taken around 1897 showing my paternal grandmother and six of her nine siblings.The eldest brother (aged 17) looks just like photographs of my father at the same age, the youngest brother (about 5) just like my brother as a small boy). And at a family funeral a few years ago I was able to identify a cousin of my father's whom I had never seen before on the basis that I had been told he was a 'stretched out version' of my father.
As to Charles I, he was apparently in poor health as a boy and had rickets, which may have accounted for his stunted growth.
Ann
Toronto
2005-11-13 18:03:08
Know and love the city. Been several times, Canada is
such a diverse country, it is nice to know that
Canadians have such an interest in an English King.
Hope one day to join you out there and then become an
ex-pat richardian.
Marion
--- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> It's O.K to call me Bill, Marie. If I had my
> 'druthers, I'd go by the
> more medieval appellation, 'Will'.
>
> I live to the west of Toronto, but grew up about
> fifty miles north of
> here in a rural area where, until recently, people
> used more archaic
> name forms. So I did get 'Will' a lot. As a result
> of some sort of Anglo
> Saxon throwback people pronounced the name 'Harold'
> as 'Hah-ruld'.
> Unfortunately, much of the old dialect has
> disappeared in the past
> generation as city folk moved out into the country.
> I'm sure television
> had a lot to do with it as well.
>
> Sorry to digress, but language is another reason I
> love the study of
> history. My degree was in English literature, and I
> graduated in the
> last year that Anglo Saxon studies was mandatory.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In ,
> Margaret Anderson
> > <megander@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes,
> women can bear
> > children as long as they ovulate, which goes on
> well into the 40's and
> > 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is
> that the eggs get
> > old and are more liable to have genetic
> abnormalities (unlike men who
> > continue to make new sperm as long as they're
> breathing, a woman's eggs
> > are all present and accounted for at birth, and
> age along with the rest
> > of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome
> babies are born of older
> > women.
> > > - MargaretA
> >
> > Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman
> who's had children,
> > although the ageing of the eggs is something I
> didn't mention and
> > probably should have. Again, however, 37 just
> isn't that old. More
> > Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but
> also more Downs
> > Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs
> Syndrome in the family and
> > the majority of babies born to older women are
> perfectly healthy. I
> > suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the
> rate of ageing (ie
> > genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by
> nutrition. As I say,
> > there has been a tendency in modern times to play
> up the problems of
> > childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s
> and 1970s a policy was
> > even operated in British hospitals of labelling
> any women of 28 or
> > older having her first baby an "elderly primipara"
> - ie on high-risk
> > alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I
> had mine.
> > By the by, very young women also have higher
> incidences of genetic
> > abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly
> mature, but we don't
> > hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are
> fond of pointing out to
> > their more mature, suffering first-timers what an
> easy labour such-and-
> > such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
> > I do feel there is a certain attitude these days
> to women over 35
> > having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is
> not expected (or
> > accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt
> she should get it
> > all over and done with good and early.
> > So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had
> Richard, but she
> > definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from
> having a clapped-out
> > mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to
> have been due to
> > Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her
> being 37.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have
> experienced the same
> > phenomenon. I have a photograph of a
> great-grandmother which gives me
> > the feeling of staring at myself in a strange
> mirror. Very strange as,
> > despite the small number of generations separating
> us, due to wilful
> > habit of late childbearing on my father's side it
> was some time between
> > 1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing
> a half-crinoline. My
> > daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as
> it's so like a ghost of
> > me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my
> daughter and me the
> > other week that we gave her the creeps as we were
> so alike. Yet my
> > daughter and my great-grandmother do not
> particularly resemble each
> > other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance.
> It seems to be just
> > a certain number of characteristics needed to give
> the 'clone' effect,
> > but if you look more critically the differences
> are just as clear.
> > Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of
> Edward's most recent
> > antecedents, and the ones from further back, such
> as Edward III, don't
> > look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were
> interbred, which is just
> > part of the problem. As I suggested, any
> resemblance between Edward and
> > earlier royals could equally have been got from
> his mother.
> > The one resemblance in portraits that does spring
> to mind, of course,
> > is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is
> that coincidence,
> > clever planning, or proof of relationship?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> on the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
> >
> [email protected]
> >
>
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
such a diverse country, it is nice to know that
Canadians have such an interest in an English King.
Hope one day to join you out there and then become an
ex-pat richardian.
Marion
--- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> It's O.K to call me Bill, Marie. If I had my
> 'druthers, I'd go by the
> more medieval appellation, 'Will'.
>
> I live to the west of Toronto, but grew up about
> fifty miles north of
> here in a rural area where, until recently, people
> used more archaic
> name forms. So I did get 'Will' a lot. As a result
> of some sort of Anglo
> Saxon throwback people pronounced the name 'Harold'
> as 'Hah-ruld'.
> Unfortunately, much of the old dialect has
> disappeared in the past
> generation as city folk moved out into the country.
> I'm sure television
> had a lot to do with it as well.
>
> Sorry to digress, but language is another reason I
> love the study of
> history. My degree was in English literature, and I
> graduated in the
> last year that Anglo Saxon studies was mandatory.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In ,
> Margaret Anderson
> > <megander@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes,
> women can bear
> > children as long as they ovulate, which goes on
> well into the 40's and
> > 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is
> that the eggs get
> > old and are more liable to have genetic
> abnormalities (unlike men who
> > continue to make new sperm as long as they're
> breathing, a woman's eggs
> > are all present and accounted for at birth, and
> age along with the rest
> > of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome
> babies are born of older
> > women.
> > > - MargaretA
> >
> > Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman
> who's had children,
> > although the ageing of the eggs is something I
> didn't mention and
> > probably should have. Again, however, 37 just
> isn't that old. More
> > Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but
> also more Downs
> > Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs
> Syndrome in the family and
> > the majority of babies born to older women are
> perfectly healthy. I
> > suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the
> rate of ageing (ie
> > genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by
> nutrition. As I say,
> > there has been a tendency in modern times to play
> up the problems of
> > childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s
> and 1970s a policy was
> > even operated in British hospitals of labelling
> any women of 28 or
> > older having her first baby an "elderly primipara"
> - ie on high-risk
> > alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I
> had mine.
> > By the by, very young women also have higher
> incidences of genetic
> > abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly
> mature, but we don't
> > hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are
> fond of pointing out to
> > their more mature, suffering first-timers what an
> easy labour such-and-
> > such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
> > I do feel there is a certain attitude these days
> to women over 35
> > having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is
> not expected (or
> > accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt
> she should get it
> > all over and done with good and early.
> > So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had
> Richard, but she
> > definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from
> having a clapped-out
> > mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to
> have been due to
> > Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her
> being 37.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have
> experienced the same
> > phenomenon. I have a photograph of a
> great-grandmother which gives me
> > the feeling of staring at myself in a strange
> mirror. Very strange as,
> > despite the small number of generations separating
> us, due to wilful
> > habit of late childbearing on my father's side it
> was some time between
> > 1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing
> a half-crinoline. My
> > daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as
> it's so like a ghost of
> > me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my
> daughter and me the
> > other week that we gave her the creeps as we were
> so alike. Yet my
> > daughter and my great-grandmother do not
> particularly resemble each
> > other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance.
> It seems to be just
> > a certain number of characteristics needed to give
> the 'clone' effect,
> > but if you look more critically the differences
> are just as clear.
> > Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of
> Edward's most recent
> > antecedents, and the ones from further back, such
> as Edward III, don't
> > look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were
> interbred, which is just
> > part of the problem. As I suggested, any
> resemblance between Edward and
> > earlier royals could equally have been got from
> his mother.
> > The one resemblance in portraits that does spring
> to mind, of course,
> > is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is
> that coincidence,
> > clever planning, or proof of relationship?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> on the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
> >
> [email protected]
> >
>
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Toronto
2005-11-13 18:37:26
Like most colonials we're often more British than the
British--especially if you come from small town Ontario. We have a
crisis of national identity: the British think we're Americans, and the
Americans think we're British. The best way is to think of us as is
Americans with better beer.
Until very recently you could still attend an Orange Day Parade on the
Glorious 12th. I remember a day when 'King Billy' was so drunk he
couldn't sit his white horse, so a couple of members from the lodge had
to prop him up while they rode in the back of a white Caddy convertible.
A bit of revisionist history if you will.
Sorry, I called you 'Marie', for some reason I thought that's who the
posting was from. Submissions were coming 'thick and furious' at one
point there.
Welcome to Canada whenever you come. There are a lot of ex pats here.
Many came during the fifties to work on the Avro Arrow just east of me
in Malton. They became the Scout leaders of the community and took an
active part in many other aspects of our lives.
The main thing you'll find is that we think of distance in a totally
different way than you do in Britain. Driving five hundred miles in one
day doesn't really daunt us. And we also drive on the correct side of
the road.
I generally tell people that I come from Toronto, but if you've been
here you'll know what I mean when I say that I live in the western part
of Mississauga. So I lied, but only slightly.
marion cheatham wrote:
> Know and love the city. Been several times, Canada is
> such a diverse country, it is nice to know that
> Canadians have such an interest in an English King.
> Hope one day to join you out there and then become an
> ex-pat richardian.
>
> Marion
>
> --- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> > It's O.K to call me Bill, Marie. If I had my
> > 'druthers, I'd go by the
> > more medieval appellation, 'Will'.
> >
> > I live to the west of Toronto, but grew up about
> > fifty miles north of
> > here in a rural area where, until recently, people
> > used more archaic
> > name forms. So I did get 'Will' a lot. As a result
> > of some sort of Anglo
> > Saxon throwback people pronounced the name 'Harold'
> > as 'Hah-ruld'.
> > Unfortunately, much of the old dialect has
> > disappeared in the past
> > generation as city folk moved out into the country.
> > I'm sure television
> > had a lot to do with it as well.
> >
> > Sorry to digress, but language is another reason I
> > love the study of
> > history. My degree was in English literature, and I
> > graduated in the
> > last year that Anglo Saxon studies was mandatory.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In ,
> > Margaret Anderson
> > > <megander@e...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes,
> > women can bear
> > > children as long as they ovulate, which goes on
> > well into the 40's and
> > > 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is
> > that the eggs get
> > > old and are more liable to have genetic
> > abnormalities (unlike men who
> > > continue to make new sperm as long as they're
> > breathing, a woman's eggs
> > > are all present and accounted for at birth, and
> > age along with the rest
> > > of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome
> > babies are born of older
> > > women.
> > > > - MargaretA
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman
> > who's had children,
> > > although the ageing of the eggs is something I
> > didn't mention and
> > > probably should have. Again, however, 37 just
> > isn't that old. More
> > > Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but
> > also more Downs
> > > Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs
> > Syndrome in the family and
> > > the majority of babies born to older women are
> > perfectly healthy. I
> > > suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the
> > rate of ageing (ie
> > > genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by
> > nutrition. As I say,
> > > there has been a tendency in modern times to play
> > up the problems of
> > > childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s
> > and 1970s a policy was
> > > even operated in British hospitals of labelling
> > any women of 28 or
> > > older having her first baby an "elderly primipara"
> > - ie on high-risk
> > > alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I
> > had mine.
> > > By the by, very young women also have higher
> > incidences of genetic
> > > abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly
> > mature, but we don't
> > > hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are
> > fond of pointing out to
> > > their more mature, suffering first-timers what an
> > easy labour such-and-
> > > such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
> > > I do feel there is a certain attitude these days
> > to women over 35
> > > having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is
> > not expected (or
> > > accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt
> > she should get it
> > > all over and done with good and early.
> > > So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had
> > Richard, but she
> > > definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from
> > having a clapped-out
> > > mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to
> > have been due to
> > > Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her
> > being 37.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have
> > experienced the same
> > > phenomenon. I have a photograph of a
> > great-grandmother which gives me
> > > the feeling of staring at myself in a strange
> > mirror. Very strange as,
> > > despite the small number of generations separating
> > us, due to wilful
> > > habit of late childbearing on my father's side it
> > was some time between
> > > 1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing
> > a half-crinoline. My
> > > daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as
> > it's so like a ghost of
> > > me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my
> > daughter and me the
> > > other week that we gave her the creeps as we were
> > so alike. Yet my
> > > daughter and my great-grandmother do not
> > particularly resemble each
> > > other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance.
> > It seems to be just
> > > a certain number of characteristics needed to give
> > the 'clone' effect,
> > > but if you look more critically the differences
> > are just as clear.
> > > Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of
> > Edward's most recent
> > > antecedents, and the ones from further back, such
> > as Edward III, don't
> > > look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were
> > interbred, which is just
> > > part of the problem. As I suggested, any
> > resemblance between Edward and
> > > earlier royals could equally have been got from
> > his mother.
> > > The one resemblance in portraits that does spring
> > to mind, of course,
> > > is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is
> > that coincidence,
> > > clever planning, or proof of relationship?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> > on the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> > email to:
> > >
> > [email protected]
> > >
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
British--especially if you come from small town Ontario. We have a
crisis of national identity: the British think we're Americans, and the
Americans think we're British. The best way is to think of us as is
Americans with better beer.
Until very recently you could still attend an Orange Day Parade on the
Glorious 12th. I remember a day when 'King Billy' was so drunk he
couldn't sit his white horse, so a couple of members from the lodge had
to prop him up while they rode in the back of a white Caddy convertible.
A bit of revisionist history if you will.
Sorry, I called you 'Marie', for some reason I thought that's who the
posting was from. Submissions were coming 'thick and furious' at one
point there.
Welcome to Canada whenever you come. There are a lot of ex pats here.
Many came during the fifties to work on the Avro Arrow just east of me
in Malton. They became the Scout leaders of the community and took an
active part in many other aspects of our lives.
The main thing you'll find is that we think of distance in a totally
different way than you do in Britain. Driving five hundred miles in one
day doesn't really daunt us. And we also drive on the correct side of
the road.
I generally tell people that I come from Toronto, but if you've been
here you'll know what I mean when I say that I live in the western part
of Mississauga. So I lied, but only slightly.
marion cheatham wrote:
> Know and love the city. Been several times, Canada is
> such a diverse country, it is nice to know that
> Canadians have such an interest in an English King.
> Hope one day to join you out there and then become an
> ex-pat richardian.
>
> Marion
>
> --- William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> > It's O.K to call me Bill, Marie. If I had my
> > 'druthers, I'd go by the
> > more medieval appellation, 'Will'.
> >
> > I live to the west of Toronto, but grew up about
> > fifty miles north of
> > here in a rural area where, until recently, people
> > used more archaic
> > name forms. So I did get 'Will' a lot. As a result
> > of some sort of Anglo
> > Saxon throwback people pronounced the name 'Harold'
> > as 'Hah-ruld'.
> > Unfortunately, much of the old dialect has
> > disappeared in the past
> > generation as city folk moved out into the country.
> > I'm sure television
> > had a lot to do with it as well.
> >
> > Sorry to digress, but language is another reason I
> > love the study of
> > history. My degree was in English literature, and I
> > graduated in the
> > last year that Anglo Saxon studies was mandatory.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In ,
> > Margaret Anderson
> > > <megander@e...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jumping into the fray on childbearing age: yes,
> > women can bear
> > > children as long as they ovulate, which goes on
> > well into the 40's and
> > > 50's, and even 60's for some women. The problem is
> > that the eggs get
> > > old and are more liable to have genetic
> > abnormalities (unlike men who
> > > continue to make new sperm as long as they're
> > breathing, a woman's eggs
> > > are all present and accounted for at birth, and
> > age along with the rest
> > > of the body.) This is why more Downs Syndrome
> > babies are born of older
> > > women.
> > > > - MargaretA
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm aware of that, as I'm sure is any woman
> > who's had children,
> > > although the ageing of the eggs is something I
> > didn't mention and
> > > probably should have. Again, however, 37 just
> > isn't that old. More
> > > Downs Syndrome babies are born of older women, but
> > also more Downs
> > > Syndrome babies are born of women with Downs
> > Syndrome in the family and
> > > the majority of babies born to older women are
> > perfectly healthy. I
> > > suspect that, as with other cells in the body, the
> > rate of ageing (ie
> > > genetic corruption) of the ova is affected by
> > nutrition. As I say,
> > > there has been a tendency in modern times to play
> > up the problems of
> > > childbearing at an older age. Back in the 1960s
> > and 1970s a policy was
> > > even operated in British hospitals of labelling
> > any women of 28 or
> > > older having her first baby an "elderly primipara"
> > - ie on high-risk
> > > alert. Thank goodness they'd dropped that before I
> > had mine.
> > > By the by, very young women also have higher
> > incidences of genetic
> > > abnormalities because the eggs aren't properly
> > mature, but we don't
> > > hear so much about that; in fact, midwives are
> > fond of pointing out to
> > > their more mature, suffering first-timers what an
> > easy labour such-and-
> > > such a teeenager on the ward had with hers.
> > > I do feel there is a certain attitude these days
> > to women over 35
> > > having babies. Perhaps in a culture where it is
> > not expected (or
> > > accepted) for a woman to breed at will, it is felt
> > she should get it
> > > all over and done with good and early.
> > > So, to conclude, Cecily wasn't young when she had
> > Richard, but she
> > > definitely wasn't old. If Richard did suffer from
> > having a clapped-out
> > > mother, then I would suggest it was more likely to
> > have been due to
> > > Cecily's lack of rest from pregnancies than to her
> > being 37.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > By the by, in response to William, yes, I too have
> > experienced the same
> > > phenomenon. I have a photograph of a
> > great-grandmother which gives me
> > > the feeling of staring at myself in a strange
> > mirror. Very strange as,
> > > despite the small number of generations separating
> > us, due to wilful
> > > habit of late childbearing on my father's side it
> > was some time between
> > > 1865 and 1869 when she had herself snapped wearing
> > a half-crinoline. My
> > > daughter says the photo gives her the creeps as
> > it's so like a ghost of
> > > me. On the other hand, a shop assistant told my
> > daughter and me the
> > > other week that we gave her the creeps as we were
> > so alike. Yet my
> > > daughter and my great-grandmother do not
> > particularly resemble each
> > > other. It's a funny old thing, facial resemblance.
> > It seems to be just
> > > a certain number of characteristics needed to give
> > the 'clone' effect,
> > > but if you look more critically the differences
> > are just as clear.
> > > Unfortunately, we don't have portraits of many of
> > Edward's most recent
> > > antecedents, and the ones from further back, such
> > as Edward III, don't
> > > look much like him. Sure the Plantagenets were
> > interbred, which is just
> > > part of the problem. As I suggested, any
> > resemblance between Edward and
> > > earlier royals could equally have been got from
> > his mother.
> > > The one resemblance in portraits that does spring
> > to mind, of course,
> > > is between Edward IV and Perkin Warbeck. Now, is
> > that coincidence,
> > > clever planning, or proof of relationship?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > >
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> > on the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> > email to:
> > >
> > [email protected]
> > >
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.