Five Pounds Annuity/ Katherine Haute

It had been suggested that one Katherine Haute was the mother of
Richard's illegitimate children. Myself I think one would need more
than her receiving an annuity from Richard and having the same name as
his daughter, common enough name.

What I am really enquiring about is how much is Five Pounds a year in
the 1470s and 1480s. Is that a generous amount? Would a person be able
to live comfortably on that?

Also Richard after he became King gave annuities to various people
amounts of like 20 marks, ten marks etc. What are marks worth?

Oh I hope Henry kept those annuities going!

Helen

--- In , "Helen" <sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>>
> Also Richard after he became King gave annuities to various people
> amounts of like 20 marks, ten marks etc. What are marks worth?
>
> Oh I hope Henry kept those annuities going!
>
> Helen
>
Hmmmm dunno, but it is a fact Henry was well known for his parsimoniousness - a trait it
seems maybe he passed on to his granddaughter. Last night watched a programme
Battlefield Britain - a reconstruction of the Spanish Armada - very good (even I could
understand the strategy),& altthough I had known previously that english sailors who had
suffered amputations/badly wounded were reduced to begging I never knew how bad it
actually was. Apparently only about 100 english sailors died in the actual battle but due
to the fact they were not allowed off the ships (to save paying them wages) a year later
over half of them had died from disease/wounds. What a way to treat heroes who had
saved your country. Drake even sold off some of his silver in an attempt to help. Thank
you Good Queen Bess! I have always considered Elizabeth l to be a good egg but it is hard
to believe she would never have known this was going on.

Eileen

Has any one any opinions on the validity/non validity of the letter written by Elizabeth of York proclaiming her love for Richard and disappointment Anne was taking too long to die. George Buck said he had seen this letter in a cabinet at Arundel Castle.

Eileen






--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Helen" sweethelly2003@y... wrote:
> >
> >>
> > Also Richard after he became King gave annuities to various people
> > amounts of like 20 marks, ten marks etc. What are marks worth?
> >
> > Oh I hope Henry kept those annuities going!
> >
> > Helen
> >
> Hmmmm dunno, but it is a fact Henry was well known for his parsimoniousness - a trait it
> seems maybe he passed on to his granddaughter. Last night watched a programme
> Battlefield Britain - a reconstruction of the Spanish Armada - very good (even I could
> understand the strategy),& altthough I had known previously that english sailors who had
> suffered amputations/badly wounded were reduced to begging I never knew how bad it
> actually was. Apparently only about 100 english sailors died in the actual battle but due
> to the fact they were not allowed off the ships (to save paying them wages) a year later
> over half of them had died from disease/wounds. What a way to treat heroes who had
> saved your country. Drake even sold off some of his silver in an attempt to help. Thank
> you Good Queen Bess! I have always considered Elizabeth l to be a good egg but it is hard
> to believe she would never have known this was going on.
>
> Eileen
>

--- In , "Helen"
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> It had been suggested that one Katherine Haute was the mother of
> Richard's illegitimate children. Myself I think one would need more
> than her receiving an annuity from Richard and having the same name
as
> his daughter, common enough name.
>
> What I am really enquiring about is how much is Five Pounds a year in
> the 1470s and 1480s. Is that a generous amount? Would a person be
able
> to live comfortably on that?
>

Something else to consider: many assume that Katherine Haute, or
whoever the mother of John and/or Katherine was, was a widow at the
time she bore Richard's child. (That way, her prospects of marriage
would not be ruined as they would for a never-married girl who would be
expected to come to her marriage a virgin, or at least not with a child
in tow.) There are many such liaisons among male nobles and royals
throughout several centuries. Often the widow lady was then made a
nice marriage to a knight or above. If that was the case with
Katherine Haute, the annuity from Richard would not have been her only
means of support, but instead a nice little nest egg of her own, a
dowry in effect, to assure a comfortable future.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> Something else to consider: many assume that Katherine Haute, or
> whoever the mother of John and/or Katherine was, was a widow at the
> time she bore Richard's child. (That way, her prospects of marriage
> would not be ruined as they would for a never-married girl who would be
> expected to come to her marriage a virgin, or at least not with a child
> in tow.) There are many such liaisons among male nobles and royals
> throughout several centuries. Often the widow lady was then made a
> nice marriage to a knight or above. > Katy
>
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford come to mind - although as we all know he
eventually married her after the death of his 2nd wife.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > Something else to consider: many assume that Katherine Haute,
or
> > whoever the mother of John and/or Katherine was, was a widow at
the
> > time she bore Richard's child. (That way, her prospects of
marriage
> > would not be ruined as they would for a never-married girl who
would be
> > expected to come to her marriage a virgin, or at least not with
a child
> > in tow.) There are many such liaisons among male nobles and
royals
> > throughout several centuries. Often the widow lady was then
made a
> > nice marriage to a knight or above. > Katy
> >
> John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford come to mind - although as
we all know he
> eventually married her after the death of his 2nd wife.


Not really. Both of them had living spouses at the time of their
child-producing affair, which is why the Beauforts are said to have
been born of double adultery.

Eleanor Butler might be a better example, except that she did not
produce a child (probably didn't...there is that rumored Edward
of...darn, forgot the castle name...baby) since she was a widow of a
knight when Edward had his fling with her. She was also the
daughter and sister of an earl, a bit higher status than most, but
then, Edward was almost a king at the time.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:


> Eleanor Butler might be a better example, except that she did not
> produce a child (probably didn't...there is that rumored Edward
> of...darn, forgot the castle name...baby)


Finally remembered -- Edward of Wigmore.

Katy

Not just the Tudors.

I have heard stories of Charles II and reluctance to pay sailors in the seventeenth century.

Onto the nineteenth century and I have just read a book about the Peninsular War, there the men were often shoddily - probably should use a stronger word - treated both during and after that war. Officers and their families were sometimes looked after but the men would be very lucky. .

It seems right through that governments were happy to send men off to war but reluctant to recompense them.

It was probably only in the twentieth century that there came to be any systematic way of helping men and their families. They would have to with so many fighting in two world wars.

Helen

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "Helen" <sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>>
> Also Richard after he became King gave annuities to various people
> amounts of like 20 marks, ten marks etc. What are marks worth?
>
> Oh I hope Henry kept those annuities going!
>
> Helen
>
Hmmmm dunno, but it is a fact Henry was well known for his parsimoniousness - a trait it
seems maybe he passed on to his granddaughter. Last night watched a programme
Battlefield Britain - a reconstruction of the Spanish Armada - very good (even I could
understand the strategy),& altthough I had known previously that english sailors who had
suffered amputations/badly wounded were reduced to begging I never knew how bad it
actually was. Apparently only about 100 english sailors died in the actual battle but due
to the fact they were not allowed off the ships (to save paying them wages) a year later
over half of them had died from disease/wounds. What a way to treat heroes who had
saved your country. Drake even sold off some of his silver in an attempt to help. Thank
you Good Queen Bess! I have always considered Elizabeth l to be a good egg but it is hard
to believe she would never have known this was going on.

Eileen






SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search

I think the letter is generally dismissed by historians as a hoax. If
I remember, Richard supposedly promised Elizabeth that the Queen (Anne)
will "die by February."
Elizabeth wrote in the letter "It is now March, and I think the Queen
will never die".
Elizabeth of York is often represented as obsessed by becoming a Queen
as her natural right, even if it means marrying her hunchback uncle.
Or, even more horrible prospect, Henry Tudor.)
What lovely people these medieval aristocrats must have been.

And so, as Little Ned doubtless observed at the time,
"God bless them, one and all!"

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> Has any one any opinions on the validity/non validity of the letter
written by Elizabeth of York proclaiming her love for Richard and
disappointment Anne was taking too long to die. George Buck said he
had seen this letter in a cabinet at Arundel Castle.
>
> Eileen

I don't think it's generally dismissed as a hoax, but
I think it's been misinterpreted by folks who don't
understand fifteenth century English. I understand
that the phrase "my only joy and maker in this world"
is a pretty conventional 15c expression meaning
"person I am hoping will do me a big favor." Other
supplicants used the same phrase when addressing or
referring to other benefactors in situations where
marriage would never have been an option (e.g., both
parties were both male and married).

At the time this letter was written, Richard was in
the process of casting about for a good marriage for
Elizabeth. She may simply have been eager to find out
whether he'd turned up anything tasty, and the
comments about the queen's health may simply have been
comments about the queen's health.



--- theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...>
wrote:

> I think the letter is generally dismissed by
> historians as a hoax. If
> I remember, Richard supposedly promised Elizabeth
> that the Queen (Anne)
> will "die by February."
> Elizabeth wrote in the letter "It is now March, and
> I think the Queen
> will never die".
> Elizabeth of York is often represented as obsessed
> by becoming a Queen
> as her natural right, even if it means marrying her
> hunchback uncle.
> Or, even more horrible prospect, Henry Tudor.)
> What lovely people these medieval aristocrats must
> have been.
>
> And so, as Little Ned doubtless observed at the
> time,
> "God bless them, one and all!"
>
> --- In ,
> "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> > Has any one any opinions on the validity/non
> validity of the letter
> written by Elizabeth of York proclaiming her love
> for Richard and
> disappointment Anne was taking too long to die.
> George Buck said he
> had seen this letter in a cabinet at Arundel Castle.
>
> >
> > Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> I think the letter is generally dismissed by historians as a hoax.
If
> I remember, Richard supposedly promised Elizabeth that the Queen
(Anne)
> will "die by February."
> Elizabeth wrote in the letter "It is now March, and I think the Queen
> will never die".
> Elizabeth of York is often represented as obsessed by becoming a
Queen
> as her natural right, even if it means marrying her hunchback uncle.


I think all this seems more atainable to our 21st century eyes than it
could have to the people involved.

In the first place, a man and his brother's daughter were certainly
related within a forbidden degree of consanguinity. (I know about the
business in Spain, but that was Spain.)

Secondly, the last time a woman got too pushy about her prospects of
becoming queen while there was a living queen already in place (Eleanor
Cobham) she was accused of witchcraft and died in prison. Merely
wishing for or inquiring too aggressively about a person's death could
raise suspicions that you were trying to effect it. Many a death that
wasn't from some very clear cause was attributed to poison, and
sometimes to witchcraft. If Elizabeth of York was talking about how
she couldn't wait for Anne to die, much less putting it in writing, she
was not being a silly infatuated teenager, she was risking ruin or
worse, and as a member of that society, she would have known it.

So if such a letter existed, I'd say it was a forgery or the wording
was misinterpreted by a reader in a later era.

Katy

All that you and Laura have to say makes very good sense and excellent reasons for dismissing the letter or at any rate one interpretation of it.

All I would add is to ask whether anybody has checked those elements of Buck's book which can be checked against other sources. If so, how generally reliable does he appear?

Ann


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:

> Elizabeth of York is often represented as obsessed by becoming a
Queen
> as her natural right, even if it means marrying her hunchback uncle.


I think all this seems more atainable to our 21st century eyes than it
could have to the people involved.

In the first place, a man and his brother's daughter were certainly
related within a forbidden degree of consanguinity. (I know about the
business in Spain, but that was Spain.)

Secondly, the last time a woman got too pushy about her prospects of
becoming queen while there was a living queen already in place (Eleanor
Cobham) she was accused of witchcraft and died in prison. Merely
wishing for or inquiring too aggressively about a person's death could
raise suspicions that you were trying to effect it. Many a death that
wasn't from some very clear cause was attributed to poison, and
sometimes to witchcraft. If Elizabeth of York was talking about how
she couldn't wait for Anne to die, much less putting it in writing, she
was not being a silly infatuated teenager, she was risking ruin or
worse, and as a member of that society, she would have known it.

So if such a letter existed, I'd say it was a forgery or the wording
was misinterpreted by a reader in a later era.

Katy







SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

Dare I raise this topic again?

It seems to me that the standard historical novelist's approach to Edward of Middleham, showing him as a seet little darling, petted, indulged and adored by everybody before succumbing at a tragically early age (excuse me while I throw up) is not really in keeping with the 15th century. Quite apart from being much more interesting both to write and read about, surely if Edward was sickly then by the time he was 7 or 8 his father would be becoming concerned not only about his physical health but about the effect of too much cossetting on his character. Richard had grown up in very dangerous and lawless times, and though he might hope that things had sttled down, he would surely be aware that Edward was his only legitimate child, sole heir to huge landholdings and possibly intened to follow him in his role in the north. He would also be aware of the possibility that he might die prematurely - all it needed was a bad fall from a horse. So Edward would need to be trained for his future
role, if not by being sent to another household at 7-8 but at least by being passed from mother and nurses into the tutelage of a governor and male tutors. And if this had to be delayed because of Edward's fragile health (and there does seem to be some evidence of poor health apart from his early death) then what? I can quite see differences of opinion between his parents on what Edward needed - how about a few arguments between Richard and Anne?

Regards

Ann

I haven't delved into the matter, but I believe
there's an exhaustive introduction in Kinkaid's
edition. That would probably be a good starting place.

--- A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:

> All that you and Laura have to say makes very good
> sense and excellent reasons for dismissing the
> letter or at any rate one interpretation of it.
>
> All I would add is to ask whether anybody has
> checked those elements of Buck's book which can be
> checked against other sources. If so, how generally
> reliable does he appear?
>
>

But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham," or
whatever the title of the published article ultimately
became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
younger when he died.

--- A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:

> Dare I raise this topic again?
>
> It seems to me that the standard historical
> novelist's approach to Edward of Middleham, showing
> him as a seet little darling, petted, indulged and
> adored by everybody before succumbing at a
> tragically early age (excuse me while I throw up) is
> not really in keeping with the 15th century. Quite
> apart from being much more interesting both to write
> and read about, surely if Edward was sickly then by
> the time he was 7 or 8 his father would be becoming
> concerned not only about his physical health but
> about the effect of too much cossetting on his
> character. Richard had grown up in very dangerous
> and lawless times, and though he might hope that
> things had sttled down, he would surely be aware
> that Edward was his only legitimate child, sole heir
> to huge landholdings and possibly intened to follow
> him in his role in the north. He would also be aware
> of the possibility that he might die prematurely -
> all it needed was a bad fall from a horse. So Edward
> would need to be trained for his future
> role, if not by being sent to another household at
> 7-8 but at least by being passed from mother and
> nurses into the tutelage of a governor and male
> tutors. And if this had to be delayed because of
> Edward's fragile health (and there does seem to be
> some evidence of poor health apart from his early
> death) then what? I can quite see differences of
> opinion between his parents on what Edward needed -
> how about a few arguments between Richard and Anne?
>
> Regards
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>

I haven't seen this. What age does Pollard suggest?

Ann

Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham," or
whatever the title of the published article ultimately
became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
younger when he died.

I'm recollecting from a paper he gave in '98, and I
don't know where my offprint landed. I think he
suggested 6 or 7.

--- A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:

> I haven't seen this. What age does Pollard suggest?
>
> Ann
>
> Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham,"
> or
> whatever the title of the published article
> ultimately
> became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
> younger when he died.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks. Clearly Edward cannot have been born earlier than February 1478, when he was made Earl of Salisbury following Clarence's attainder and death. That would make him five in spring 1483 and six at his death. This would make him rather young for governors and tutors, but I think the general point still holds good that a 15th century magnate with a sickly only son would be concerned about the boy's ability to cope in the future. At the very least he would be hoping that his son would grow out of whatever ailment it was.

I'm drawing on my own experience here, having a robust father and a younger brother who had asthma and eczema quite badly until he grew out of it from around the age of eight (he got an inhaler when they first came out and from then scarcely looked back). but I can't help thinking that there would be times when a physically healthy and active father would get exasperated with the son's frailty. 'He's not got ANOTHER cold,' 'Where does he get it from?' and so on. If Richard had himself been sickly and grown out of it he would presumably have more fellow-feeling, but he would certainly be concerned that Edward WOULD grow out of it.

Bear in mind also that Richard had all his eggs in one basket - who was his heir in his lands after Edward? And he had had to work hard (however one views it) to gather in all those lands in the face of opposition. He would not want them to be dissipated because his son was not strong or determined enough to hold onto them.

Ann

Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
I'm recollecting from a paper he gave in '98, and I
don't know where my offprint landed. I think he
suggested 6 or 7.

--- A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:

> I haven't seen this. What age does Pollard suggest?
>
> Ann
>
> Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@...> wrote:
> But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham,"
> or
> whatever the title of the published article
> ultimately
> became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
> younger when he died.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>



---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Surely you mean that he cannot have
been born LATER than February 1478.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks. Clearly Edward cannot have been born earlier than February
1478, when he was made Earl of Salisbury following Clarence's
attainder and death. That would make him five in spring 1483 and six
at his death. This would make him rather young for governors and
tutors, but I think the general point still holds good that a 15th
century magnate with a sickly only son would be concerned about the
boy's ability to cope in the future. At the very least he would be
hoping that his son would grow out of whatever ailment it was.
>
> I'm drawing on my own experience here, having a robust father and
a younger brother who had asthma and eczema quite badly until he grew
out of it from around the age of eight (he got an inhaler when they
first came out and from then scarcely looked back). but I can't help
thinking that there would be times when a physically healthy and
active father would get exasperated with the son's frailty. 'He's not
got ANOTHER cold,' 'Where does he get it from?' and so on. If Richard
had himself been sickly and grown out of it he would presumably have
more fellow-feeling, but he would certainly be concerned that Edward
WOULD grow out of it.
>
> Bear in mind also that Richard had all his eggs in one basket -
who was his heir in his lands after Edward? And he had had to work
hard (however one views it) to gather in all those lands in the face
of opposition. He would not want them to be dissipated because his
son was not strong or determined enough to hold onto them.
>
> Ann
>
> Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> I'm recollecting from a paper he gave in '98, and I
> don't know where my offprint landed. I think he
> suggested 6 or 7.
>
> --- A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen this. What age does Pollard suggest?
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham,"
> > or
> > whatever the title of the published article
> > ultimately
> > became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
> > younger when he died.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Our old friend rous says he was seven and a bit at the time of his
investiture as Prince of Wales. Whatever we think of him, Rous was
attached to the House of Warwick and there is no reason for him to
have been misinformed on this, particularly as he was being so
precise.

That would certainly explain the chariot. If he'd been sickly surely
Richard and Anne wouldn't have put him through such a very long
investiture.

The only "evidence" behind the usual birth year given of 1473 is:-
assumed year of 1472 for marriage + 1 year's allowance for conception
& gestation.

Marie



--- In , Laura Blanchard
<lblanchard@r...> wrote:
>
> I'm recollecting from a paper he gave in '98, and I
> don't know where my offprint landed. I think he
> suggested 6 or 7.
>
> --- A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...> wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen this. What age does Pollard suggest?
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> > But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham,"
> > or
> > whatever the title of the published article
> > ultimately
> > became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
> > younger when he died.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sorry, slip of the typing fingers there! Of course I meant later.

Ann

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Surely you mean that he cannot have
been born LATER than February 1478.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Clearly Edward cannot have been born earlier than February
1478, when he was made Earl of Salisbury following Clarence's
attainder and death.

I posted this earlier, but it doesn't seem to have taken.

Rous said Edward was only seven and a bit at the time of his
investiture, so bein wheeled part of the journey wouldn't have been
at all sinister.
Rous was attached to the House of Warwick and probably had the
correct information.

The usual claim that he was 11 when he died comes from nothing more
than an assumption that his parents married in 1472 and he would have
been conceived shortly after that. A very big assumption, one might
think.

Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently getting
quite the thing.

Marie


--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> I haven't seen this. What age does Pollard suggest?
>
> Ann
>
> Laura Blanchard <lblanchard@r...> wrote:
> But see A. J. Pollard, "One Summer at Middleham," or
> whatever the title of the published article ultimately
> became, wherein he makes a case for E of M being
> younger when he died.
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>

> Rous said Edward was only seven and a bit at the time of his
> investiture, so bein wheeled part of the journey wouldn't have been
> at all sinister.
> Rous was attached to the House of Warwick and probably had the
> correct information.
>
> The usual claim that he was 11 when he died comes from nothing more
> than an assumption that his parents married in 1472 and he would
have
> been conceived shortly after that. A very big assumption, one might
> think.
>
> Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
> city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently
getting
> quite the thing.



Good points. And for my mind, the fact that he died so suddenly that
his parents only received word afterwards, too late to even begin a
frantic rush to his bedside, and their intense grief, suggests that
he was not a sickly child whose death would not be such a surprise.

If he died at age seven or later, he had already survived the
perilous years of early childhood, when children are at greatest
risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have been remarked
upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of poisoning (and any
illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any mysterious decline and
wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison) because there was no
accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of Clarence's brief-
lived last child. He appatrently died of something that was clearly
a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor of witchcraft,
which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into which
undiagnosable ailments were thrown.

After eliminating all those possibilities, what is left? Suggestions?

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
.
>
> Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
> city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently
getting
> quite the thing.
>

One more thought...did "chariot" in the 15th century mean what it
means today? (My OED is downstairs, but I'll look up the word in
it.) If it does, it does indeed sound like some showy aspect of the
procession and the whole gala, rather than a vehicle for a poor
sickly mite.

I don't recall "chariot" being used any other time as the term for
the vehicle for transporting someone who couldn't ride.

While a typical boy of six or seven, at least, in that society could
probably ride a pony well enough, I for one would not have risked
having him ride in a long cavalcade amidst a noisy crowd, even if the
pony was on a lead or with grooms alongside. A chariot would make
the boy more visible to the spectators than he would be in a sadan
chair or a cart (they didn't have carriages then, of course) and he
would look more regal than he would riding pillion.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> -> If he died at age seven or later, he had already survived the
> perilous years of early childhood, when children are at greatest
> risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have been remarked
> upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of poisoning (and any
> illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any mysterious decline and
> wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison) because there was no
> accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of Clarence's brief-
> lived last child. He appatrently died of something that was clearly
> a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor of witchcraft,
> which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into which
> undiagnosable ailments were thrown.
>
> After eliminating all those possibilities, what is left? Suggestions?

> Katy

Appendicitus??

Or
My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged 13 of Perionitus -
If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it may be something to do with
blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays - I have done a google
search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing. Perhaps it is known by another
name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.
Eileen
>

Tetanus. Can go from vague symptoms to dead in a
couple of days.

Staph. Can go from a boil to dead in a couple of days.

Pneumonia.





--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In ,
> "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
>
> > Rous said Edward was only seven and a bit at the
> time of his
> > investiture, so bein wheeled part of the journey
> wouldn't have been
> > at all sinister.
> > Rous was attached to the House of Warwick and
> probably had the
> > correct information.
> >
> > The usual claim that he was 11 when he died comes
> from nothing more
> > than an assumption that his parents married in
> 1472 and he would
> have
> > been conceived shortly after that. A very big
> assumption, one might
> > think.
> >
> > Also the chariot might have been part of a
> triumphal entry into the
> > city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were
> apparently
> getting
> > quite the thing.
>
>
>
> Good points. And for my mind, the fact that he died
> so suddenly that
> his parents only received word afterwards, too late
> to even begin a
> frantic rush to his bedside, and their intense
> grief, suggests that
> he was not a sickly child whose death would not be
> such a surprise.
>
> If he died at age seven or later, he had already
> survived the
> perilous years of early childhood, when children are
> at greatest
> risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have
> been remarked
> upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of
> poisoning (and any
> illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any
> mysterious decline and
> wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison)
> because there was no
> accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of
> Clarence's brief-
> lived last child. He appatrently died of something
> that was clearly
> a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor
> of witchcraft,
> which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into
> which
> undiagnosable ailments were thrown.
>
> After eliminating all those possibilities, what is
> left? Suggestions?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> .
> >
> > Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
> > city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently
> getting
> > quite the thing.
> >
>
> One more thought...did "chariot" in the 15th century mean what it
> means today? (My OED is downstairs, but I'll look up the word in
> it.) If it does, it does indeed sound like some showy aspect of the
> procession and the whole gala, rather than a vehicle for a poor
> sickly mite.
>
> I don't recall "chariot" being used any other time as the term for
> the vehicle for transporting someone who couldn't ride.
>
> Katy
>
Cecily Neville went to meet her husband in 'a chariot covered with blue velvet and drawn
by 8 coursers' Now I may be very wrong here but I have never thought medieval chariots
were the same as the roman ones - I had assumed they were a type of waggon - with
curtains - I have seen pictures of them but its hard to describe so I know such a vehicle
existed but whether this is the chariot type we are taking about I dont know.
Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > -> If he died at age seven or later, he had already survived the
> > perilous years of early childhood, when children are at greatest
> > risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have been remarked
> > upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of poisoning (and any
> > illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any mysterious decline and
> > wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison) because there was no
> > accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of Clarence's brief-
> > lived last child. He appatrently died of something that was clearly
> > a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor of witchcraft,
> > which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into which
> > undiagnosable ailments were thrown.
> >
> > After eliminating all those possibilities, what is left? Suggestions?
>
> > Katy
>
> Appendicitus??
>
> Or
> My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged 13
of Perionitus -
> If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it
may be something to do with
> blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays -
I have done a google
> search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing. Perhaps
it is known by another
> name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.
> Eileen
> >
>

Eileen,
I had heard the appendicitus theory too, but think it was in a work of
fiction. As an old nurse, I can tell you that peritonitous can still
be a fatal illness, caused by acute perforation of the bowel,
resulting in high fever and a painful death.My gut, pardon the bad
pun, is with the old consumption/tuberculosis myth.An often drawn out
wasting disease, common enough in all classes of the era. Btw, glad to
hear that the Cotswolds are still lovely, but my long ago visit did
not include Minster Lovell.
Rhonda

Rhonda <metrlt@...> wrote: --- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > -> If he died at age seven or later, he had already survived the
> > perilous years of early childhood, when children are at greatest
> > risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have been remarked
> > upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of poisoning (and any
> > illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any mysterious decline and
> > wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison) because there was no
> > accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of Clarence's brief-
> > lived last child. He appatrently died of something that was clearly
> > a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor of witchcraft,
> > which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into which
> > undiagnosable ailments were thrown.
> >
> > After eliminating all those possibilities, what is left? Suggestions?
>
> > Katy
>
> Appendicitus??
>
> Or
> My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged 13
of Perionitus -
> If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it
may be something to do with
> blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays -
I have done a google
> search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing. Perhaps
it is known by another
> name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.
> Eileen
> >
>

Eileen,
I had heard the appendicitus theory too, but think it was in a work of
fiction. As an old nurse, I can tell you that peritonitous can still
be a fatal illness, caused by acute perforation of the bowel,
resulting in high fever and a painful death.My gut, pardon the bad
pun, is with the old consumption/tuberculosis myth.An often drawn out
wasting disease, common enough in all classes of the era. Btw, glad to
hear that the Cotswolds are still lovely, but my long ago visit did
not include Minster Lovell.
Rhonda
---------------------
the child may have also had a heart defect.
this blighter runs in my family.
www.sads.org
it is one of the known causes of sudden infant death/sids. it also takes young children and children as they enter/adjust biochemically to puberty.

the only outward indication of it might be is a child complaining of dizzy spells, and/or lack of energy.

nowadays we can diagnosis it with an electro-cardio-gram.
it is genetic, and his uncle edward died young (age 40).

this ailment could also be what plagued the tudor princes arthur and edward.

roslyn









SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

The term /chariot/ might be related to the French word /charrette/, a
generic term for any horse-drawn conveyance. Such a vehicle can be
covered or uncovered. Perhaps Edward of Middleham's chariot was an open
or slightly hooded coach of some kind.

Edward's appearance in such a vehicle may not have been related to the
state of his health, but may simply have been a decorative aspect of the
pageant, much as is the appearance of royalty in both open and closed
coaches today. After all, Edward was the centre of attention on this
occasion.

eileen wrote:

> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > .
> > >
> > > Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
> > > city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently
> > getting
> > > quite the thing.
> > >
> >
> > One more thought...did "chariot" in the 15th century mean what it
> > means today? (My OED is downstairs, but I'll look up the word in
> > it.) If it does, it does indeed sound like some showy aspect of the
> > procession and the whole gala, rather than a vehicle for a poor
> > sickly mite.
> >
> > I don't recall "chariot" being used any other time as the term for
> > the vehicle for transporting someone who couldn't ride.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> Cecily Neville went to meet her husband in 'a chariot covered with
> blue velvet and drawn
> by 8 coursers' Now I may be very wrong here but I have never thought
> medieval chariots
> were the same as the roman ones - I had assumed they were a type of
> waggon - with
> curtains - I have seen pictures of them but its hard to describe so I
> know such a vehicle
> existed but whether this is the chariot type we are taking about I
> dont know.
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
> United kingdom vacation
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

this is an interesting paragraph written by charles dickens regarding edward, his death and possible betrothal to elizabeth of york.

Richard knew full well that, let the Parliament say what it would, the Princess Elizabeth was remembered by people as the heiress of the house of York; and having accurate information besides, of its being designed by the conspirators to marry her to Henry of Richmond, he felt that it would much strengthen him and weaken them, to be beforehand with them, and marry her to his son.

With this view he went to the Sanctuary at Westminster, where the late King's widow and her daughter still were, and besought them to come to Court: where (he swore by anything and everything) they should be safely and honourably entertained. They came, accordingly, but had scarcely been at Court a month when his son died suddenly - or was poisoned - and his plan was crushed to pieces.

http://www.classicallibrary.org/dickens/childshistory/chapter25.htm

it appears there were rumours of a poisoning.

roslyn
oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>

> Rous said Edward was only seven and a bit at the time of his
> investiture, so bein wheeled part of the journey wouldn't have been
> at all sinister.
> Rous was attached to the House of Warwick and probably had the
> correct information.
>
> The usual claim that he was 11 when he died comes from nothing more
> than an assumption that his parents married in 1472 and he would
have
> been conceived shortly after that. A very big assumption, one might
> think.
>
> Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
> city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently
getting
> quite the thing.



Good points. And for my mind, the fact that he died so suddenly that
his parents only received word afterwards, too late to even begin a
frantic rush to his bedside, and their intense grief, suggests that
he was not a sickly child whose death would not be such a surprise.

If he died at age seven or later, he had already survived the
perilous years of early childhood, when children are at greatest
risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have been remarked
upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of poisoning (and any
illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any mysterious decline and
wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison) because there was no
accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of Clarence's brief-
lived last child. He appatrently died of something that was clearly
a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor of witchcraft,
which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into which
undiagnosable ailments were thrown.

After eliminating all those possibilities, what is left? Suggestions?

Katy





---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

>
> Appendicitus??
>
> Or
> My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged 13
of Perionitus -
> If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it may
be something to do with
> blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays - I
have done a google
> search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing. Perhaps
it is known by another
> name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.

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

>
> Appendicitus??
>
> Or
> My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged
13 of Perionitus -
> If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it
may be something to do with
> blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays -
I have done a google
> search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing.
Perhaps it is known by another
> name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.


It was very often fatal, but again it has symptoms that would be very
suggestive of poisoning.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>

Sorry -- cat jumped up and stepped on the keyboard and somehow sent my
composition before its time.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
> this is an interesting paragraph written by charles dickens regarding
edward, his death and possible betrothal to elizabeth of york.
[snip]
> it appears there were rumours of a poisoning.


I'd rather we find a source closer to the event...Dickens was nearly
300 years after the fact. And a writer of fiction, not a historian.

Katy

as was jane austen. the point being.... in the excerpt..is that there were rumours of a possible poisoning.

dickens was over a 100 years closer to the source than we are. moreover, he was writing before the ric iii societies were formed.

dickens also wrote historical fiction. i've seen several references regarding ric iii and historical fiction in this forum. josephine tey being one of them.

personally, i really don't care one way or another because unless we find an accepted contemporary source, i.e. chronicle or diary we will never know, and can only go on the rumours and hints of rumours.

dickens hints at a rumour. he also hints that there was an intention to marry edward of middleham to elizabeth of york.

i have not been an intense researcher of ric iii for several years. i was surprised to read that there was a possible engagement, thus far dickens is the only source i've seen alleging the planning of a wedding.

one has to wonder what was the age gap between edward and eliz? was it to be an arranged marriage ala duke of buckingham, h. stafford and katherine woodville who was 12 years stafford's senior.
or was were the cousins closer in age?
was a papal dispension applied for? has anyone researched to see if the vatican has one in it's archives? it may offer vital clues as to edward's age. there may be other very informative documents in the same section of the archive. h7 wasn't on the borgia pope's top 10 fav ruler's list. the paper/parchment shredding party might not have been very intense.

regards
roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
> this is an interesting paragraph written by charles dickens regarding
edward, his death and possible betrothal to elizabeth of york.
[snip]
> it appears there were rumours of a poisoning.


I'd rather we find a source closer to the event...Dickens was nearly
300 years after the fact. And a writer of fiction, not a historian.

Katy





SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

... or James VI's son Henry, descended from Henry VII's daughter of course.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Edward of Middleham




Rhonda <metrlt@...> wrote: --- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > -> If he died at age seven or later, he had already survived the
> > perilous years of early childhood, when children are at greatest
> > risk. He did not die of an injury, or it would have been remarked
> > upon. It appears that there was no suspicion of poisoning (and any
> > illness with gastroenteritis symptoms, or any mysterious decline and
> > wasting, was liable to be attributed to poison) because there was no
> > accusation or inquest, as there was in the case of Clarence's brief-
> > lived last child. He appatrently died of something that was clearly
> > a natural illness, because I don't recall any rumor of witchcraft,
> > which was the other basket, besides poisoning, into which
> > undiagnosable ailments were thrown.
> >
> > After eliminating all those possibilities, what is left? Suggestions?
>
> > Katy
>
> Appendicitus??
>
> Or
> My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged 13
of Perionitus -
> If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it
may be something to do with
> blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays -
I have done a google
> search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing. Perhaps
it is known by another
> name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.
> Eileen
> >
>

Eileen,
I had heard the appendicitus theory too, but think it was in a work of
fiction. As an old nurse, I can tell you that peritonitous can still
be a fatal illness, caused by acute perforation of the bowel,
resulting in high fever and a painful death.My gut, pardon the bad
pun, is with the old consumption/tuberculosis myth.An often drawn out
wasting disease, common enough in all classes of the era. Btw, glad to
hear that the Cotswolds are still lovely, but my long ago visit did
not include Minster Lovell.
Rhonda
---------------------
the child may have also had a heart defect.
this blighter runs in my family.
www.sads.org
it is one of the known causes of sudden infant death/sids. it also takes young children and children as they enter/adjust biochemically to puberty.

the only outward indication of it might be is a child complaining of dizzy spells, and/or lack of energy.

nowadays we can diagnosis it with an electro-cardio-gram.
it is genetic, and his uncle edward died young (age 40).

this ailment could also be what plagued the tudor princes arthur and edward.

roslyn









SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Edward of Middleham died suddenly and unexpectedly, then appendicitis is certainly a possibility, since it can kill in a few days - if untreated the bursting of the appendix leads to peritonitis which in those days must have been a death sentence.

I've no experience of heart defects so will not comment on that one. However, apparently healthy adolescents do drop dead from time to time from a undiagnosed heart defect, and for some reason this seems particularly to affect sporty boys (they drop dead in the middle of football matches and the like). The incidence is sufficiently large for the suggestion to be made that all outstanding young sportsmen should be screened for this defect. Obviously, if Edward of Middleham was 7-8 when he died then he was rather young for this particular defect, which seems to affect 12-16 year olds.

As to the chariot, my understanding is that we are not talking about a Roman-type chariot at all, but something nearer to a carriage, and I have certainly read that they were associated with invalids - quite apart from anything else, before the invention of springs, wheeled vehicles were so uncomfortable that anyone who could ride did. I would certainly expect a medieval seven-year-old to be able to ride a suitably-sized horse or pony reasonably competently. As to size, it's not height that matters but width and whether the rider's legs can grip properly. At eight I learned to ride - in Malta - on retired polo ponies, who were around 14-15 hands, though narrower than the average English pony, so easier for short legs to grip. As to ponies being spooked by cheering crowds, you pick your pony carefully - 'bomb proof' is the expression - and make sure he is accustomed to noisy situations (Household Cavalry horses are specifically exposed to loud crowds, waving flags and military bands
before they ever go on ceremonial duties).

(As to novel-writing, when I get to that point perhaps I'll have young Edward showing a bit of spirit and protesting that he doesn't want to go into a chariot, he wants to be on a horse like his father.)

Ann

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote:
... or James VI's son Henry, descended from Henry VII's daughter of course.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Edward of Middleham

>
> Appendicitus??
>
> Or
> My elderly mum had a sister who died ( many years ago 1920s) aged 13
of Perionitus -
> If I recall she died very quickly (a couple of days) - I think it
may be something to do with
> blood poisoning - but certainly you do not hear about it nowadays -
I have done a google
> search to find out exactly what it is but can find nothing. Perhaps
it is known by another
> name now but at one time it was a fatal illness.
> Eileen
> >
>

Eileen,
I had heard the appendicitus theory too, but think it was in a work of
fiction. As an old nurse, I can tell you that peritonitous can still
be a fatal illness, caused by acute perforation of the bowel,
resulting in high fever and a painful death.My gut, pardon the bad
pun, is with the old consumption/tuberculosis myth.An often drawn out
wasting disease, common enough in all classes of the era.
Rhonda
---------------------
the child may have also had a heart defect.
this blighter runs in my family.
www.sads.org
it is one of the known causes of sudden infant death/sids. it also takes young children and children as they enter/adjust biochemically to puberty.

the only outward indication of it might be is a child complaining of dizzy spells, and/or lack of energy.

nowadays we can diagnosis it with an electro-cardio-gram.
it is genetic, and his uncle edward died young (age 40).

this ailment could also be what plagued the tudor princes arthur and edward.

roslyn









SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

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


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:29, A LYON wrote:

> surely if Edward was sickly then by the time he was 7 or 8 his father
> would be becoming concerned not only about his physical health but
> about the effect of too much cossetting on his character.

My only thought is that if Edward was sickly why did Richard and Anne
nearly go mad when news of his death reach them at Nottingham, not the
reaction of parents expecting bad news?
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

If you have ever seen Olivier's film of THAT play there are a number of
chariots in that, one in which Jane Shore parades past, and in which
the mayor of London is taken to meet Richard by Catesby, Ratcliffe, and
Lovell.
Sort of Medieval taxi!
Paul

On Jan 19, 2006, at 00:56, William Barber wrote:

> The term /chariot/ might be related to the French word /charrette/, a
> generic term for any horse-drawn conveyance. Such a vehicle can be
> covered or uncovered. Perhaps Edward of Middleham's chariot was an open
> or slightly hooded coach of some kind.
>
> Edward's appearance in such a vehicle may not have been related to the
> state of his health, but may simply have been a decorative aspect of
> the
> pageant, much as is the appearance of royalty in both open and closed
> coaches today. After all, Edward was the centre of attention on this
> occasion.
>
> eileen wrote:
>
>> --- In , oregonkaty
>> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
>>> <marie@r...> wrote:
>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Also the chariot might have been part of a triumphal entry into the
>>>> city for the same. These mock-Roman trimuphs were apparently
>>> getting
>>>> quite the thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One more thought...did "chariot" in the 15th century mean what it
>>> means today? (My OED is downstairs, but I'll look up the word in
>>> it.) If it does, it does indeed sound like some showy aspect of the
>>> procession and the whole gala, rather than a vehicle for a poor
>>> sickly mite.
>>>
>>> I don't recall "chariot" being used any other time as the term for
>>> the vehicle for transporting someone who couldn't ride.
>>>
>>> Katy
>>>
>> Cecily Neville went to meet her husband in 'a chariot covered with
>> blue velvet and drawn
>> by 8 coursers' Now I may be very wrong here but I have never thought
>> medieval chariots
>> were the same as the roman ones - I had assumed they were a type of
>> waggon - with
>> curtains - I have seen pictures of them but its hard to describe so I
>> know such a vehicle
>> existed but whether this is the chariot type we are taking about I
>> dont know.
>> Eileen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SPONSORED LINKS
>> United kingdom calling card
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
>> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
>> nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
>> +phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=1
>> 80&.sig=Wa4nJ_E0VU7WvCR1WqML1A>
>> United kingdom flower delivery
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
>> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
>> 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
>> dom+phone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&
>> s=180&.sig=suwnigbzxGHDjTuxPOEYOA>
>> Call united kingdom
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
>> t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
>> ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+c
>> ard&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig=
>> pCuoM6r-jyH3fIPQf4P1sA>
>>
>> United kingdom phone card
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
>> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
>> ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+p
>> hone+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180
>> &.sig=6azTZrzj2PBF7HOK84VyqA>
>> United kingdom hotel
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
>> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
>> ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+phone+
>> card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.sig
>> =0PwHmUDGhpM37ZE9_Bb8qA>
>> United kingdom vacation
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
>> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+vacation&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Unite
>> d+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+pho
>> ne+card&w5=United+kingdom+hotel&w6=United+kingdom+vacation&c=6&s=180&.
>> sig=AAVe10QjuLXgqY7yLADVTg>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> 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/>.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

Loved those fanciful "chariots", but were they historically accurate I wonder? As for the show of grief over Edward, what loving parent is ever ready for such horrible news? Especially when the very survival of the royal dynasty may have been at stake.imho.

Rhonda Tirone
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 10:29, A LYON wrote:
>
> > surely if Edward was sickly then by the time he was 7 or 8 his father
> > would be becoming concerned not only about his physical health but
> > about the effect of too much cossetting on his character.
>
> My only thought is that if Edward was sickly why did Richard and Anne
> nearly go mad when news of his death reach them at Nottingham, not the
> reaction of parents expecting bad news?
> Paul
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> My only thought is that if Edward was sickly why did Richard and Anne
> nearly go mad when news of his death reach them at Nottingham, not the
> reaction of parents expecting bad news?
> Paul
>
Nothing is never simply black or white especially when it involves human emotions. Even
if he had been a sickly child and they had been expecting bad news I dont think it is
beyond the realms of possibility that both parents could have been grief stricken on the
news that their only child had died. Another thing is to what degree of sickly are we
talking about. If say he was bedridden and in constant pain, yes, parents might then
(possibly) feel some relief that their child was now beyond suffering but even so, I should
think most parents would still feel grief. On the other hand it might have been the type
of sickly where you worry about them but hope that they will eventually get better, grow
stronger, as indeed some children do.

eileen


> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...>
> wrote:
> > My only thought is that if Edward was sickly why did Richard and
Anne
> > nearly go mad when news of his death reach them at Nottingham,
not the
> > reaction of parents expecting bad news?

> >
> Nothing is never simply black or white especially when it involves
human emotions. Even
> if he had been a sickly child and they had been expecting bad news
I dont think it is
> beyond the realms of possibility that both parents could have been
grief stricken on the
> news that their only child had died. Another thing is to what
degree of sickly are we
> talking about. If say he was bedridden and in constant pain, yes,
parents might then
> (possibly) feel some relief that their child was now beyond
suffering but even so, I should
> think most parents would still feel grief. On the other hand it
might have been the type
> of sickly where you worry about them but hope that they will
eventually get better, grow
> stronger, as indeed some children do.
>


To me, the combination of the intense grief of Richard and Anne, and
the fact that their son died so suddenly that word could only reach
them after the fact, indicates his death was very unexpected -- ie,
that he was not sickly.

Just where were Richard and Anne at the time Edward died -- how far
away were they?

I imagine that the people of the Middle Ages were more aware, in the
abstract, that any given child might not survive to adulthood, but at
the same time I see no reason to think they didn't love their
children as much as we do today -- bearing in mind there is quite a
range of how much that is.

Here I am not looking something up again, but Katherine of the Tower,
a daughter of either Edward I or III, died at age 4. A chronicler
wrote that she was deaf and dumb and not good for anything, but her
parents had loved her greatly and their grief was severe.

Katy

To me, the combination of the intense grief of Richard and Anne, and
the fact that their son died so suddenly that word could only reach
them after the fact, indicates his death was very unexpected -- ie,
that he was not sickly.

Not necessarily. He could have been, say, asthmatic, and been generally puny, with frequent attacks (as my brother was until he went on an inhaler), or more generally 'chesty', but nobody would necessarily expect him to die from it with little or no warning. And we have to remember that Edward was their only child, that possibly they were aware that their marriage would not produce any more, and that Edward's death was dynastic disaster. It has been suggested that they could have seen Edward's death (followed by Anne's) as God's judgement for Richard's seizing the throne and (possibly) for killing his nephews. That to me would be quite enough to explain greater than usual grief. (And, of course, the Croyland Chronicler could be making another of his moral points).


Just where were Richard and Anne at the time Edward died -- how far
away were they?

They were at Nottingham. Edward is usually said to have died at Middleham - but does Croyland say so? I once worked out the quickest realistic road distance between the two as of the order of 140 miles. That would take a galloper at least two days, given that 9 April is early spring (earlier still under the Julian Calendar) and the roads would not have had time to dry out after the winter, rivers would be very swollen from winter rains and there were far fewer bridges in those days (some fords might well be unusable).

I imagine that the people of the Middle Ages were more aware, in the
abstract, that any given child might not survive to adulthood, but at
the same time I see no reason to think they didn't love their
children as much as we do today -- bearing in mind there is quite a
range of how much that is.

I agree entirely. If we work on the basis that there is a wide range of what is normal as far as parental - and indeed family - affection is concerned, rather than assuming that everybody is the same, then finding explanations for what might seem curious behaviour becomes much easier.

Here I am not looking something up again, but Katherine of the Tower,
a daughter of either Edward I or III, died at age 4. A chronicler
wrote that she was deaf and dumb and not good for anything, but her
parents had loved her greatly and their grief was severe.

This was a daughter of Henry III. SKP does, however, say that Edward I and Eleanor of Castile did not bother to make a journey of no more than 10 miles to be at the deathbed of one of their sons - Henry or John - who died aged about six. I suppose you could see this either as a bit cold-blooded or an indication that they just couldn't cope with another deathbed.

Ann













SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


---------------------------------

On Jan 21, 2006, at 16:23, oregonkaty wrote:

> To me, the combination of the intense grief of Richard and Anne, and
> the fact that their son died so suddenly that word could only reach
> them after the fact, indicates his death was very unexpected -- ie,
> that he was not sickly.
>
> Just where were Richard and Anne at the time Edward died -- how far
> away were they?
>
Thanks for the vote of support Katy.
Richard and Anne were at Nottingham, and from then on it became know to
Richard as "the castle of my care"
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

okay, i've just spend a few hours surfing about the internet

i'm not finding any indication that there is a rumour of poisoning of this child.

just that he died suddenly.

ergo, might edward have died from an accident?
i.e. horse back riding, or hunting, perhaps a fall down stairs, or perhaps a construction related accident.

richard is rumoured to have done some remodelling of middleham.

my father was a stone mason. it was not unusual for him to have piles of large cut stones in our backyard. though we were told not to play near there, we would "sneak" to this very dangerous playground in "our none to bright" pre-teen years.

it is really a wonder the "worse" accident was my sister's squashed/split finger, and a cousin with an eye rubbed/smeared with hot lime. these large 2-300 lbs split rocks did slide. we'd sort of surf on them down the pile.

what "ignorant/niave" fun we had and the amazing luck of youthful agility to leap out of the way of the occassional avalanche of large rocks.

now consider stones cut for a castle wall, even if put in place, but not solidly affixed. a tumble could be fatal. imagine the parents of the child who died because of a remodelling related accident. guilt combined with grief.

what i have noticed with regards to all my genealogical research is....
people are people are people. it didn't matter what era one was/is born in. the most significant difference between the era of cultures is:
.
faith...our ancestors lifes were very involved in religion.

government...we've significantly more rights than our ancestors

medical...we have anti biotics/hygene and technology

death was more of a norm, it was a matter of fact. it did not mean people grieved any less than we do now. it was how they accepted it. they would pay to have their souls or loved ones souls prayed for generations. they had a strong belief in the "afterlife" be it heaven or hell or somewhere in between. death was an ending for the body, not the soul.

in our modern world we are terrified of dying. we pass laws to protect people from themselves or others..because some one *might* die. we are attempting to live in a cotton batting world.

in the 15thC. while life was organised, it was still of a tribal mentality. instead of saying a group of people belonged to that tribe, we say..they were yorks or lancasters or plantagenets or tudors or nevilles or the percies, etc.

there were blood feuds. the wars of the roses was such a feud.

tribe against tribe, family against family.

btw many of the de greys did not like elizabeth woodville.

her former mother in law, elizabeth ferrers sued woodville for grey family property, even though woodville was the mother of two de grey children.

just some thoughts.
roslyn


Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:

On Jan 21, 2006, at 16:23, oregonkaty wrote:

> To me, the combination of the intense grief of Richard and Anne, and
> the fact that their son died so suddenly that word could only reach
> them after the fact, indicates his death was very unexpected -- ie,
> that he was not sickly.
>
> Just where were Richard and Anne at the time Edward died -- how far
> away were they?
>
Thanks for the vote of support Katy.
Richard and Anne were at Nottingham, and from then on it became know to
Richard as "the castle of my care"
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"



---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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 , fayre rose
<fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
> okay, i've just spend a few hours surfing about the internet
>
> i'm not finding any indication that there is a rumour of poisoning
of this child.
>
> just that he died suddenly.
>
> ergo, might edward have died from an accident?
> i.e. horse back riding, or hunting, perhaps a fall down stairs, or
perhaps a construction related accident.


In my opinion, if Edward had died as the result of some sort of
accident, that would have been remarked upon, mentioned, somewhere.
By our friend Croyland, who likes to seem very much in the know,
maybe. And I would think that someone would have had to answer for how
that happened -- that there would have been some sort of
investigation. Perhaps there was, but unlike the brouhaha over the
death of Clarence's baby, there doesn't seem to be any record of it.

Katy

I saw a documentary on the death of Tutankhamun recently. A new
exhumation and scan of the mummy disproved the old "blow on the back
of the head" theory, and showed that the Pharoah probably died from a
broken leg which became infected. As his tomb contained several
chariots it was proposed that a fall from such a vehicle was the
likely cause of the injury. However there is no written record of
the event, so probably the court hushed up this rather ignoble
accident.
Perhaps one day the remains of English royalty will be given the same
treatment, and several questions may get an answer at last. As far
as I know most royal tombs (apart from Richard's) remain intact; it
would be particularly interesting if DNA could be extracted to find
out the real relationships between them, e.g. was the House of York
really a House of Holland?


--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@y...> wrote:
> >
> > okay, i've just spend a few hours surfing about the internet
> >
> > i'm not finding any indication that there is a rumour of
poisoning
> of this child.
> >
> > just that he died suddenly.
> >
> > ergo, might edward have died from an accident?
> > i.e. horse back riding, or hunting, perhaps a fall down stairs,
or
> perhaps a construction related accident.
>
>
> In my opinion, if Edward had died as the result of some sort of
> accident, that would have been remarked upon, mentioned,
somewhere.
> By our friend Croyland, who likes to seem very much in the know,
> maybe. And I would think that someone would have had to answer for
how
> that happened -- that there would have been some sort of
> investigation. Perhaps there was, but unlike the brouhaha over
the
> death of Clarence's baby, there doesn't seem to be any record of it.
>
> Katy
>

Katy writes,
> I think Edward of Middleham died too quickly for it to have been
> botulism. He was dead before his parents, not that far away from
> Middleham, could even be notified...he was dead before the messenger
> even set out.
With the sole heir to the throne dying and dead, the whole household would have been in
panic, a state of collective guilt and probably locked-down regarding information. On reading
Katy's comment my first thought was of the death of Eleanor of Aquitaine's father, Duke
Guilhem: his entire entourage was sworn to silence for a month from the date of his
death (Good Friday, 1137).

Robert Fripp

--- In , "Robert Fripp" <r_fripp@...> wrote:
>
> With the sole heir to the throne dying and dead, the whole household would have been
in
> panic, a state of collective guilt and probably locked-down regarding information.

Pity the poor messenger who had to carry the news to his parents. I wonder if anyone got
in trouble or were blamed in any way. Its the little snippets of history like this that, not of
any great importance really, I find absolutely fascinating. I expect though that incidents
like this, the death of Richard & Annes son probably had great repercussions. How Tudor
must have been pleased not to mention his mother, Morton and others. They could not
have planned it better. And what a tremendous blow for Richard, casting aside the
personal grief it must have been the worst possible scenario for him. No heir and an
apparent barren wife. And how Anne must have suffered - losing her only son and
perhaps blaming herself for the predicament her husband found himself in.
Eileen






On reading
> Katy's comment my first thought was of the death of Eleanor of Aquitaine's father, Duke
> Guilhem: his entire entourage was sworn to silence for a month from the date of his
> death (Good Friday, 1137).
>
> Robert Fripp
>

Edward of Middleham

Is the tomb at Sheriff Hutton that of Edward of Middleham: son of Richard III: there seems to be some doubt about it?

Can't remember where I read it, but I recall that the tomb was badly knocked about in Cromwell's time, and that there is no inscription remaining to identify whose tomb it was; there are a number of other candidates as well as Edward Prince of Wales. I have an idea that there is no written record of where Edward was buried.

Richard G

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Edward of Middleham
>
> Is the tomb at Sheriff Hutton that of Edward of Middleham: son of Richard III: there seems to be some doubt about it?
>

It has always struck me as an odd place to bury the Prince of Wales.
He died at Middleham, so why not bury him there, although as Prince
of Wales York Minster would have been more suitable, especially as it
has been rumoured that Richard was planning it as his final resting
place in time.
Paul


On 27 Aug 2010, at 17:05, Richard wrote:

> Can't remember where I read it, but I recall that the tomb was
> badly knocked about in Cromwell's time, and that there is no
> inscription remaining to identify whose tomb it was; there are a
> number of other candidates as well as Edward Prince of Wales. I
> have an idea that there is no written record of where Edward was
> buried.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "vermeertwo"
> <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>> Edward of Middleham
>>
>> Is the tomb at Sheriff Hutton that of Edward of Middleham: son of
>> Richard III: there seems to be some doubt about it?
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In , "vermeertwo" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> Edward of Middleham
>
> Is the tomb at Sheriff Hutton that of Edward of Middleham: son of Richard III: there seems to be some doubt about it?
>

I searched the message archives for "tomb Sheriff Hutton" and found this one that touches upon the subject: Message #10071

Other information is to be found if you vary the search subject a little. I recall a post from Marie Barnfield in which she mentioned that the hair style on the young boy's image is of an earlier time than that of Edward of Middleham, and that the boy may have been one of the sons of (as I recall) a Neville who died at about that age.

But, in short, there is a great deal of doubt that that tomb (which is empty) is that of Richard's son.

Katy

I called in to see it and there were tributes left there by people who
believed it was. I was very moved. It certainly looked the part and I am
pretty sure it has been endorsed by the Richard 111 society or the Yorkist
one who have the church at Fotheringay. \i hope it is because the father
has no tomb on which to lay a flower etc, I have always believed that there
should be a memorial plaque at say York Minster too him after all he was an
anointed King.

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:17 PM, vermeertwo <hi.dung@...> wrote:

>
>
> Edward of Middleham
>
> Is the tomb at Sheriff Hutton that of Edward of Middleham: son of Richard
> III: there seems to be some doubt about it?
>
>
>