Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Where did you put your copy oft

Anne Lyon wrote:

1) Under the chivalric tradition there was a strong taboo against harming upper crust ladies, so being near a siege would not put the Duchess in personal danger (provided she was out of range of arrows etc). If she were taken prisoner she could expect to be well looked after and swiftly sent back to the Duke under flag of truce. On that basis, there would be nothing except personal inclination, or lack of it, to prevent her from accompanying the Duke (though we can't assume that she did). The fact that the Duchess would not be in danger would also explain why, if she did accompany the Duke, she was not included in the prayers for his safe return.

I am reminded of Eleanor of Castile, who frequently followed Edward I around his battlefields. Indeed, at the siege of Stirling a sort of grandstand was set up to allow the ladies to enjoy the "entertainment" provided by the siege engines. Edward II was actually born in a war zone, at Caernarfon.
Nearer to home (in era) the citizens of Norwich sent ale to Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk at Caistor at a time when her husband's men were besieging the castle. It sort of suggests she was there or thereabouts.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Cecily visting the siege; if I were writing it as a chapter of fiction I'd find it a lot easier to explain at a psychological level than Richard Duke of York, a man proud of his lineage to the point of obsession, meekly accepting another man's son as his heir.

However, we shall never know for sure, I fear.

Brian W

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> Anne Lyon wrote:
>
> 1) Under the chivalric tradition there was a strong taboo
against harming upper crust ladies, so being near a siege would not
put the Duchess in personal danger (provided she was out of range of
arrows etc). If she were taken prisoner she could expect to be well
looked after and swiftly sent back to the Duke under flag of truce.
On that basis, there would be nothing except personal inclination, or
lack of it, to prevent her from accompanying the Duke (though we
can't assume that she did). The fact that the Duchess would not be in
danger would also explain why, if she did accompany the Duke, she was
not included in the prayers for his safe return.
>
> I am reminded of Eleanor of Castile, who frequently followed
Edward I around his battlefields. Indeed, at the siege of Stirling a
sort of grandstand was set up to allow the ladies to enjoy
the "entertainment" provided by the siege engines. Edward II was
actually born in a war zone, at Caernarfon.
> Nearer to home (in era) the citizens of Norwich sent ale to
Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk at Caistor at a time when her husband's
men were besieging the castle. It sort of suggests she was there or
thereabouts.
>
> I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Cecily visting the siege;
if I were writing it as a chapter of fiction I'd find it a lot easier
to explain at a psychological level than Richard Duke of York, a man
proud of his lineage to the point of obsession, meekly accepting
another man's son as his heir.
>
> However, we shall never know for sure, I fear.
>
> Brian W

I'm sure you're right and that it was more possible than Jones
suggests - he's rather apt to oversell his theories. However, is it
not more likely that the belief in Edward's illegitimacy was
supported by the knowledge that his parents had been apart for a
long time just when they should have been together?

I am aware that there were men who denounced their wives' offspring,
and also that there were others who didn't. The two examples that
spring to mind (from recent reading of 'Blood and Roses') are of two
self-made acquaintances of the Pastons. In their cases I think it was
a first child, and the marriages were dissolved and that was that.
Men still very insecure in their hardwon wealth and perhaps a bit
paranoid about it passing to another man's seed.

However, William Beaumont of Cornwall seems to have had a slightly
harder time rejecting his wife's son Sir John Beaumont, whose real
father was Sir Henry Bodrugan. After his birth, so I have read,
Beaumont petitioned Parliament to have John's true paternity
recognised so that he should not inherit the Beaumont estate, but
Parliament decided that "it would not make a bastard of one born in
wedlock". However, in the event, John's bastardy was proved and
William Beamount's brother was recognised as his heir. If anyone
wants the rest of the story, Beaumont's widow married Bodrugan, and
John Beaumont was brought up as their son, though still known as
Beaumont.
William Beaumont, again, was a man whose marriage had produced no
other children.

In York's case I do rather wonder what else he was supposed to do
than put up with it, particularly if his first son was still living.
Cecily was so closely related to Henry VI, and her Beaufort kin were
so powerful, that he probably didn't stand a chance of having
Edward's bastardy recognised. And what was he to do with his
marriage? Even assuming that he could have got an annulment from Rome
(given the inevitable royal opposition and the fact that Cecily's
uncle was a cardinal), would he really want to bastardise his
daughter and elder son as well?
Somewhat easier if little Henry had already passed on, but still a
major political problem.
And he'd have to be pretty sure the child couldn't possibly have been
his. We can't be, after all, and York was away from Rouen at the time
and not a witness to whatever may or may not have been going on -
only Cecily could really know, and her intimate female attendants.




>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> I am aware that there were men who denounced their wives'
offspring,
> and also that there were others who didn't. The two examples that
> spring to mind (from recent reading of 'Blood and Roses') are of
two
> self-made acquaintances of the Pastons. In their cases I think it
was
> a first child, and the marriages were dissolved and that was that.
> Men still very insecure in their hardwon wealth and perhaps a bit
> paranoid about it passing to another man's seed.
>
> However, William Beaumont of Cornwall seems to have had a slightly
> harder time rejecting his wife's son Sir John Beaumont, whose real
> father was Sir Henry Bodrugan. After his birth, so I have read,
> Beaumont petitioned Parliament to have John's true paternity
> recognised so that he should not inherit the Beaumont estate, but
> Parliament decided that "it would not make a bastard of one born in
> wedlock".


I read a few years back that a letter from William de Montague, Earl
of Salisbury, to the Pope, had turned up in the Vatican archives
where it had been misfiled (stuffed into a vase as I recall) these
600 years. He was writing to explain that he had no objection to the
annullment of his marriage to Joan of Kent on the basis of her
precontract with Thomas Holland. In roundabout terms the letter
indicated that Joan was already pregnant with Holland's child. If
the marriage was not dissolved and the baby was a boy (which it was)
the Salisbury heir would be another man's son. Montague seems to
have had reason to believe the child could not be his. He and Joan
had been married for several years without issue, and for his next
wife he chose a child too young for marital relations, and he was
killed before she reached puberty -- perhaps for some reason he was
incapable of fathering a child, and knew it, but was not eager for
the rest of the world to know it, as could have happened if Joan had
petitioned for annullment on those grounds. The precontract with
Holland was thus probably a story concocted to save face for everyone.

Katy




However, in the event, John's bastardy was proved and
> William Beamount's brother was recognised as his heir. If anyone
> wants the rest of the story, Beaumont's widow married Bodrugan, and
> John Beaumont was brought up as their son, though still known as
> Beaumont.
> William Beaumont, again, was a man whose marriage had produced no
> other children.
>
> In York's case I do rather wonder what else he was supposed to do
> than put up with it, particularly if his first son was still
living.
> Cecily was so closely related to Henry VI, and her Beaufort kin
were
> so powerful, that he probably didn't stand a chance of having
> Edward's bastardy recognised. And what was he to do with his
> marriage? Even assuming that he could have got an annulment from
Rome
> (given the inevitable royal opposition and the fact that Cecily's
> uncle was a cardinal), would he really want to bastardise his
> daughter and elder son as well?
> Somewhat easier if little Henry had already passed on, but still a
> major political problem.
> And he'd have to be pretty sure the child couldn't possibly have
been
> his. We can't be, after all, and York was away from Rouen at the
time
> and not a witness to whatever may or may not have been going on -
> only Cecily could really know, and her intimate female attendants.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>