Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Princes

I think it was Richard that is mentioned living with a grandaunt in
France. This was mentioned in one of the publications I received. I believe
this was the Ricardian. Winter 2006 or it could have been Summer 2006.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Princes


--- In , "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@...>
wrote:
>
>. I do not believe the Princes were murdered by Richard III. At least one
>of them lived in
France.
> I wondered if he had descendants. What recent work is there to read on the
> subject? That
sheds more light in favor of the King.
> Le

Hi Le - Can you expand more on your theory that one of them lived in France.
I am always
intrested to hear other people's theories/thinkings on this subject?
Eileen
>
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> I think it was Richard that is mentioned living with a grandaunt
in
> France. This was mentioned in one of the publications I received.
I believe
> this was the Ricardian. Winter 2006 or it could have been Summer
2006.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: The Princes
>
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@>
> wrote:
> >
> >. I do not believe the Princes were murdered by Richard III. At
least one
> >of them lived in
> France.
> > I wondered if he had descendants. What recent work is there to
read on the
> > subject? That
> sheds more light in favor of the King.
> > Le
>
> Hi Le - Can you expand more on your theory that one of them lived
in France.
> I am always
> intrested to hear other people's theories/thinkings on this subject?
> Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Another rumour - "Richard of Shrewsbury went to live with a great-
aunt in France" to follow "Shrewsbury became a bricklayer in Essex
and Kent" and "Shrewsbury really was 'Warbeck'".
Has anyone noticed a system here? It is always the younger "Prince"
who survives to a new life, never the erstwhile Edward V. This
strengthens the probability that he died of natural causes.
Throughout history, the most dangerous times for a male (natural
causes) are his infancy and advanced years. Edward V had survived
infancy and was very short of old age but was seeing Dr. Argentine
regularly.
Male death of natural causes between ten and twenty is highly unusual
but we speak of the uncle of Arthur Tudor (16), the great-uncle of
Edward VI (15) and Henry Fitzroy (18?). He was about twelve in 1483.
Is there a genetic defect of some sort, a tendency to contract some
lethal disease?

Stephen Lark[mailto:stephenmlark@...] wrote:

> Has anyone noticed a system here? It is always the
younger "Prince"
> who survives to a new life, never the erstwhile
Edward V. This
> strengthens the probability that he died of natural
causes.

Good point.

> Throughout history, the most dangerous times for a
male (natural
> causes) are his infancy and advanced years. Edward
V had survived
> infancy and was very short of old age but was
seeing Dr. Argentine
> regularly.
> Male death of natural causes between ten and twenty
is highly unusual
> but we speak of the uncle of Arthur Tudor (16), the
great-uncle of
> Edward VI (15) and Henry Fitzroy (18?). He was
about twelve in 1483.
> Is there a genetic defect of some sort, a tendency
to contract some
> lethal disease?

Don't forget his own cousin: Richard's son
Edward, who died at age 11. It would be interesting
to go backward up the family tree and see if there's
a trend of young Plantagenet men dying in early
adolescence.


Take care,
Rogue

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Stephen Lark[mailto:stephenmlark@...] wrote:
>
> > Has anyone noticed a system here? It is always the
> younger "Prince"
> > who survives to a new life, never the erstwhile
> Edward V. This
> > strengthens the probability that he died of natural
> causes.
>
> Good point.
>
> > Throughout history, the most dangerous times for a
> male (natural
> > causes) are his infancy and advanced years. Edward
> V had survived
> > infancy and was very short of old age but was
> seeing Dr. Argentine
> > regularly.
> > Male death of natural causes between ten and twenty
> is highly unusual
> > but we speak of the uncle of Arthur Tudor (16), the
> great-uncle of
> > Edward VI (15) and Henry Fitzroy (18?). He was
> about twelve in 1483.
> > Is there a genetic defect of some sort, a tendency
> to contract some
> > lethal disease?
>
> Don't forget his own cousin: Richard's son
> Edward, who died at age 11. It would be interesting
> to go backward up the family tree and see if there's
> a trend of young Plantagenet men dying in early
> adolescence.
>
>
> Take care,
> Rogue
>
..... and I forgot Edward of Middleham! One of the hazards of
undertaking genealogical research from c. 800 (Alfred) to the present
day (Jemima Khan et al) is that you sometimes lose a little focus.

I tend to think Richard and Anne's son had an accident, especially in
view of the tremendous shock they are both witnessed as having gone
into when news of his death arrived. Had he been sickly it would not
have come as such a surprise.
Paul


On 7 Jun 2007, at 22:43, Stephen Lark wrote:

> and I forgot Edward of Middleham!

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I wondered if it wasn't appendicitis (sp?), or some
sudden illness, but an accident also makes sense.
Regards,
Rene'

I wondered if it wasn't appendicitis (sp?), or some
sudden illness, but an accident also makes sense.
Regards,
Rene'

Paul Trevor Bale[mailto:paultrevor@...]
wrote:

> I tend to think Richard and Anne's son had an
accident, especially in
> view of the tremendous shock they are both
witnessed as having gone
> into when news of his death arrived. Had he been
sickly it would not
> have come as such a surprise.

Not if he had been sickly all along and yet still
survived to age eleven. I believe that Richard was
somewhat sickly as a child too (not from a poem, but
more from the fact he was so much slighter of build
than his brothers, among other things), and if that
were true then Richard and Anne would have good
reason to have hope that their son would survive to
grow up despite his apparently delicate health.


Take care,
Kat


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale[mailto:paultrevor@...]
> wrote:
>
> > I tend to think Richard and Anne's son had an
> accident, especially in
> > view of the tremendous shock they are both
> witnessed as having gone
> > into when news of his death arrived. Had he been
> sickly it would not
> > have come as such a surprise.

Its very possible that it could have been an accident - fall from horse maybe? - but of
course different people react in different ways. Somepeople would just have collapsed -
but Im wondering if Richard and Anne's 'madness' kind of grief was from the knowledge
that Edward being their only son and Anne unlikely to have any more it was also the
realisation that with his death came the ending of all their hopes for the continuation of
the Plantagenet line. Im kind of waffling here but Im sure you all catch the drift of what Im
trying to get across!
Eileen
>
> Not if he had been sickly all along and yet still
> survived to age eleven. I believe that Richard was
> somewhat sickly as a child too (not from a poem, but
> more from the fact he was so much slighter of build
> than his brothers, among other things), and if that
> were true then Richard and Anne would have good
> reason to have hope that their son would survive to
> grow up despite his apparently delicate health.
>
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Trevor Bale[mailto:paultrevor@]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I tend to think Richard and Anne's son had an
> > accident, especially in
> > > view of the tremendous shock they are both
> > witnessed as having gone
> > > into when news of his death arrived. Had he been
> > sickly it would not
> > > have come as such a surprise.
>
> Its very possible that it could have been an accident - fall from
horse maybe?


I think we might be able to narrow down the possible causes of death
by what did not happen afterwards -- there was no inquest that we
know of from history.

An accident would have resulted in an inquiry as to how it came
about. Edward's age at the time of his death is not certain, but we
know he could not have been an adult nor even in his mid teens. So
someone was responsible for his wellbeing and that or those someones
would, logically, have had to answer some questions, sat the very
least, as to why the boy met with a fatal accient.

Likewise, we don't know of any accusations of poisoning. Poisoning
was suspected in many cases of sudden death where, to modern eye, it
was quiter unlikely...Clarence's infant son, John Mowbray, Duke of
Norfolk and later his daughter Anne, Richard's Queen Anne, King John,
Edward IV , later young Edward VI, others I can't think of. If there
had been the remotest possibility that Edward of Middleham had been
poisoned, I think the grief0stricken parents would have made a
thorough investigation. So I don't think young Edward died with any
symptoms that could be remotely attributed to poisoning -- i.e., no
abdominal pain, no vomiting, no diarrhea.

So what are we left with? What disease could cause the sudden and
unexpected death of a boy in late childhood? Good question.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>> So what are we left with? What disease could cause the sudden and
> unexpected death of a boy in late childhood? Good question.
>
> Katy

Another thing I find mysterious is that given young Edward's father was king we are not even
sure of where he was buried - you would think that it would have been recorded. Im
surprised it was not York Minster - after all York and the Royal family had connections and
only a short time before the three of them had been there for some ceremony or other. you
would think that Richard would have wanted the finest resting place for his son that could be
got at the time and if not Westminster surely that would have been York Minster. Strange
that!
Eileen
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >> So what are we left with? What disease could cause the sudden
and
> > unexpected death of a boy in late childhood? Good question.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Another thing I find mysterious is that given young Edward's father
was king we are not even
> sure of where he was buried - you would think that it would have
been recorded. Im
> surprised it was not York Minster - after all York and the Royal
family had connections and
> only a short time before the three of them had been there for some
ceremony or other. you
> would think that Richard would have wanted the finest resting place
for his son that could be
> got at the time and if not Westminster surely that would have been
York Minster. Strange
> that!
> Eileen



Many questions, few answers.

Katy

--- oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I think we might be able to narrow down the possible
> causes of death
> by what did not happen afterwards -- there was no
> inquest that we
> know of from history.
>

[snip]

As Katy mentions later, so many questions. Her point
about no inquest is a good one, and I think Crowland
says he died after a short illness ("in castro de
Midlam brevissimo languore correptus occubit"). At our
remove of 500 years, and more especially as many of us
were born after the discovery of the sulfa drugs,
penicillin, vaccines, etc., we tend to forget how
quickly illness can claim a child without antibiotics.
His caregivers and parents alike may have thought he
had a sniffle, only to see infection flare and take
him in a matter of days, hours even.

Regarding Edward's age, A. J. Pollard made an
interesting case for him being younger rather than
older, based on the surviving account records for
Middleham. He presented these findings at the Internet
Medieval Congress in Kalamazoo in 1998 and later
published them. I believe that Pollard suggested that
he might have been seven years old in the summer of
1483.

Apologies if this has already been covered; I've been
reading with half an eye but am inclined to invade
right now because the server for our American Branch
website is down...

the boy may have had something like prolonged q-t syndrome. see
www.sads.org
even today we see cases of it, often after rigourous sports activity. the victim appears healthy otherwise, and then just drops dead.
it can be genetic, and can cause sids/sudden infant death.
most of it's victims are young people, i.e. under 25. research is showing it may also begin to be active with the hormones secreted with the onset of puberty.
it runs in my family.

whenever i read a historic account of someone dying of a broken heart..i have to wonder if q-t is behind it. emotional, as well as, physical stress can be trigger points to set off the arythmia.

ask your dr. for an ecg the next time you have a check up. in this case, knowledge is power. you can't do an ecg on a dead person. this thing isn't as rare as once believed.


Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
I tend to think Richard and Anne's son had an accident, especially in
view of the tremendous shock they are both witnessed as having gone
into when news of his death arrived. Had he been sickly it would not
have come as such a surprise.
Paul

On 7 Jun 2007, at 22:43, Stephen Lark wrote:

> and I forgot Edward of Middleham!

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> the boy may have had something like prolonged q-t syndrome. see
> www.sads.org
> even today we see cases of it, often after rigourous sports
activity. the victim appears healthy otherwise, and then just drops
dead.
> it can be genetic, and can cause sids/sudden infant death.
> most of it's victims are young people, i.e. under 25. research is
showing it may also begin to be active with the hormones secreted
with the onset of puberty.
> it runs in my family.
>
> whenever i read a historic account of someone dying of a broken
heart..i have to wonder if q-t is behind it. emotional, as well as,
physical stress can be trigger points to set off the arythmia.
>
> ask your dr. for an ecg the next time you have a check up. in
this case, knowledge is power. you can't do an ecg on a dead person.
this thing isn't as rare as once believed.



That's an interesting suggestion.

Katy