Issue was not his begot

==============================

Issue was not his begot....

"Tell them, when that my mother went with child
Of that unsatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father then had wars in France
And, by just computation of the time,
Found that the issue was not his begot;
Which well appeared in his lineaments,
Being nothing like the noble duke my father:
But touch this sparingly, as 'twere far off,
Because you know, my lord, my mother lives."

(Rich III: Act 3 Scene 5)

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

As we all know Shakespeare gleaned his information about Edward IV`s
illegitimacy from Thomas More, Holinshed and others. Thomas More in
particular must have gotten his info from Robert Morton. So it`s
probably safe to assume that Richard himself knew about it.

Given that "lost" proof of this illegitimacy has only relatively
recently been found in Rouen Cathedral, who would have told him?
Hardly Cecily. Morton perhaps? Would Richard have seen the evidence
for himself? I can`t recall any mention of Richard visiting Rouen, or
that there were photocopiers in the 15th century. Or was it just a
lucky guess from differences in appearance of Edward?

Anyone know?

Alan

===========================

At 14:04 04/07/2007, Alan wrote:

<snip Shakespeare>
>Given that "lost" proof of this illegitimacy has only relatively
>recently been found in Rouen Cathedral, who would have told him?
>Hardly Cecily. Morton perhaps? Would Richard have seen the evidence
>for himself? I can`t recall any mention of Richard visiting Rouen, or
>that there were photocopiers in the 15th century. Or was it just a
>lucky guess from differences in appearance of Edward?

Proof? And why couldn't Richard of York have nipped back to Rouen on
business, or Cecily have met him somewhere while the campaign was on? I
know someone whose pregnancy stopped for a month and her child was born,
late, but otherwise perfectly alright.

Short of DNA testing of Richard Duke of York, Cecily, and Blaybourne, I
don't see how you can get proof.... Gossip, now that's something else.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - July choice - The House of Mirth by Edith
Wharton
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> At 14:04 04/07/2007, Alan wrote:
>
> <snip Shakespeare>
> >Given that "lost" proof of this illegitimacy has only relatively
> >recently been found in Rouen Cathedral, who would have told him?
> >Hardly Cecily. Morton perhaps? Would Richard have seen the evidence
> >for himself? I can`t recall any mention of Richard visiting Rouen,
or
> >that there were photocopiers in the 15th century. Or was it just a
> >lucky guess from differences in appearance of Edward?
>
> Proof? And why couldn't Richard of York have nipped back to Rouen
on
> business, or Cecily have met him somewhere while the campaign was
on? I
> know someone whose pregnancy stopped for a month and her child was
born,
> late, but otherwise perfectly alright.
>
> Short of DNA testing of Richard Duke of York, Cecily, and
Blaybourne, I
> don't see how you can get proof.... Gossip, now that's something
else.
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - July choice - The House of Mirth by
Edith
> Wharton
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

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

Hi Christine

According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen
Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away
from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during
which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry's
father. In the 15th century those on military campaigns, especially
commanders, did not just hurry home for a quick one, and rush back
again. Neither did women vist their menfolk during such campaigns.

Alan

>

The trouble with Jones' theory is that babies are not always born on time, sometimes early, sometimes late.

It might be suggestive but it is not actual proof.

Helen

alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> At 14:04 04/07/2007, Alan wrote:
>
> <snip Shakespeare>
> >Given that "lost" proof of this illegitimacy has only relatively
> >recently been found in Rouen Cathedral, who would have told him?
> >Hardly Cecily. Morton perhaps? Would Richard have seen the evidence
> >for himself? I can`t recall any mention of Richard visiting Rouen,
or
> >that there were photocopiers in the 15th century. Or was it just a
> >lucky guess from differences in appearance of Edward?
>
> Proof? And why couldn't Richard of York have nipped back to Rouen
on
> business, or Cecily have met him somewhere while the campaign was
on? I
> know someone whose pregnancy stopped for a month and her child was
born,
> late, but otherwise perfectly alright.
>
> Short of DNA testing of Richard Duke of York, Cecily, and
Blaybourne, I
> don't see how you can get proof.... Gossip, now that's something
else.
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - July choice - The House of Mirth by
Edith
> Wharton
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

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

Hi Christine

According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen
Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away
from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French, during
which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been Henry's
father. In the 15th century those on military campaigns, especially
commanders, did not just hurry home for a quick one, and rush back
again. Neither did women vist their menfolk during such campaigns.

Alan

>






---------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.

Hi Helen

According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464,
Cecily 'fell into a frenzy' at news of the marriage of her eldest
surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made
the astounding accusation that he (Edward) was a bastard, adding that
she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this
was indeed the case.

At the time of Edward's birth it was rumored that his natural father
was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his
younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical
appearance.

Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is
rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with
an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in
Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The
future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

Should there have been a premature, late, or abnormal birth I believe
that it would have been recorded as such on said document.
Particularly for such a high born birth.

I agree that the document is not absolute proof of an illegitimate
birth, but given that the birth and christening of Edward were,
unlike those of Cecily`s other children, very muted affairs and
taking all the other circumstantial evidence into consideration, it`s
not very difficult to reach a conclusion that it was.

Alan

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

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> The trouble with Jones' theory is that babies are not always born
on time, sometimes early, sometimes late.
>
> It might be suggestive but it is not actual proof.
>
> Helen
>
>

Assuming that this ought to say Edward rather than Henry.....it is a
little strange that Richard Duke of York seems to have accepted this
cuckoo in the nest. I know that there are many cases where husbands
have unknowingly brought up another man's children, but if it was
clear that conception took place when he was not around, surely the
normal thing to do would have been to reject the child ? After all,
dynastic bloodlines counted for a lot in those days, and Richard of
York was no fool and would certainly have been able to count, and
subsequently had three other sons who would have had a greater claim
than Edward to the throne. If there were rumours surrounding Edward's
parentage early on it would have been in the Lancastrians interest to
proclaim them once Edward became the leader of the Yorkist forces, but
I have never heard that they did so.

Richard G

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:

> According to documents discovered by Dr Michael Jones in Rouen
> Cathedral there was a 5-week period when Richard was 100 miles away
> from his wife, leading a military campaign against the French,
> during which Henry was conceived, so Richard could not have been
> Henry's father.

Sorry about the slip, I did of course mean Edward, and not Henry.

Perhaps Gloucester was learning his future "trade" in York. He was
certainly an able administrator. He had great love for his elder
brother, but not for the Woodvilles. Under Edward IV law and order
was restored to England. Rocking the boat wouldn`t have served the
Yorkist cause. Only when the young Edward (V) was to succeed did
Gloucester vie for the throne. The probability that he knew his
brother was illegitimate, and also have proof, gave credence to his
claim. Does it not also mean that he had no real reason to have the
two boys killed, even though certain factions may oppose him? So I
return my original query, i.e. assuming he had it, how did he get the
proof?

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

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Assuming that this ought to say Edward rather than Henry.....it is
a
> little strange that Richard Duke of York seems to have accepted
this
> cuckoo in the nest. I know that there are many cases where husbands
> have unknowingly brought up another man's children, but if it was
> clear that conception took place when he was not around, surely the
> normal thing to do would have been to reject the child ? After all,
> dynastic bloodlines counted for a lot in those days, and Richard of
> York was no fool and would certainly have been able to count, and
> subsequently had three other sons who would have had a greater
claim
> than Edward to the throne. If there were rumours surrounding
Edward's
> parentage early on it would have been in the Lancastrians interest
to
> proclaim them once Edward became the leader of the Yorkist forces,
but
> I have never heard that they did so.
>
> Richard G
>
>

Why not from his mother Cicely ? If she was so opposed to Edward
marrying Elizabeth Woodville in the first place, then she might well
have wanted to prevent Elizabeth's children ascending to the throne
and the Woodvilles becoming the power behind the throne.

Richard G

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:

> Only when the young Edward (V) was to succeed did
> Gloucester vie for the throne. The probability that he knew his
> brother was illegitimate, and also have proof, gave credence to
> his claim. So I return my original query, i.e. assuming he had it,
> how did he get the proof?
>

Seems to be the most logical choice. Can`t somehow see it coming from
Morton who was an enemy of Gloucester. Or Margaret Beaufort, she had
designs of her own. Edward IV would have naturally wanted his own son
to succeed even though the hated Woodvilles would be the power behind
the boy. Cecily would have wanted to prevent that at all costs.

Thanks Richard, and to all for airing your veiws.

Alan

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

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Why not from his mother Cicely ? If she was so opposed to Edward
> marrying Elizabeth Woodville in the first place, then she might
well
> have wanted to prevent Elizabeth's children ascending to the throne
> and the Woodvilles becoming the power behind the throne.
>
> Richard G
>
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Helen
>
> According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464,
> Cecily 'fell into a frenzy' at news of the marriage of her eldest
> surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made
> the astounding accusation that he (Edward) was a bastard, adding that
> she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this
> was indeed the case.
>
> At the time of Edward's birth it was rumored that his natural father
> was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his
> younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical
> appearance.
>
> Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is
> rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with
> an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in
> Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The
> future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.


If someone other than the Duke of York fathered the future Edward IV,
I sure doubt that it was an archer by any name. Any time someone in
the Middle Ages is slandered, it is always with the gossip that he is
actually the offspring of a peasant of some sort. Archers were drawn
from the peasant population. They were foot soldiers whose
encampments would have been far from the Duke's family and attendants
-- handsome young archers just did not stroll about. I can't come up
with a scenario in which the Duchess of York is ever likely to have
been within waving distance of an archer, let alone within dallying
distance of one.

It would require quite a lot of work and no small amount of luck for
any man to have had sufficient access to the Duchess and time alone
with her to have accomplished a tryst resulting in a child. People
were rarely alone in those days. Wives were closely attended, partly
for precisely the reason of guaranteeing that a man's children were in
fact a man's children.

It would be interesting if someone could research just who the
household of the Duke of York consisted of at this crucial time.

Katy

I tend to agree, although some of the evidence seems that Cecily mudded the waters regarding Edward's father, think this may have been to preclude his children gaining the throne.

Would love to believe a lowly archer could father a future king, but wasn't George of Clarence like Edward to look at, I thought that Richard was the only son to look like his father.

Marion

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Helen
>
> According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464,
> Cecily 'fell into a frenzy' at news of the marriage of her eldest
> surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made
> the astounding accusation that he (Edward) was a bastard, adding that
> she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this
> was indeed the case.
>
> At the time of Edward's birth it was rumored that his natural father
> was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his
> younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical
> appearance.
>
> Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is
> rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with
> an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in
> Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The
> future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

If someone other than the Duke of York fathered the future Edward IV,
I sure doubt that it was an archer by any name. Any time someone in
the Middle Ages is slandered, it is always with the gossip that he is
actually the offspring of a peasant of some sort. Archers were drawn
from the peasant population. They were foot soldiers whose
encampments would have been far from the Duke's family and attendants
-- handsome young archers just did not stroll about. I can't come up
with a scenario in which the Duchess of York is ever likely to have
been within waving distance of an archer, let alone within dallying
distance of one.

It would require quite a lot of work and no small amount of luck for
any man to have had sufficient access to the Duchess and time alone
with her to have accomplished a tryst resulting in a child. People
were rarely alone in those days. Wives were closely attended, partly
for precisely the reason of guaranteeing that a man's children were in
fact a man's children.

It would be interesting if someone could research just who the
household of the Duke of York consisted of at this crucial time.

Katy






---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.

In case of looks genetics are not straightforward. Children don't just take after either their mother or father in looks. They take bits from various ancestors.

To give an example in my own family, my brother doesn't look at all like his maternal grandfather but is a spitting image of that grandfather's grandfather.

We would probably have to have realistic pictures of all of Richard of York's and Cecily's ancestors which can't happen now, not to mention the fact that Richard and Cecily shared ancestors.

Helen

marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
I tend to agree, although some of the evidence seems that Cecily mudded the waters regarding Edward's father, think this may have been to preclude his children gaining the throne.

Would love to believe a lowly archer could father a future king, but wasn't George of Clarence like Edward to look at, I thought that Richard was the only son to look like his father.

Marion

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Helen
>
> According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464,
> Cecily 'fell into a frenzy' at news of the marriage of her eldest
> surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made
> the astounding accusation that he (Edward) was a bastard, adding that
> she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this
> was indeed the case.
>
> At the time of Edward's birth it was rumored that his natural father
> was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his
> younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical
> appearance.
>
> Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is
> rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with
> an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in
> Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The
> future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

If someone other than the Duke of York fathered the future Edward IV,
I sure doubt that it was an archer by any name. Any time someone in
the Middle Ages is slandered, it is always with the gossip that he is
actually the offspring of a peasant of some sort. Archers were drawn
from the peasant population. They were foot soldiers whose
encampments would have been far from the Duke's family and attendants
-- handsome young archers just did not stroll about. I can't come up
with a scenario in which the Duchess of York is ever likely to have
been within waving distance of an archer, let alone within dallying
distance of one.

It would require quite a lot of work and no small amount of luck for
any man to have had sufficient access to the Duchess and time alone
with her to have accomplished a tryst resulting in a child. People
were rarely alone in those days. Wives were closely attended, partly
for precisely the reason of guaranteeing that a man's children were in
fact a man's children.

It would be interesting if someone could research just who the
household of the Duke of York consisted of at this crucial time.

Katy





---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.








---------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.

In support of your point, my daughter is the image of my great
grandfather, right down to his red hair. He died when I was twelve, and
I remember him well. Likewise, my grandson has the same head shape as my
grandfather (his great great grandfather)

Helen Rowe wrote:
>
> In case of looks genetics are not straightforward. Children don't just
> take after either their mother or father in looks. They take bits from
> various ancestors.
>
> To give an example in my own family, my brother doesn't look at all
> like his maternal grandfather but is a spitting image of that
> grandfather's grandfather.
>
> We would probably have to have realistic pictures of all of Richard of
> York's and Cecily's ancestors which can't happen now, not to mention
> the fact that Richard and Cecily shared ancestors.
>
> Helen
>
> marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...
> <mailto:marioncheatham2003%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I tend to agree, although some of the evidence seems that Cecily
> mudded the waters regarding Edward's father, think this may have been
> to preclude his children gaining the throne.
>
> Would love to believe a lowly archer could father a future king, but
> wasn't George of Clarence like Edward to look at, I thought that
> Richard was the only son to look like his father.
>
> Marion
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]
> <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>> wrote: --- In
>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "alanth252"
> <alanth252@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Helen
> >
> > According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464,
> > Cecily 'fell into a frenzy' at news of the marriage of her eldest
> > surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made
> > the astounding accusation that he (Edward) was a bastard, adding that
> > she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this
> > was indeed the case.
> >
> > At the time of Edward's birth it was rumored that his natural father
> > was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his
> > younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical
> > appearance.
> >
> > Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is
> > rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with
> > an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in
> > Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The
> > future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.
>
> If someone other than the Duke of York fathered the future Edward IV,
> I sure doubt that it was an archer by any name. Any time someone in
> the Middle Ages is slandered, it is always with the gossip that he is
> actually the offspring of a peasant of some sort. Archers were drawn
> from the peasant population. They were foot soldiers whose
> encampments would have been far from the Duke's family and attendants
> -- handsome young archers just did not stroll about. I can't come up
> with a scenario in which the Duchess of York is ever likely to have
> been within waving distance of an archer, let alone within dallying
> distance of one.
>
> It would require quite a lot of work and no small amount of luck for
> any man to have had sufficient access to the Duchess and time alone
> with her to have accomplished a tryst resulting in a child. People
> were rarely alone in those days. Wives were closely attended, partly
> for precisely the reason of guaranteeing that a man's children were in
> fact a man's children.
>
> It would be interesting if someone could research just who the
> household of the Duke of York consisted of at this crucial time.
>
> Katy
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with
> Yahoo! FareChase.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited
> storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.
>
>
>
>

when you put my nephew and son side by side, you'd think they were brothers, possibly even twins..however, my nephew was raised by my father and stepmother...and my nephew has by osmosis picked up many of my stepmother's facial expressions, ergo anyone not knowing there is no bloodline, would assume the two were blood relatives, because he can and does often "look like" her, especially around the mouth.

i have two sibs. two of us look like we belong in the family. the third does not.

until dna testing is done..which probably will never happen..i'll never know if this sib is by blood or slipped in.

i found out at my parent's divorce, they had both played around on each other...moreover, after the divorce my father said he always doubted this sib was actually his...but again, she has all the family mannerism, traits, etc...she just does not look like us.

the issue of my parents infidelity was never discussed or commented upon when we were growing up...so it came as quite a shock.

both of my parents are deceased...so, i can't even ask/dig deeper..it would have to be dna testing..and after this long..who really cares.

roslyn

Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
In case of looks genetics are not straightforward. Children don't just take after either their mother or father in looks. They take bits from various ancestors.

To give an example in my own family, my brother doesn't look at all like his maternal grandfather but is a spitting image of that grandfather's grandfather.

We would probably have to have realistic pictures of all of Richard of York's and Cecily's ancestors which can't happen now, not to mention the fact that Richard and Cecily shared ancestors.

Helen

marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
I tend to agree, although some of the evidence seems that Cecily mudded the waters regarding Edward's father, think this may have been to preclude his children gaining the throne.

Would love to believe a lowly archer could father a future king, but wasn't George of Clarence like Edward to look at, I thought that Richard was the only son to look like his father.

Marion

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Helen
>
> According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464,
> Cecily 'fell into a frenzy' at news of the marriage of her eldest
> surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made
> the astounding accusation that he (Edward) was a bastard, adding that
> she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this
> was indeed the case.
>
> At the time of Edward's birth it was rumored that his natural father
> was an English archer. In fact Edward was tall and (unlike his
> younger brother Richard III) did not resemble his father in physical
> appearance.
>
> Although later known for her piety as well as her pride, it is
> rumoured that, in the summer of 1441, she [Cecily] had an affair with
> an English archer named Blaybourne based in the Rouen garrison in
> Normandy while her husband was elsewhere in France fighting. The
> future Edward IV is said to have been the result of this liaison.

If someone other than the Duke of York fathered the future Edward IV,
I sure doubt that it was an archer by any name. Any time someone in
the Middle Ages is slandered, it is always with the gossip that he is
actually the offspring of a peasant of some sort. Archers were drawn
from the peasant population. They were foot soldiers whose
encampments would have been far from the Duke's family and attendants
-- handsome young archers just did not stroll about. I can't come up
with a scenario in which the Duchess of York is ever likely to have
been within waving distance of an archer, let alone within dallying
distance of one.

It would require quite a lot of work and no small amount of luck for
any man to have had sufficient access to the Duchess and time alone
with her to have accomplished a tryst resulting in a child. People
were rarely alone in those days. Wives were closely attended, partly
for precisely the reason of guaranteeing that a man's children were in
fact a man's children.

It would be interesting if someone could research just who the
household of the Duke of York consisted of at this crucial time.

Katy

---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.




---------------------------------
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.

This is an excellent point. Besides I always understood that the
Nevilles were tall and fair, hence Edward and George taking after
Cecily's side of the family....

I do not buy the "illegitimate Edward IV" theory. It is based on
heresay and secondary sources and a bit of "wishful thinking" to
sell books, in my opinion!

L.M.L.,
Janet

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> In case of looks genetics are not straightforward. Children don't
just take after either their mother or father in looks. They take
bits from various ancestors.
>
> To give an example in my own family, my brother doesn't look at
all like his maternal grandfather but is a spitting image of that
grandfather's grandfather.
>
> We would probably have to have realistic pictures of all of
Richard of York's and Cecily's ancestors which can't happen now, not
to mention the fact that Richard and Cecily shared ancestors.
>
> Helen
>

When it comes to the physical description of anyone of this period,it
seems we have to be very careful..How can we be sure??? We are told
often enough that Edward was tall and blond. Yet his portraits do
not show a blond. Where are the physical descriptions of George?
Are there any historical descriptions of how tall he was? Does
anyone have any references to what the Nevilles looked like? Are we
all influenced by descriptions in historical fiction? And, for me,
the clincher would be what did Edmund Plantagenet or any of their
sisters look like. The portraits of Margaret of Burgundy do not seem
to be helpful. Can anybody help?

Angela


--- In , "Janet" <forevere@...>
wrote:
>
> This is an excellent point. Besides I always understood that the
> Nevilles were tall and fair, hence Edward and George taking after
> Cecily's side of the family....
>
> I do not buy the "illegitimate Edward IV" theory. It is based on
> heresay and secondary sources and a bit of "wishful thinking" to
> sell books, in my opinion!
>
> L.M.L.,
> Janet
>
> --- In , Helen Rowe
> <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> >
> > In case of looks genetics are not straightforward. Children don't
> just take after either their mother or father in looks. They take
> bits from various ancestors.
> >
> > To give an example in my own family, my brother doesn't look at
> all like his maternal grandfather but is a spitting image of that
> grandfather's grandfather.
> >
> > We would probably have to have realistic pictures of all of
> Richard of York's and Cecily's ancestors which can't happen now,
not
> to mention the fact that Richard and Cecily shared ancestors.
> >
> > Helen
> >
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry about the slip, I did of course mean Edward, and not Henry.
>
> Perhaps Gloucester was learning his future "trade" in York. He was
> certainly an able administrator. He had great love for his elder
> brother, but not for the Woodvilles. Under Edward IV law and order
> was restored to England. Rocking the boat wouldn`t have served the
> Yorkist cause. Only when the young Edward (V) was to succeed did
> Gloucester vie for the throne. The probability that he knew his
> brother was illegitimate, and also have proof, gave credence to
his
> claim. Does it not also mean that he had no real reason to have
the
> two boys killed, even though certain factions may oppose him? So I
> return my original query, i.e. assuming he had it, how did he get
the
> proof?


I too think there is so much circumstantial evidence for Edward's
cuckoo birth that it cant simply be laughed off as an idea. Anyway,
what was York to do? I doubt Cecily would have told him the baby
wasn't his, or that she was already pregnant when he got home. To
have rejected the child would have been very difficult. Cecily had
powerful family. she was very closely related to Henry VI, she was
half Beaufort and her uncle was a cardinal, for heaven's sake. Very
possibly the couple's first son, Henry, was still alive and York
hoped to God either the child really was his or that he would never
chance to to be the son to inherit. Probably he got by by not
thinking about it. People do, you know. Many a man has accepted a
child not his own for the sake of everything else in his life.

Mancini does indeed say Cecily herself said it in an argument with
Edward over Elizabeth Woodville. Jones suggests this didn't happen
straight away but early 1469. This is the year that Clarence and
Warwick rebelled, and in February Edward took Fotheringhay Castle
away from his mother, only compensating her with Berkhamstead a
month later and having to grovellingly agree never to take anything
else away without proper recompense. Later that year Cecily seems to
have been in on Warwick and Clarence's plans for the Calais
marriage, and kept it from Edward. What else she was party to is a
matter of conjecture.

It was the duke of Burgundy who gave us the name blaybourne. After
Edward made peace with Louis at Picquigny he flew into a rage and
said "Well, wehat can you expect? His real name's only Blaybourne,
and he's just the son of an archer."

In a sense, though, I think the question of whose DNA Edward had is
a bit of a distraction. The point seems to be that this story broke
very publicly in 1469, that it was political dynamite and it was
like the proverbial cat which can't be got back in the bag once it
is out. It fuelled Clarence's treason and his own fear of Edward for
years, and probably caused his execution. I would argue that after
Clarence's death it caused mutual paranoia between Gloucester and
the Queen, which erupted in a political crisis after Edward's death.

Marie


>
> ----------------
>
> --- In , "rgcorris"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > Assuming that this ought to say Edward rather than Henry.....it
is
> a
> > little strange that Richard Duke of York seems to have accepted
> this
> > cuckoo in the nest. I know that there are many cases where
husbands
> > have unknowingly brought up another man's children, but if it
was
> > clear that conception took place when he was not around, surely
the
> > normal thing to do would have been to reject the child ? After
all,
> > dynastic bloodlines counted for a lot in those days, and Richard
of
> > York was no fool and would certainly have been able to count,
and
> > subsequently had three other sons who would have had a greater
> claim
> > than Edward to the throne. If there were rumours surrounding
> Edward's
> > parentage early on it would have been in the Lancastrians
interest
> to
> > proclaim them once Edward became the leader of the Yorkist
forces,
> but
> > I have never heard that they did so.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> >
>

amertzanis wrote:

>When it comes to the physical description of anyone of this period,it
>seems we have to be very careful..How can we be sure??? We are told
>often enough that Edward was tall and blond. Yet his portraits do
>not show a blond. Where are the physical descriptions of George?
>Are there any historical descriptions of how tall he was? Does
>anyone have any references to what the Nevilles looked like? Are we
>all influenced by descriptions in historical fiction? And, for me,
>the clincher would be what did Edmund Plantagenet or any of their
>sisters look like. The portraits of Margaret of Burgundy do not seem
>to be helpful. Can anybody help?
>
>Angela
>
>
>
**I've heard that when they opened Edward IV's tomb, his hair was brown.
I'm not sure where him being blond came from.

Gilda

of course it depends on what one means by 'blond'.
However I've seen, and handled, (bad man that I am, but they just
handed me the box with it in and left the room and I couldn't resist)
the hair sample of King Edward they have at the Society of
Antiquaries here in London, and it is definitely yellow, if a dirty
yellow.
Paul

On 7 Jul 2007, at 20:16, Gilda Felt wrote:

> **I've heard that when they opened Edward IV's tomb, his hair was
> brown.
> I'm not sure where him being blond came from.
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Has there ever been any corroboratory mention as to colour of eyes of
Cecily Neville`s issue? If both she and her husband Richard of York
would have had, say blue eyes, and one of the issue were to have
brown or green eyes, then that could point to a different father. A
tenuous line of enquiry I agree, but perhaps worth investigating.
Alan
--------------------

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> of course it depends on what one means by 'blond'.
> However I've seen, and handled, (bad man that I am, but they just
> handed me the box with it in and left the room and I couldn't
resist)
> the hair sample of King Edward they have at the Society of
> Antiquaries here in London, and it is definitely yellow, if a
dirty
> yellow.
> Paul
>
> On 7 Jul 2007, at 20:16, Gilda Felt wrote:
>
> > **I've heard that when they opened Edward IV's tomb, his hair
was
> > brown.
> > I'm not sure where him being blond came from.
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

in my paternal line, and those who carry the genetics of that line.
we are born "bald" the hair comes in white, white blonde, as we age our hair "darkens". by puberty we are anywhere from dirty yellow blonde to golden chestnut brown. we start to "grey" in our late twenties. only the grey is white, and often exhibited by appearing as a white forelock from the crown of the head.

those of us who do not make friends with a dye bottle, continue going white until we die. the hair is extremely fine, but abundant.

blue eyes are considered a recessive gene. however, those carrying the paternal genetics always have the blue eyes anywhere from extremely pale blue to bright blue to dark almost purple blue.

to be honest, i don't think i have seen a brown eye in the family bloodline, including distant cousins. my son's father was brown eyed and rusty-red haired. my son was born with sky blue eyes, bald and white blonde. in his twenties, he's a dark dirty blonde with deep blue green eyes..

my daughter's paternal line are all brown eyed and dark haired. yet she pulled through with blue eyes and fine abundant dark hair that is going lighter.

roslyn




Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
of course it depends on what one means by 'blond'.
However I've seen, and handled, (bad man that I am, but they just
handed me the box with it in and left the room and I couldn't resist)
the hair sample of King Edward they have at the Society of
Antiquaries here in London, and it is definitely yellow, if a dirty
yellow.
Paul

On 7 Jul 2007, at 20:16, Gilda Felt wrote:

> **I've heard that when they opened Edward IV's tomb, his hair was
> brown.
> I'm not sure where him being blond came from.
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I'm not sure where the belief that Edward IV was blonde came from either.
Perhaps

it is from "historical novels" as was recently suggested, or maybe it was
because his grandson,

Henry VIII was a strawberry blonde in his youth and the two have been often
compared.

But as for using Edward's portrait as proof he had brown hair - portraits
age and darken as they get older,

especially if they are varnished. And as far as the hair in the tomb being
brown - perhaps 500 year old

hair tends to darken as well. So, for me, these are not conclusive proofs
that Edward had brown hair all

his life. Maybe it was blonde in his youth and darkened as he got older - I
know mine has. And my father was

called "Whitey" as a child and had brown hair as an adult.



Why are people so ready to believe Edward IV was illegitimate? Is it
because it appears to make

Richard's reign more legit? Or is it because a good scandal has its own
fascination? I would really

like to know. Reported second-hand heresay evidence is not admissible for
good reason. I am

not a particular fan of Edward IV but if Richard of York accepted him I
guess I can too.



L.M.L.,

Janet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> of course it depends on what one means by 'blond'.
> However I've seen, and handled, (bad man that I am, but they just
> handed me the box with it in and left the room and I couldn't
resist)
> the hair sample of King Edward they have at the Society of
> Antiquaries here in London, and it is definitely yellow, if a
dirty
> yellow.
> Paul


Apparently, Paul, it changed colour in the wash.

There's a whole appendix on Edward's burial in Anne Sutton & Livia
Visser-Fuchs' "Royal Burials of the House of York at Windsor".



>
> On 7 Jul 2007, at 20:16, Gilda Felt wrote:
>
> > **I've heard that when they opened Edward IV's tomb, his hair
was
> > brown.
> > I'm not sure where him being blond came from.
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

On 9 Jul 2007, at 16:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> Apparently, Paul, it changed colour in the wash.

Of course it did! :-)
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Edward's hair colour:

This is pure speculation, but wasn't 'fair' until recently a way of saying 'good-looking'?
As in 'Monday's child is fair of face', so that Edward IV could have been good-looking without necessarily being blond.

As to the illegitimacy story, I am sceptical about it if for no other reason than that babies can quite easily be born up to around a month early or a month late (latter less common now than it used to be because of inductions) without it causing any significant harm. Edward IV does fall comfortably within this bracket. By a funny coincidence, the time span between the Duke's return to Rouen and Edward's birth dffers by one day from that between my parents' wedding and my birth (and before anyone asks, the circumstances meant there was no cahnce of pre-marital hanky-panky!) If his baptism was indeed rather low key compared with those of his siblings, an obvious explanation was that he was considered a bit fragile initially and so baptised in a hurry without there being time for elaborate preparations.