The Ankaratte Twynho episode

Im curious about this. What was the true reason for Ankarette's execution? Did George have
a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette poisened Isobel and her baby, could
he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth or as a result of, in those days.
Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he? Or was he off his head? Maybe
Im not seeing the full picture here.
Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no rank, but her death, seems to me to
have set of a chain of events culminating in George's execution.
Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Im curious about this. What was the true reason for Ankarette's
execution? Did George have
> a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette poisened
Isobel and her baby, could
> he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth or as a
result of, in those days.
> Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he? Or was
he off his head? Maybe
> Im not seeing the full picture here.
> Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no rank, but
her death, seems to me to
> have set of a chain of events culminating in George's execution.
> Eileen


I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we know.

For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope her shade
forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically, she killed
Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have necessary to
poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother it with a
hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and leaving no
possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and the younger
the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/ should have been.

I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected in the case
of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have been suspected
in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons. (Interestingly, I
have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's son.)
But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth by a few
weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many books, that
both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them, were not
especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory about that --
it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the mood for
crackpot conjectures.)

And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the first place?
What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by their deaths?
Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a possible
motive?

As usual, more questions than answers.

Katy

It is the most peculiar thing, isn't it, clarence's idea that his
wife and son were poisoned. Ankarette was only accused of poisoning
Isabel. The credit for the baby's death went to one John Thuresby,
who was hanged with her. I don;t know at this point, to be honest,
whether he was supposed to have used poison or some other method.

I'm also sure there must be more to this than we know. Clarence had
remained up to his eyeballs in intrigue ever since his Edward's
restoration. I know this is not Hicks' belief, but I go along with
earlier writers, like Scofield, that the imprisonment of Isabel's
uncle, Archbishop Neville, and the invasion attempts of her uncle-by-
marriage, the Earl of Oxford, were all connected with conspiracies to
put Clarence and Isabel on the throne. The Pastons can't even mention
Oxford's antics without referring to Clarence in the next breath (or
pen-sweep).What else, after all, can their treasons have been about?

Clarence was, apparently, also getting the horoscopes of Edward IV
and his eldest son cast, and the prognostication was early deaths for
them both. Very encoursging for the ambitions of Clarence who,
according to his Act of Attainder, had not let go of the idea of
Edward IV's bastardy. So, although Edward had avoided targeting
Clarence directly when he imprisoned George Neville and Oxford, he
must at the very least have had spies placed in his household.
Ankarette Twynyho's elder son (who died in 1475) had been a member of
Edward IV's household, and she may have had other family connections
to the royal household. This begins to give us some idea what might
have been in Clarence's mind when he accused her.
The other question, for me, though, is why Clarence waited so long
before accusing and arresting Ankarette. Isabel died before
Christmas, and Ankarette wasn't arrested until 12th April. A lot had
happened in between, though.
1st Jan -baby Richard also died
4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial, and her
funeral obsequies took place
5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the choir
of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward pleading
for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the Burgundian
domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with Clarence, and
that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the Burgundian
crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate Clarence
marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret offered
Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his sister
Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the French
pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais with a
small force to protect the town against French attack.
Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French treaty with
Louis.
6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who had
allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years earlier,
met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and the three
disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people to rise
against the king.
Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took the
great ducal palace of Hesdin.
Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for Easter
(Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in despair,
appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English soldiers
into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with offers to
that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be waiting on the
English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them. Hastings
also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to Somerset
to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm Clarence's
retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter and her
husband scurrying along behind.
13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence turned
her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and find
lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the Guildhall
where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and forced her
to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of ale
mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby. Because
the offence had to have been committed in the same county in which it
was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick Castle,
but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury Abbey and
did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not Guilty,
but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to the
town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the town,
where she was hanged.
Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the 4th and
5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy was
tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a last-
minute pardon.
The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar to a
meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and Burdet's
delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during the
second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off from King
Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause, Edward
recalled Hastings from Calais.
Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring. Louis wrote
to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and whether
Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to turn up
at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was postponed
till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.

I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the way all
these different big issues, usually separated out in history books,
were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what interplay
there may have been. Anyone any ideas?

Marie



--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for Ankarette's
> execution? Did George have
> > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette poisened
> Isobel and her baby, could
> > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth or as
a
> result of, in those days.
> > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he? Or was
> he off his head? Maybe
> > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no rank, but
> her death, seems to me to
> > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's execution.
> > Eileen
>
>
> I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we know.
>
> For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope her
shade
> forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically, she
killed
> Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have necessary to
> poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother it with a
> hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and leaving no
> possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and the
younger
> the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/ should have
been.
>
> I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected in the
case
> of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have been
suspected
> in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
(Interestingly, I
> have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's son.)
> But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth by a few
> weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many books, that
> both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them, were not
> especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory about that --
> it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the mood for
> crackpot conjectures.)
>
> And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the first
place?
> What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by their
deaths?
> Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a possible
> motive?
>
> As usual, more questions than answers.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>

>
> Clarence was, apparently, also getting the horoscopes of Edward IV
> and his eldest son cast, and the prognostication was early deaths for
> them both. Very encoursging for the ambitions of Clarence who,
> according to his Act of Attainder, had not let go of the idea of
> Edward IV's bastardy.


And, if the goings-on of the previous generation or two are any
indication, the very act of seeking to foretell a king's death was
high treason.

Eleanor Cobham, the second wife of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, was
tried for witchcraft and executed in 1441, for using astrologers to
attempt to find out if her husband would ever become king. It was a
good question -- Humphrey was Henry IV's fourth son, but the only one
still alive at that time. Humphrey was one heartbeat -- that of Henry
V's unstable son Henry VI -- from the throne.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Clarence was, apparently, also getting the horoscopes of Edward
IV
> > and his eldest son cast, and the prognostication was early deaths
for
> > them both. Very encoursging for the ambitions of Clarence who,
> > according to his Act of Attainder, had not let go of the idea of
> > Edward IV's bastardy.
>
>
> And, if the goings-on of the previous generation or two are any
> indication, the very act of seeking to foretell a king's death was
> high treason.

Indeed it was. It was one of the treasons of which Stacy and Blake
were convicted. (I just can't say Stacy and Blake without thinking of
the dozy lop-eared rabbits my children had when they were young. They
were sold to us as females, so the kids named them Stacy and Tracy,
but they turned out to be male and used to beat each other nearly
senseless all over the lawn until we had the poor things neutered.)

Marie

>
> Eleanor Cobham, the second wife of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, was
> tried for witchcraft and executed in 1441, for using astrologers to
> attempt to find out if her husband would ever become king. It was a
> good question -- Humphrey was Henry IV's fourth son, but the only
one
> still alive at that time. Humphrey was one heartbeat -- that of
Henry
> V's unstable son Henry VI -- from the throne.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> It is the most peculiar thing, isn't it, clarence's idea that his
> wife and son were poisoned.

What always struck me as strange was that Isobel gave birth to her baby in Tewkesbury
infirmary - why?. Surely she would have been more comfortable at home at Warwick with
the best of midwives in attendance. You would think that she would have gone into
labour at home i.e. Warwick. It would seem that Isobel was very sick prior to the birth -
perhaps suffering from consumption as Anne did. Where was George was coming from
with his accusation of poisoning - I have read somewhere that George was 'mad with
grief'. This I find hard to believe. Was George ever that much in love with his wife to
become mad with grief?
I think there is much more to this story than we will ever know.
Eileen




> happened in between, though.
> 1st Jan -baby Richard also died
> 4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial, and her
> funeral obsequies took place
> 5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
> During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the choir
> of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward pleading
> for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the Burgundian
> domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with Clarence, and
> that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
> 9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
> 13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the Burgundian
> crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
> February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate Clarence
> marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret offered
> Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
> ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his sister
> Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the French
> pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais with a
> small force to protect the town against French attack.
> Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French treaty with
> Louis.
> 6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who had
> allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years earlier,
> met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and the three
> disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people to rise
> against the king.
> Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took the
> great ducal palace of Hesdin.
> Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for Easter
> (Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
> Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in despair,
> appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English soldiers
> into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with offers to
> that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be waiting on the
> English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them. Hastings
> also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
> 9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to Somerset
> to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
> 12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm Clarence's
> retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
> arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter and her
> husband scurrying along behind.
> 13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
> 14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence turned
> her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and find
> lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
> 15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the Guildhall
> where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and forced her
> to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of ale
> mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby. Because
> the offence had to have been committed in the same county in which it
> was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick Castle,
> but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury Abbey and
> did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not Guilty,
> but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to the
> town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the town,
> where she was hanged.
> Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the 4th and
> 5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
> disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
> immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy was
> tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
> declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a last-
> minute pardon.
> The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar to a
> meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and Burdet's
> delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
> Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during the
> second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off from King
> Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause, Edward
> recalled Hastings from Calais.
> Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring. Louis wrote
> to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and whether
> Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to turn up
> at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was postponed
> till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.
>
> I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the way all
> these different big issues, usually separated out in history books,
> were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what interplay
> there may have been. Anyone any ideas?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for Ankarette's
> > execution? Did George have
> > > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette poisened
> > Isobel and her baby, could
> > > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth or as
> a
> > result of, in those days.
> > > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he? Or was
> > he off his head? Maybe
> > > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no rank, but
> > her death, seems to me to
> > > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's execution.
> > > Eileen
> >
> >
> > I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we know.
> >
> > For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope her
> shade
> > forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically, she
> killed
> > Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have necessary to
> > poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother it with a
> > hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and leaving no
> > possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and the
> younger
> > the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/ should have
> been.
> >
> > I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected in the
> case
> > of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have been
> suspected
> > in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
> (Interestingly, I
> > have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's son.)
> > But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth by a few
> > weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many books, that
> > both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them, were not
> > especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory about that --
> > it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the mood for
> > crackpot conjectures.)
> >
> > And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the first
> place?
> > What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by their
> deaths?
> > Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a possible
> > motive?
> >
> > As usual, more questions than answers.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

i have to wonder if there is a bit of confusion over exactly who george was mad with grief over.

given that his son edward is rumoured to be not exactly all there mentally, was george's hopes pinned on his new son named richard. was it this child's demise that pushed him over the edge? was it the combination of losing his wife and then the son that "finished" it for george?

remember isabel and george had been raised together. even if they were not fabulous lovers in a maritial sense, it is highly possible he had strong affection for isabel as close childhood companion.

together, isabel and george had both withstood the wrath of e4 for their secret marriage, and the battle for and division of her parent's estates. that event would have also increased their bond.

they lost their first child anne b. 1470 who was stillborn or weakly.
edward b.1473 said to be mentally deficient.
margaret b. 1475 healthy
richard b. oct 6 1476 d. jan 1 1477

isabel had died dec 22 1476. there was ample time between the birth of richard and her demise to have recovered enough to return to warwick.

this was an age of poisonings. it was common in 15thC italy and europe, so why not in england?

essentially if you were high born and not paranoid, you were not aware. now add in george's rumoured overindulgence of alcohol. lots of things could have played on his mind and quite simply he lost it.

roslyn


eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> It is the most peculiar thing, isn't it, clarence's idea that his
> wife and son were poisoned.

What always struck me as strange was that Isobel gave birth to her baby in Tewkesbury
infirmary - why?. Surely she would have been more comfortable at home at Warwick with
the best of midwives in attendance. You would think that she would have gone into
labour at home i.e. Warwick. It would seem that Isobel was very sick prior to the birth -
perhaps suffering from consumption as Anne did. Where was George was coming from
with his accusation of poisoning - I have read somewhere that George was 'mad with
grief'. This I find hard to believe. Was George ever that much in love with his wife to
become mad with grief?
I think there is much more to this story than we will ever know.
Eileen

> happened in between, though.
> 1st Jan -baby Richard also died
> 4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial, and her
> funeral obsequies took place
> 5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
> During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the choir
> of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward pleading
> for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the Burgundian
> domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with Clarence, and
> that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
> 9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
> 13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the Burgundian
> crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
> February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate Clarence
> marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret offered
> Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
> ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his sister
> Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the French
> pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais with a
> small force to protect the town against French attack.
> Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French treaty with
> Louis.
> 6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who had
> allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years earlier,
> met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and the three
> disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people to rise
> against the king.
> Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took the
> great ducal palace of Hesdin.
> Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for Easter
> (Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
> Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in despair,
> appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English soldiers
> into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with offers to
> that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be waiting on the
> English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them. Hastings
> also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
> 9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to Somerset
> to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
> 12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm Clarence's
> retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
> arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter and her
> husband scurrying along behind.
> 13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
> 14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence turned
> her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and find
> lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
> 15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the Guildhall
> where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and forced her
> to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of ale
> mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby. Because
> the offence had to have been committed in the same county in which it
> was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick Castle,
> but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury Abbey and
> did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not Guilty,
> but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to the
> town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the town,
> where she was hanged.
> Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the 4th and
> 5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
> disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
> immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy was
> tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
> declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a last-
> minute pardon.
> The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar to a
> meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and Burdet's
> delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
> Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during the
> second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off from King
> Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause, Edward
> recalled Hastings from Calais.
> Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring. Louis wrote
> to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and whether
> Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to turn up
> at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was postponed
> till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.
>
> I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the way all
> these different big issues, usually separated out in history books,
> were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what interplay
> there may have been. Anyone any ideas?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for Ankarette's
> > execution? Did George have
> > > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette poisened
> > Isobel and her baby, could
> > > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth or as
> a
> > result of, in those days.
> > > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he? Or was
> > he off his head? Maybe
> > > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no rank, but
> > her death, seems to me to
> > > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's execution.
> > > Eileen
> >
> >
> > I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we know.
> >
> > For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope her
> shade
> > forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically, she
> killed
> > Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have necessary to
> > poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother it with a
> > hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and leaving no
> > possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and the
> younger
> > the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/ should have
> been.
> >
> > I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected in the
> case
> > of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have been
> suspected
> > in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
> (Interestingly, I
> > have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's son.)
> > But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth by a few
> > weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many books, that
> > both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them, were not
> > especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory about that --
> > it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the mood for
> > crackpot conjectures.)
> >
> > And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the first
> place?
> > What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by their
> deaths?
> > Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a possible
> > motive?
> >
> > As usual, more questions than answers.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It is the most peculiar thing, isn't it, clarence's idea that his
> > wife and son were poisoned.
>
> What always struck me as strange was that Isobel gave birth to her
baby in Tewkesbury
> infirmary - why?. Surely she would have been more comfortable at
home at Warwick with
> the best of midwives in attendance. You would think that she would
have gone into
> labour at home i.e. Warwick. It would seem that Isobel was very
sick prior to the birth -
> perhaps suffering from consumption as Anne did. Where was George
was coming from
> with his accusation of poisoning - I have read somewhere that
George was 'mad with
> grief'. This I find hard to believe. Was George ever that much in
love with his wife to
> become mad with grief?
> I think there is much more to this story than we will ever know.
> Eileen

I've often wondered why she gave birth there as well, Eileen.

I personally can't see TB as an explanation for Isabel's death. When
I first became interested in Richard III when I was at school, I
read Kendall's suggestion that Isabel probably died of TB like Anne.
His argument, though, didn't seem to be based on anything more
than 'Anne was frail and succumbed to TB; Isabel also died young, so
probably the same congenital weakness.'

Anyway, one of the first things I did was raid my mum's pre-War
nursing textbooks to find out more about TB, and one of the things I
learned is that it causes infertility. In other words, it is highly
unlikely that a woman so advanced with TB could have got pregnant,
never mind carried the baby until it was viable for survival ex
utero. The family history I've done in more recent years has
confirmed this for me. I've found two TB deaths, and in each case a
period of some years' infertility beforehand.

In Anne's case there is at least an early (though by no means
contemporary) source (ie Buck) for her having died of a consumption -
which can really be any wasting disease - and the progress of her
illness fits TB quite well. Isabel's death, though, must have been
due to something else. Clarence's accusation against Ankarette
Twynyho may be mad, but it does give us some very useful data. Isabel
gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that date
she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks after
the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever. Again, I
like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother took
sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather's
birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the family,
my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take even
longer.

Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the Abbey
infirmary in the first place. I wish I knew more about Clarence's
movements in 1476. In the summer he was in Fotheringhay for the
reinterment of his father and brother. Edward hung around
Fotheringhay till after the middle of August; perhaps Clarence stayed
with him. Edward then moved to Nottingham for a while, from there
travelling on west into Worcestershire, going south through that
county and then turning east through Oxfordshire towards Windsor,
which he reached on 8th October. Edward and Clarence could have
parted company in south Worcestershire, with Clarence making the
short journey west to Tewkesbury whilst Edward headed for
Oxfordshire. But I'm just speculating.
There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September to
her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send the
children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in the
west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible that's
what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever can
bring on labour.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the couple were serious
patrons of the Abbey so probably visited quite often. The Abbot had
visited Warwick to be one of Edward of Warwick's godfathers the
previous year. Also, this was not just any old infirmary, it was the
NEW infirmary. Might this just have been part of the couple's
patronage of the Abbey to have their baby born within the walls of
its wonderful new infirmary? If they were prepared, they could have
whatever midwives they wanted in place there, after all.
These are just ideas. I only wish we knew more.

Marie






>
>
>
>
> > happened in between, though.
> > 1st Jan -baby Richard also died
> > 4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial, and
her
> > funeral obsequies took place
> > 5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
> > During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the
choir
> > of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward
pleading
> > for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the
Burgundian
> > domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with Clarence,
and
> > that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
> > 9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
> > 13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the
Burgundian
> > crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
> > February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate Clarence
> > marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret
offered
> > Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
> > ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his sister
> > Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the
French
> > pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais with a
> > small force to protect the town against French attack.
> > Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French treaty
with
> > Louis.
> > 6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who had
> > allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years
earlier,
> > met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and the
three
> > disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people to
rise
> > against the king.
> > Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took the
> > great ducal palace of Hesdin.
> > Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for
Easter
> > (Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
> > Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in despair,
> > appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English
soldiers
> > into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with offers
to
> > that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be waiting on
the
> > English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them.
Hastings
> > also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
> > 9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to
Somerset
> > to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
> > 12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm
Clarence's
> > retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
> > arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter and
her
> > husband scurrying along behind.
> > 13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
> > 14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence
turned
> > her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and find
> > lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
> > 15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the
Guildhall
> > where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and forced
her
> > to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of ale
> > mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby.
Because
> > the offence had to have been committed in the same county in
which it
> > was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick
Castle,
> > but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury Abbey
and
> > did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not
Guilty,
> > but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to the
> > town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the
town,
> > where she was hanged.
> > Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the 4th
and
> > 5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
> > disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
> > immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy was
> > tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
> > declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a
last-
> > minute pardon.
> > The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar to a
> > meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and
Burdet's
> > delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
> > Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during the
> > second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off from
King
> > Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause, Edward
> > recalled Hastings from Calais.
> > Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring. Louis
wrote
> > to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and whether
> > Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to
turn up
> > at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was
postponed
> > till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.
> >
> > I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the way
all
> > these different big issues, usually separated out in history
books,
> > were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what
interplay
> > there may have been. Anyone any ideas?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , "eileen"
> > > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for
Ankarette's
> > > execution? Did George have
> > > > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette
poisened
> > > Isobel and her baby, could
> > > > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth
or as
> > a
> > > result of, in those days.
> > > > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he?
Or was
> > > he off his head? Maybe
> > > > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > > > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no
rank, but
> > > her death, seems to me to
> > > > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's
execution.
> > > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we know.
> > >
> > > For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope her
> > shade
> > > forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically, she
> > killed
> > > Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have
necessary to
> > > poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother it
with a
> > > hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and
leaving no
> > > possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and the
> > younger
> > > the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/ should
have
> > been.
> > >
> > > I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected in
the
> > case
> > > of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have been
> > suspected
> > > in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
> > (Interestingly, I
> > > have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's
son.)
> > > But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth by
a few
> > > weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many books,
that
> > > both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them,
were not
> > > especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory about
that --
> > > it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the mood for
> > > crackpot conjectures.)
> > >
> > > And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the first
> > place?
> > > What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by their
> > deaths?
> > > Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a
possible
> > > motive?
> > >
> > > As usual, more questions than answers.
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:

> I've often wondered why she gave birth there as well, Eileen.
>
> I personally can't see TB as an explanation for Isabel's death. When
> I first became interested in Richard III when I was at school, I
> read Kendall's suggestion that Isabel probably died of TB like Anne.
> His argument, though, didn't seem to be based on anything more
> than 'Anne was frail and succumbed to TB; Isabel also died young, so
> probably the same congenital weakness.'
>
> Anyway, one of the first things I did was raid my mum's pre-War
> nursing textbooks to find out more about TB, and one of the things I
> learned is that it causes infertility. In other words, it is highly
> unlikely that a woman so advanced with TB could have got pregnant,
> never mind carried the baby until it was viable for survival ex
> utero. The family history I've done in more recent years has
> confirmed this for me. I've found two TB deaths, and in each case a
> period of some years' infertility beforehand.
>
> In Anne's case there is at least an early (though by no means
> contemporary) source (ie Buck) for her having died of a consumption -
> which can really be any wasting disease - and the progress of her
> illness fits TB quite well.


As you note, Marie, "consumption" could mean any wasting disease,
including what we now know as diabetes, until well into the 19th
century, when the term pretty well became specific to tuberculosis.

My thought is that Anne and Isabel Neville, and their mother before
them, suffered from congenital heart disease, probably patent ductus
arteriosus, which is genetically linked.

In PDA a blood vessel which, in an unborn child connects the aorta to
the pulmonary artery so that circulation bypasses the lungs. It is
essential to fetal circulation but it should close in in the first few
hours after birth so that blood flows through the lungs to be oxygenated.

If it does not close, a set of ever-worsening symptoms appear as the
child grows. They include "failure to thrive" -- being delicate,
frail, and

* Chest pain
* Congestive heart failure
* Cyanosis
* Fainting (syncope) / dizziness
* Heart murmurs
* Palpitations

People with a patent (open) ductus arteriosus are prone to infections
leading to endocarditis, and before modern-day medicine with
antibiotics and surgery, they often died in their early adulthood.
They were susceptible to endocarditis from infections that normal
people would shake off. And towards the end they sometimes had
coughing of blood -- pulmonary hemorrhages -- due to the high blood
pressure in their lungs.

Here's a link to one article on the subject, and there are many more
online:

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/heart-encyclopedia/anomalies/pda.htm

I think PDA could explain the deaths of Isabel and Anne Neville as
well as tuberculosis does, and doctors of their time would not have
been able to tell one condition from the other.


Clarence's accusation against Ankarette
> Twynyho may be mad, but it does give us some very useful data. Isabel
> gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that date
> she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks after
> the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever. Again, I
> like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother took
> sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather's
> birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the family,
> my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take even
> longer.

The timing of the first symptoms of illness is just about classic for
postpartum infection, but the course of her illness is rather long to
be typical. However, if she had heart disease from PDA, the infection
could have been relatively mild and survivable in a healthy woman, but
in her case it turned into endocarditis, rather than peritonitis,
which is usually the cause of death in postpartum infection.


Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the Abbey
> infirmary in the first place.

> There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
> September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September to
> her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send the
> children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
> there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in the
> west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible that's
> what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever can
> bring on labour.


Perhaps she gave firth in the Abbey infirmary because complications
were expected or because she was in poor health or condition and was
expected to need the skills and supplies available there. That would
also fit with heart disease progressing into heart failure at the end
of pregnancy, though of course it doesn't exclude other possible
explanations.

And, against my theory, as I recall, the mother of Anne and Isabel,
the Countess of Warwick, lived into old age.

Katy

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

> In PDA a blood vessel which, in an unborn child connects the aorta to
> the pulmonary artery so that circulation bypasses the lungs.

That should be "In PDA a blood vessel which, in an unborn child
connects the aorta to the pulmonary artery so that circulation
bypasses the lungs, remains open (patent) after birth."

Katy

Anne Beauchamp evidently had difficulty conceiving children, as would her daughter Anne Neville. It was not until September 1451 that the countess gave birth to her eldest daughter, Isabel, in Warwick Castle. Anne was twenty-five at the time, a late age to start childbearing when noble girls routinely married in their early teens and began having babies soon thereafter. She may well have suffered miscarriages or stillbirths, for in 1453 she obtained a papal dispensation to eat eggs and meat in Lent because she was “weakened by former illnesses and the birth of children.” It was not until June 1456 that Anne Neville was born, also at Warwick Castle.
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
sources are cited at the bottom of the above url.

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote:

> I've often wondered why she gave birth there as well, Eileen.
>
> I personally can't see TB as an explanation for Isabel's death. When
> I first became interested in Richard III when I was at school, I
> read Kendall's suggestion that Isabel probably died of TB like Anne.
> His argument, though, didn't seem to be based on anything more
> than 'Anne was frail and succumbed to TB; Isabel also died young, so
> probably the same congenital weakness.'
>
> Anyway, one of the first things I did was raid my mum's pre-War
> nursing textbooks to find out more about TB, and one of the things I
> learned is that it causes infertility. In other words, it is highly
> unlikely that a woman so advanced with TB could have got pregnant,
> never mind carried the baby until it was viable for survival ex
> utero. The family history I've done in more recent years has
> confirmed this for me. I've found two TB deaths, and in each case a
> period of some years' infertility beforehand.
>
> In Anne's case there is at least an early (though by no means
> contemporary) source (ie Buck) for her having died of a consumption -
> which can really be any wasting disease - and the progress of her
> illness fits TB quite well.

As you note, Marie, "consumption" could mean any wasting disease,
including what we now know as diabetes, until well into the 19th
century, when the term pretty well became specific to tuberculosis.

My thought is that Anne and Isabel Neville, and their mother before
them, suffered from congenital heart disease, probably patent ductus
arteriosus, which is genetically linked.

In PDA a blood vessel which, in an unborn child connects the aorta to
the pulmonary artery so that circulation bypasses the lungs. It is
essential to fetal circulation but it should close in in the first few
hours after birth so that blood flows through the lungs to be oxygenated.

If it does not close, a set of ever-worsening symptoms appear as the
child grows. They include "failure to thrive" -- being delicate,
frail, and

* Chest pain
* Congestive heart failure
* Cyanosis
* Fainting (syncope) / dizziness
* Heart murmurs
* Palpitations

People with a patent (open) ductus arteriosus are prone to infections
leading to endocarditis, and before modern-day medicine with
antibiotics and surgery, they often died in their early adulthood.
They were susceptible to endocarditis from infections that normal
people would shake off. And towards the end they sometimes had
coughing of blood -- pulmonary hemorrhages -- due to the high blood
pressure in their lungs.

Here's a link to one article on the subject, and there are many more
online:

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/heart-encyclopedia/anomalies/pda.htm

I think PDA could explain the deaths of Isabel and Anne Neville as
well as tuberculosis does, and doctors of their time would not have
been able to tell one condition from the other.

Clarence's accusation against Ankarette
> Twynyho may be mad, but it does give us some very useful data. Isabel
> gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that date
> she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks after
> the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever. Again, I
> like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother took
> sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather's
> birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the family,
> my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take even
> longer.

The timing of the first symptoms of illness is just about classic for
postpartum infection, but the course of her illness is rather long to
be typical. However, if she had heart disease from PDA, the infection
could have been relatively mild and survivable in a healthy woman, but
in her case it turned into endocarditis, rather than peritonitis,
which is usually the cause of death in postpartum infection.

Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the Abbey
> infirmary in the first place.

> There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
> September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September to
> her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send the
> children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
> there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in the
> west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible that's
> what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever can
> bring on labour.

Perhaps she gave firth in the Abbey infirmary because complications
were expected or because she was in poor health or condition and was
expected to need the skills and supplies available there. That would
also fit with heart disease progressing into heart failure at the end
of pregnancy, though of course it doesn't exclude other possible
explanations.

And, against my theory, as I recall, the mother of Anne and Isabel,
the Countess of Warwick, lived into old age.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> Anne Beauchamp evidently had difficulty conceiving children, as
would her daughter Anne Neville. It was not until September 1451 that
the countess gave birth to her eldest daughter, Isabel, in Warwick
Castle. Anne was twenty-five at the time, a late age to start
childbearing when noble girls routinely married in their early teens
and began having babies soon thereafter. She may well have suffered
miscarriages or stillbirths, for in 1453 she obtained a papal
dispensation to eat eggs and meat in Lent because she was "weakened
by former illnesses and the birth of children." It was not until June
1456 that Anne Neville was born, also at Warwick Castle.
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
> sources are cited at the bottom of the above url.
>

That's the problem, though, isn't it? We don't know whether Anne
Beauchamp had difficulty conceiving or just bringing pregnancies to a
successful conclusion. The papal indult hints at the latter. So,
perhaps, does the name of the first surviving child. Isabel was the
name of Anne Beauchamp's mother. It's quite likely that the first
girls' names the couple would have gone for would have been Margaret
(for the Queen) and Alice (for Richard Neville's mother, the Montagu
heiress), who was not only the paternal grandmother, but was still
alive and so had feelings and expectations to be considered.

Re your earlier post, Roslyn, which I'm sorry I didn;t get a chance
to reply to before, I think it is Alison Weir we have to "thank" for
the idea that George and Isabel's first child was named Anne. The
baby was, according to the contemporary sources, born dead and buried
at sea. I think we don't even know whether it was male or female. As
a stillborn child, it could not have been baptised and therefore
according to the customs of the time would have been nameless. Had
the child lived long enough to have been baptised and named, I'm sure
its body would have been kept for burial in consecrated ground when
they made land.

By the by, I know historians are still repeating it, but there's no
good reason to suppose Edward Earl of Warwick was born simple, and
many good reasons to suppose he wasn't. So I don't believe Clarence
wished at all to discard him in favour of his younger brother
Richard. In fact, at one stage before his attainder, he tried to
smuggle him abroad, either to get him out of Edward's reach or, as
Edward claimed, to use him as a recruiting tool since he himself was
in the Tower and not available to do publicity tours.

Marie

Interesting. PDA certainly sounds a possibility for Anne and Isabel Neville, but less likely for their mother, since she lived to a reasonable age, and I'm not aware of anything to suggest that she was in fragile health except that she only had the two children (which may have had other causes, of course).

Ann


----- Original Message ----
From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 April, 2008 1:18:16 AM
Subject: Re: The Ankaratte Twynho episode

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@.. .> wrote:

> I've often wondered why she gave birth there as well, Eileen.
>
> I personally can't see TB as an explanation for Isabel's death. When
> I first became interested in Richard III when I was at school, I
> read Kendall's suggestion that Isabel probably died of TB like Anne.
> His argument, though, didn't seem to be based on anything more
> than 'Anne was frail and succumbed to TB; Isabel also died young, so
> probably the same congenital weakness.'
>
> Anyway, one of the first things I did was raid my mum's pre-War
> nursing textbooks to find out more about TB, and one of the things I
> learned is that it causes infertility. In other words, it is highly
> unlikely that a woman so advanced with TB could have got pregnant,
> never mind carried the baby until it was viable for survival ex
> utero. The family history I've done in more recent years has
> confirmed this for me. I've found two TB deaths, and in each case a
> period of some years' infertility beforehand.
>
> In Anne's case there is at least an early (though by no means
> contemporary) source (ie Buck) for her having died of a consumption -
> which can really be any wasting disease - and the progress of her
> illness fits TB quite well.

As you note, Marie, "consumption" could mean any wasting disease,
including what we now know as diabetes, until well into the 19th
century, when the term pretty well became specific to tuberculosis.

My thought is that Anne and Isabel Neville, and their mother before
them, suffered from congenital heart disease, probably patent ductus
arteriosus, which is genetically linked.

In PDA a blood vessel which, in an unborn child connects the aorta to
the pulmonary artery so that circulation bypasses the lungs. It is
essential to fetal circulation but it should close in in the first few
hours after birth so that blood flows through the lungs to be oxygenated.

If it does not close, a set of ever-worsening symptoms appear as the
child grows. They include "failure to thrive" -- being delicate,
frail, and

* Chest pain
* Congestive heart failure
* Cyanosis
* Fainting (syncope) / dizziness
* Heart murmurs
* Palpitations

People with a patent (open) ductus arteriosus are prone to infections
leading to endocarditis, and before modern-day medicine with
antibiotics and surgery, they often died in their early adulthood.
They were susceptible to endocarditis from infections that normal
people would shake off. And towards the end they sometimes had
coughing of blood -- pulmonary hemorrhages -- due to the high blood
pressure in their lungs.

Here's a link to one article on the subject, and there are many more
online:

http://www.cincinna tichildrens. org/health/ heart-encycloped ia/anomalies/ pda.htm

I think PDA could explain the deaths of Isabel and Anne Neville as
well as tuberculosis does, and doctors of their time would not have
been able to tell one condition from the other.

Clarence's accusation against Ankarette
> Twynyho may be mad, but it does give us some very useful data. Isabel
> gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that date
> she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks after
> the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever. Again, I
> like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother took
> sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather' s
> birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the family,
> my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take even
> longer.

The timing of the first symptoms of illness is just about classic for
postpartum infection, but the course of her illness is rather long to
be typical. However, if she had heart disease from PDA, the infection
could have been relatively mild and survivable in a healthy woman, but
in her case it turned into endocarditis, rather than peritonitis,
which is usually the cause of death in postpartum infection.

Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the Abbey
> infirmary in the first place.

> There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
> September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September to
> her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send the
> children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
> there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in the
> west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible that's
> what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever can
> bring on labour.

Perhaps she gave firth in the Abbey infirmary because complications
were expected or because she was in poor health or condition and was
expected to need the skills and supplies available there. That would
also fit with heart disease progressing into heart failure at the end
of pregnancy, though of course it doesn't exclude other possible
explanations.

And, against my theory, as I recall, the mother of Anne and Isabel,
the Countess of Warwick, lived into old age.

Katy

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
>
>. Isabel
> gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that date
> she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks after
> the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever

Its still puzzles me, why did she give birth in the infirmary? As I understand it, and I may
be wrong, abbey infirmaries catered more for the poorer of the community. They were
usually situated a little way from the main building, the Abbey in this case, for obvious
reasons. Why should a lady of Isobel's rank give birth there? The monks would have
attended/nursed the sick in these places. To give birth there seems most strange. Would
the monks there even have allowed a midwife in there? Come to think of it, even if Isobel
was sick beforehand, it still seems odd for her to be in the Abbey infirmary. I would have
thought they would have been pretty basic. People who were rich would have been sick in
their own beds and the docors come to them. Very mysterious.
Eileen









Again, I
> like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother took
> sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather's
> birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the family,
> my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take even
> longer.
>
> Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the Abbey
> infirmary in the first place. I wish I knew more about Clarence's
> movements in 1476. In the summer he was in Fotheringhay for the
> reinterment of his father and brother. Edward hung around
> Fotheringhay till after the middle of August; perhaps Clarence stayed
> with him. Edward then moved to Nottingham for a while, from there
> travelling on west into Worcestershire, going south through that
> county and then turning east through Oxfordshire towards Windsor,
> which he reached on 8th October. Edward and Clarence could have
> parted company in south Worcestershire, with Clarence making the
> short journey west to Tewkesbury whilst Edward headed for
> Oxfordshire. But I'm just speculating.
> There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
> September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September to
> her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send the
> children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
> there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in the
> west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible that's
> what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever can
> bring on labour.
> The other thing to bear in mind is that the couple were serious
> patrons of the Abbey so probably visited quite often. The Abbot had
> visited Warwick to be one of Edward of Warwick's godfathers the
> previous year. Also, this was not just any old infirmary, it was the
> NEW infirmary. Might this just have been part of the couple's
> patronage of the Abbey to have their baby born within the walls of
> its wonderful new infirmary? If they were prepared, they could have
> whatever midwives they wanted in place there, after all.
> These are just ideas. I only wish we knew more.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > happened in between, though.
> > > 1st Jan -baby Richard also died
> > > 4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial, and
> her
> > > funeral obsequies took place
> > > 5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
> > > During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the
> choir
> > > of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward
> pleading
> > > for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the
> Burgundian
> > > domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with Clarence,
> and
> > > that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
> > > 9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
> > > 13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the
> Burgundian
> > > crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
> > > February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate Clarence
> > > marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret
> offered
> > > Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
> > > ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his sister
> > > Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the
> French
> > > pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais with a
> > > small force to protect the town against French attack.
> > > Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French treaty
> with
> > > Louis.
> > > 6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who had
> > > allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years
> earlier,
> > > met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and the
> three
> > > disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people to
> rise
> > > against the king.
> > > Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took the
> > > great ducal palace of Hesdin.
> > > Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for
> Easter
> > > (Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
> > > Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in despair,
> > > appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English
> soldiers
> > > into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with offers
> to
> > > that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be waiting on
> the
> > > English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them.
> Hastings
> > > also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
> > > 9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to
> Somerset
> > > to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
> > > 12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm
> Clarence's
> > > retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
> > > arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter and
> her
> > > husband scurrying along behind.
> > > 13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
> > > 14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence
> turned
> > > her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and find
> > > lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
> > > 15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the
> Guildhall
> > > where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and forced
> her
> > > to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of ale
> > > mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby.
> Because
> > > the offence had to have been committed in the same county in
> which it
> > > was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick
> Castle,
> > > but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury Abbey
> and
> > > did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not
> Guilty,
> > > but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to the
> > > town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the
> town,
> > > where she was hanged.
> > > Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the 4th
> and
> > > 5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
> > > disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
> > > immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy was
> > > tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
> > > declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a
> last-
> > > minute pardon.
> > > The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar to a
> > > meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and
> Burdet's
> > > delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
> > > Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during the
> > > second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off from
> King
> > > Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause, Edward
> > > recalled Hastings from Calais.
> > > Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring. Louis
> wrote
> > > to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and whether
> > > Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to
> turn up
> > > at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was
> postponed
> > > till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the way
> all
> > > these different big issues, usually separated out in history
> books,
> > > were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what
> interplay
> > > there may have been. Anyone any ideas?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , oregonkaty
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "eileen"
> > > > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for
> Ankarette's
> > > > execution? Did George have
> > > > > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette
> poisened
> > > > Isobel and her baby, could
> > > > > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in childbirth
> or as
> > > a
> > > > result of, in those days.
> > > > > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as he?
> Or was
> > > > he off his head? Maybe
> > > > > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > > > > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no
> rank, but
> > > > her death, seems to me to
> > > > > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's
> execution.
> > > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we know.
> > > >
> > > > For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope her
> > > shade
> > > > forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically, she
> > > killed
> > > > Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have
> necessary to
> > > > poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother it
> with a
> > > > hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and
> leaving no
> > > > possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and the
> > > younger
> > > > the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/ should
> have
> > > been.
> > > >
> > > > I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected in
> the
> > > case
> > > > of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have been
> > > suspected
> > > > in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
> > > (Interestingly, I
> > > > have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's
> son.)
> > > > But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth by
> a few
> > > > weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many books,
> that
> > > > both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them,
> were not
> > > > especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory about
> that --
> > > > it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the mood for
> > > > crackpot conjectures.)
> > > >
> > > > And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the first
> > > place?
> > > > What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by their
> > > deaths?
> > > > Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a
> possible
> > > > motive?
> > > >
> > > > As usual, more questions than answers.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >. Isabel
> > gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that
date
> > she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks
after
> > the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever
>
> Its still puzzles me, why did she give birth in the infirmary? As
I understand it, and I may
> be wrong, abbey infirmaries catered more for the poorer of the
community. They were
> usually situated a little way from the main building, the Abbey in
this case, for obvious
> reasons. Why should a lady of Isobel's rank give birth there? The
monks would have
> attended/nursed the sick in these places. To give birth there
seems most strange. Would
> the monks there even have allowed a midwife in there? Come to
think of it, even if Isobel
> was sick beforehand, it still seems odd for her to be in the Abbey
infirmary. I would have
> thought they would have been pretty basic. People who were rich
would have been sick in
> their own beds and the docors come to them. Very mysterious.
> Eileen

When you say they catered more for the poor of the community, are you
perhaps thinking of monastic hospitals, ie where a monastery was set
up for the purpose of caring for travellers (and sick people with
nowhere else to stay)? The infirmary, or infirmarium, was something
different. All monastic houses had them, and they were the buildings
where their own sick or elderly members were cared for. Sometimes it
was the abbot or prior who was needing infirmary care, and I should
imagine that in the 15th century there were private rooms for these
people.

Isabel evidently wasn't the first noblewoman to give birth in an
abbey infirmary. I see that Robert II of Scotland was born in the
infirmary of Paisley Abbey because his mother was taken there after
an accident during pregnancy. I think it is likely that Isabel had
intended returning to Warwick for the birth, in which case either
Richard was born before the start of her lying in, ie at least 4
weeks early, or Isabel's condition became such that she could not
risk the journey and had to lie in at Tewkesbury.

She appears to have completed her post-natal lying-in at the Abbey
infirmary, and interestingly she returned to Warwick immediately
afterwards, on 12th November, which seems to indicate she was not so
ill at that time. That doesn't tie in very well with childbirth
fever, although apparently that is what the abbey chronicle records
as the cause of her death.
Or maybe she was pretty ill when she returned to Warwick, but
Clarence was in denial.
She seems to have died on 22 December, but not buried until 9th
February. does anyone know of any other cases like this?

Marie


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Again, I
> > like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother
took
> > sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather's
> > birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the
family,
> > my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take
even
> > longer.
> >
> > Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the
Abbey
> > infirmary in the first place. I wish I knew more about Clarence's
> > movements in 1476. In the summer he was in Fotheringhay for the
> > reinterment of his father and brother. Edward hung around
> > Fotheringhay till after the middle of August; perhaps Clarence
stayed
> > with him. Edward then moved to Nottingham for a while, from there
> > travelling on west into Worcestershire, going south through that
> > county and then turning east through Oxfordshire towards Windsor,
> > which he reached on 8th October. Edward and Clarence could have
> > parted company in south Worcestershire, with Clarence making the
> > short journey west to Tewkesbury whilst Edward headed for
> > Oxfordshire. But I'm just speculating.
> > There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
> > September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September
to
> > her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send
the
> > children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
> > there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in
the
> > west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible
that's
> > what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever
can
> > bring on labour.
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that the couple were serious
> > patrons of the Abbey so probably visited quite often. The Abbot
had
> > visited Warwick to be one of Edward of Warwick's godfathers the
> > previous year. Also, this was not just any old infirmary, it was
the
> > NEW infirmary. Might this just have been part of the couple's
> > patronage of the Abbey to have their baby born within the walls
of
> > its wonderful new infirmary? If they were prepared, they could
have
> > whatever midwives they wanted in place there, after all.
> > These are just ideas. I only wish we knew more.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > happened in between, though.
> > > > 1st Jan -baby Richard also died
> > > > 4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial,
and
> > her
> > > > funeral obsequies took place
> > > > 5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
> > > > During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the
> > choir
> > > > of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward
> > pleading
> > > > for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the
> > Burgundian
> > > > domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with
Clarence,
> > and
> > > > that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
> > > > 9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
> > > > 13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the
> > Burgundian
> > > > crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
> > > > February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate
Clarence
> > > > marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret
> > offered
> > > > Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
> > > > ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his
sister
> > > > Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the
> > French
> > > > pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais
with a
> > > > small force to protect the town against French attack.
> > > > Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French
treaty
> > with
> > > > Louis.
> > > > 6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who
had
> > > > allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years
> > earlier,
> > > > met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and
the
> > three
> > > > disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people
to
> > rise
> > > > against the king.
> > > > Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took
the
> > > > great ducal palace of Hesdin.
> > > > Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for
> > Easter
> > > > (Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
> > > > Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in
despair,
> > > > appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English
> > soldiers
> > > > into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with
offers
> > to
> > > > that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be
waiting on
> > the
> > > > English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them.
> > Hastings
> > > > also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
> > > > 9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to
> > Somerset
> > > > to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
> > > > 12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm
> > Clarence's
> > > > retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
> > > > arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter
and
> > her
> > > > husband scurrying along behind.
> > > > 13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
> > > > 14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence
> > turned
> > > > her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and
find
> > > > lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
> > > > 15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the
> > Guildhall
> > > > where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and
forced
> > her
> > > > to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of
ale
> > > > mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby.
> > Because
> > > > the offence had to have been committed in the same county in
> > which it
> > > > was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick
> > Castle,
> > > > but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury
Abbey
> > and
> > > > did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not
> > Guilty,
> > > > but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to
the
> > > > town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the
> > town,
> > > > where she was hanged.
> > > > Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the
4th
> > and
> > > > 5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
> > > > disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
> > > > immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy
was
> > > > tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
> > > > declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a
> > last-
> > > > minute pardon.
> > > > The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar
to a
> > > > meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and
> > Burdet's
> > > > delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
> > > > Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during
the
> > > > second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off
from
> > King
> > > > Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause,
Edward
> > > > recalled Hastings from Calais.
> > > > Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring.
Louis
> > wrote
> > > > to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and
whether
> > > > Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to
> > turn up
> > > > at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was
> > postponed
> > > > till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the
way
> > all
> > > > these different big issues, usually separated out in history
> > books,
> > > > were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what
> > interplay
> > > > there may have been. Anyone any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , oregonkaty
> > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "eileen"
> > > > > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for
> > Ankarette's
> > > > > execution? Did George have
> > > > > > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette
> > poisened
> > > > > Isobel and her baby, could
> > > > > > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in
childbirth
> > or as
> > > > a
> > > > > result of, in those days.
> > > > > > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as
he?
> > Or was
> > > > > he off his head? Maybe
> > > > > > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > > > > > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no
> > rank, but
> > > > > her death, seems to me to
> > > > > > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's
> > execution.
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we
know.
> > > > >
> > > > > For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope
her
> > > > shade
> > > > > forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically,
she
> > > > killed
> > > > > Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have
> > necessary to
> > > > > poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother
it
> > with a
> > > > > hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and
> > leaving no
> > > > > possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and
the
> > > > younger
> > > > > the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/
should
> > have
> > > > been.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected
in
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have
been
> > > > suspected
> > > > > in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
> > > > (Interestingly, I
> > > > > have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's
> > son.)
> > > > > But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth
by
> > a few
> > > > > weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many
books,
> > that
> > > > > both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them,
> > were not
> > > > > especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory
about
> > that --
> > > > > it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the
mood for
> > > > > crackpot conjectures.)
> > > > >
> > > > > And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the
first
> > > > place?
> > > > > What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by
their
> > > > deaths?
> > > > > Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a
> > possible
> > > > > motive?
> > > > >
> > > > > As usual, more questions than answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's death and burial.
george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive. especially if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the coroner's role with regards to a murder.
http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html

i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather conditions a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >. Isabel
> > gave birth on 5th October and was well until the 10th. On that
date
> > she took sick with the illness from which she died seven weeks
after
> > the birth. It sounds to me like classic childbirth fever
>
> Its still puzzles me, why did she give birth in the infirmary? As
I understand it, and I may
> be wrong, abbey infirmaries catered more for the poorer of the
community. They were
> usually situated a little way from the main building, the Abbey in
this case, for obvious
> reasons. Why should a lady of Isobel's rank give birth there? The
monks would have
> attended/nursed the sick in these places. To give birth there
seems most strange. Would
> the monks there even have allowed a midwife in there? Come to
think of it, even if Isobel
> was sick beforehand, it still seems odd for her to be in the Abbey
infirmary. I would have
> thought they would have been pretty basic. People who were rich
would have been sick in
> their own beds and the docors come to them. Very mysterious.
> Eileen

When you say they catered more for the poor of the community, are you
perhaps thinking of monastic hospitals, ie where a monastery was set
up for the purpose of caring for travellers (and sick people with
nowhere else to stay)? The infirmary, or infirmarium, was something
different. All monastic houses had them, and they were the buildings
where their own sick or elderly members were cared for. Sometimes it
was the abbot or prior who was needing infirmary care, and I should
imagine that in the 15th century there were private rooms for these
people.

Isabel evidently wasn't the first noblewoman to give birth in an
abbey infirmary. I see that Robert II of Scotland was born in the
infirmary of Paisley Abbey because his mother was taken there after
an accident during pregnancy. I think it is likely that Isabel had
intended returning to Warwick for the birth, in which case either
Richard was born before the start of her lying in, ie at least 4
weeks early, or Isabel's condition became such that she could not
risk the journey and had to lie in at Tewkesbury.

She appears to have completed her post-natal lying-in at the Abbey
infirmary, and interestingly she returned to Warwick immediately
afterwards, on 12th November, which seems to indicate she was not so
ill at that time. That doesn't tie in very well with childbirth
fever, although apparently that is what the abbey chronicle records
as the cause of her death.
Or maybe she was pretty ill when she returned to Warwick, but
Clarence was in denial.
She seems to have died on 22 December, but not buried until 9th
February. does anyone know of any other cases like this?

Marie

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Again, I
> > like to compare my family history notes. My great-grandmother
took
> > sick with puerperal fever on the fifth day after my grandfather's
> > birth; she died just two days later. On the other side of the
family,
> > my grandmother lingered for five weeks. I believe it can take
even
> > longer.
> >
> > Of course, none of this tells us why Isabel gave birth in the
Abbey
> > infirmary in the first place. I wish I knew more about Clarence's
> > movements in 1476. In the summer he was in Fotheringhay for the
> > reinterment of his father and brother. Edward hung around
> > Fotheringhay till after the middle of August; perhaps Clarence
stayed
> > with him. Edward then moved to Nottingham for a while, from there
> > travelling on west into Worcestershire, going south through that
> > county and then turning east through Oxfordshire towards Windsor,
> > which he reached on 8th October. Edward and Clarence could have
> > parted company in south Worcestershire, with Clarence making the
> > short journey west to Tewkesbury whilst Edward headed for
> > Oxfordshire. But I'm just speculating.
> > There was evidently some sort of pox epidemic in the country that
> > September. Elizabeth Stonor wrote from London on 12th September
to
> > her husband, who was at home in Oxfordshire, asking him to send
the
> > children to her in the capital as the pox was over and done with
> > there. So we have an epidemic that was definitely still active in
the
> > west country close to the middle of September. Is it possible
that's
> > what laid Isabel in the Abbey infirmary? And any kind of a fever
can
> > bring on labour.
> > The other thing to bear in mind is that the couple were serious
> > patrons of the Abbey so probably visited quite often. The Abbot
had
> > visited Warwick to be one of Edward of Warwick's godfathers the
> > previous year. Also, this was not just any old infirmary, it was
the
> > NEW infirmary. Might this just have been part of the couple's
> > patronage of the Abbey to have their baby born within the walls
of
> > its wonderful new infirmary? If they were prepared, they could
have
> > whatever midwives they wanted in place there, after all.
> > These are just ideas. I only wish we knew more.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > happened in between, though.
> > > > 1st Jan -baby Richard also died
> > > > 4th Jan - Isabel's body was brought to Tewkesbury for burial,
and
> > her
> > > > funeral obsequies took place
> > > > 5 Jan - Charles the Bold died at Nancy
> > > > During January - Isabel's body remained lying in state in the
> > choir
> > > > of Tewkesbury Abbey, whilst Margaret of York wrote to Edward
> > pleading
> > > > for his help against Louis, who was planning to seize the
> > Burgundian
> > > > domains. Margaret suggested Edward send an army with
Clarence,
> > and
> > > > that Clarence marry Mary of Burgundy.
> > > > 9 Feb - Isabel's body was finally laid in its vault.
> > > > 13 Feb - A great council met at Westminster to discuss the
> > Burgundian
> > > > crisis. Gloucester and Clarence were imminently expected.
> > > > February - At the council, Edward refused to contemplate
Clarence
> > > > marrying Mary of Burgundy. The messenger he sent to Margaret
> > offered
> > > > Rivers instead, which everyone on the continent thought was
> > > > ridiculously beneath Mary's dignity. Edward offered his
sister
> > > > Margaret no military aid because he did not wish to upset the
> > French
> > > > pension/marriage, but he did send Hastings back to Calais
with a
> > > > small force to protect the town against French attack.
> > > > Early March - Edward's ammbassadors confirmed the French
treaty
> > with
> > > > Louis.
> > > > 6 March - John Stacy and Thomas Blake, the astrologers who
had
> > > > allegedly cast Edward's horoscope for Clarence some years
> > earlier,
> > > > met Clarence's retainer, Sir Thomas Burdett, in Holborn and
the
> > three
> > > > disseminated seditious leaflets in London encouraging people
to
> > rise
> > > > against the king.
> > > > Louis marched towards Flanders, and at the end of March took
the
> > > > great ducal palace of Hesdin.
> > > > Beginning April - The Great Council presumably broke up for
> > Easter
> > > > (Easter Sundy was the 6th); Clarence went home to Warwick.
> > > > Louis moved on towards Boulogne. Mary of Burgundy, in
despair,
> > > > appealed to Hastings directly to send some of his English
> > soldiers
> > > > into the town. He sent repeated messages to Boulogne with
offers
> > to
> > > > that effect, and even offered to arrange for men to be
waiting on
> > the
> > > > English coast if Boulogne sent its ships over to fetch them.
> > Hastings
> > > > also sent some artillery to one of Margaret's castles.
> > > > 9 or 1o April - Clarence sent two of his retainers down to
> > Somerset
> > > > to arrest Ankarette and bring her back to Warwick.
> > > > 12 April - Louis arrived at Boulogne.Meanwhile, at 2 pm
> > Clarence's
> > > > retainers arrived at Ankarette's home near Frome in Somerset,
> > > > arrested her and took her northwards, her married daughter
and
> > her
> > > > husband scurrying along behind.
> > > > 13 April - The siege of Boulogne began.
> > > > 14 April - At 8 pm Ankarette reached Warwick Castle. Clarence
> > turned
> > > > her daughter and the husband away and told them to go and
find
> > > > lodgings in Stratford-on-Avon.
> > > > 15 April - 6 am Clarence had Ankarette dragged into the
> > Guildhall
> > > > where routine sessions of the peace were being held, and
forced
> > her
> > > > to be tried and convicted for having given Isabel a drink of
ale
> > > > mixed with poison 4 days after the birth of her last baby.
> > Because
> > > > the offence had to have been committed in the same county in
> > which it
> > > > was tried, Clarence claimed that this had happened at Warwick
> > Castle,
> > > > but Isabel had had the baby in the infirmary of Tewkesbury
Abbey
> > and
> > > > did not return to Warwick until much later. She pleaded Not
> > Guilty,
> > > > but for fear of Clarence, she was convicted. She was taken to
the
> > > > town gaol, and then drawn to the gallows at Myton outside the
> > town,
> > > > where she was hanged.
> > > > Perhaps Clarence was back in London by May, because on the
4th
> > and
> > > > 5th Stacy, Blake and Burdett were allegedly meeting again and
> > > > disseminating their seditionus literature. They were arrested
> > > > immediately afterwards, tried and convicted of treason (Stacy
was
> > > > tortured). Stacy an Burdett were executed on 20th May, after
> > > > declaring their innocence from the scaffold; Blake received a
> > last-
> > > > minute pardon.
> > > > The next day, 21st May, Clarence brought a Franciscan friar
to a
> > > > meeting of the royal council and had him read out Stacy and
> > Burdet's
> > > > delcaration of innocence. Then the pair walked out.
> > > > Clarence was arrested and sent to the Tower some time during
the
> > > > second week of June. At the same time, following a tip-off
from
> > King
> > > > Louis about the help he had given the Burgundian cause,
Edward
> > > > recalled Hastings from Calais.
> > > > Edward, incidentally, seems to have been ill that spring.
Louis
> > wrote
> > > > to Hastings asking him bluntly whether this was so, and
whether
> > > > Edward was in control of his own government. Edward failed to
> > turn up
> > > > at Windsor for the Garter ceermony on 23rd April, so it was
> > postponed
> > > > till 10th May, when he again failed to appear.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry this is very long, but I think it's interesting the
way
> > all
> > > > these different big issues, usually separated out in history
> > books,
> > > > were actually going on simultaneously, and I wonder what
> > interplay
> > > > there may have been. Anyone any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , oregonkaty
> > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "eileen"
> > > > > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im curious about this. What was the true reason for
> > Ankarette's
> > > > > execution? Did George have
> > > > > > a hidden agenda. He could not truely believe Ankarette
> > poisened
> > > > > Isobel and her baby, could
> > > > > > he? It was all too common for a woman to die in
childbirth
> > or as
> > > > a
> > > > > result of, in those days.
> > > > > > Was he trying to show to Edward he had as much power as
he?
> > Or was
> > > > > he off his head? Maybe
> > > > > > Im not seeing the full picture here.
> > > > > > Ankarette seems to have been an insignificant person, no
> > rank, but
> > > > > her death, seems to me to
> > > > > > have set of a chain of events culminating in George's
> > execution.
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm curious, too. There must be more to all this than we
know.
> > > > >
> > > > > For one thing, the accusation that Ankarette Twynho (I hope
her
> > > > shade
> > > > > forgives the misspelling)is very odd. That, specifically,
she
> > > > killed
> > > > > Clarence's infant son by poisoning. It would not have
> > necessary to
> > > > > poison an infant. It is a very simple matter to smother
it
> > with a
> > > > > hand over the nose and mouth -- simple, quick, quiet, and
> > leaving no
> > > > > possible smell of poison. Infant mortality was high, and
the
> > > > younger
> > > > > the baby, the more unquestioned the death would have/
should
> > have
> > > > been.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can understand that poisoning might have been suspected
in
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > of Isabel Neville. Sort of. Poisoning seems to have
been
> > > > suspected
> > > > > in many sudden deaths of seemingly healthy persons.
> > > > (Interestingly, I
> > > > > have never seen it considered in the death of Richard III's
> > son.)
> > > > > But Isabel's death was not sudden. It followed childbirth
by
> > a few
> > > > > weeks, at most. And there is the impression, in many
books,
> > that
> > > > > both Isabel and Anne Neville, and their mother before them,
> > were not
> > > > > especially hale and hearty ladies. (Ask me my theory
about
> > that --
> > > > > it is not tuberculosis -- next time the forum is in the
mood for
> > > > > crackpot conjectures.)
> > > > >
> > > > > And why kill Isabel, or the baby, for that matter, in the
first
> > > > place?
> > > > > What obstacle was removed or what end was achieved, by
their
> > > > deaths?
> > > > > Clarence made an official accusation -- did he mention a
> > possible
> > > > > motive?
> > > > >
> > > > > As usual, more questions than answers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's death
and burial.
> george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive. especially
if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her
burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the coroner's
role with regards to a murder.
> http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html
>
> i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather conditions
a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.
>
> roslyn


Thank you for finding that article and bringing it to our attention,
Roslyn. Fascinating.

Perhaps the need for the coroner's inquest accounts for why Isabel lay
unburied for weeks after her death. But did those rules apply to royalty?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's
death
> and burial.
> > george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive.
especially
> if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her
> burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the
coroner's
> role with regards to a murder.
> > http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html
> >
> > i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather
conditions
> a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.
> >
> > roslyn
>
>
> Thank you for finding that article and bringing it to our attention,
> Roslyn. Fascinating.
>
> Perhaps the need for the coroner's inquest accounts for why Isabel
lay
> unburied for weeks after her death. But did those rules apply to
royalty?
>
> Katy


It is a very interesting subject, and I can highly recommend
coroners' depositions as a fascinating source of social history. Many
do survive for this period, as well.

Sadly, I don't think this can possibly be the explanation for the
delay in Isabel's burial. When I was doing my own family history I
encountered no fewer than three deaths of close collaterals for which
inquests were held, and so I had to do a bit of reading up on the
subject.
The reason there were so many coroners for each county is that they
were expected to turn up pretty rapidly after the death because, of
course, there was no refrigeration and the inquests were public
proceedings held in the presence of the corpse, which had to be not
too noisome and still sufficently intact for any external signs of
injury to be visible. This was still true at the time of the inquests
I was looking at in the 19th century. In the 15th century there
wouldn't even have been a delay for a post-mortem dissection.

If Clarence had cried foul play from the start, a coroner would have
been on hand within days - probably less since Warwick is the county
town and Clarence was the most important man in the county.
Also, the coroners were appointed at county level, if Clarence wanted
an inquest Isabel's remains would have had to stay in Warwickshire
until it had taken place. It is possible, therefore, that there was
an inquest held, but if so it was before the body was brought to
Tewkesbury and was not the cause of the 35-day gap between the end of
the funeral obsequies and the burial.
Anyway, the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, which describes Isabel's
obsequies, her long lying in state, and her removal to the vault,
makes no mention of any inquest. Had a coroners' court found foul
play, then I think criminal proceedings would have followed
automatically (does anyone know exactly how that would have worked?),
but there is no suggestion that Ankarette's arrest followed a verdict
of poisoning from a coroner's court.

Does anyone know of any precedents for this sort of delay with
burial? I can only assume it was possible in this case because the
winter was very cold, but it does look to me as though Isabel wasn't
placed in the vault until Clarence absolutely had to leave for London
for that Great Council. Procedural reasons, or psychological?

Marie

>

did george attend the marriage of his nephew, prince richard to anne mowbray? this marriage occurred in jan of 77, just under a month after isabel died, and a week or so after geo's son richard passed on.

if george did attend the wedding this could account for the delay in burial too.

as for delayed burials, i've seen/read assorted accounts of delayed interment, but usually it had to do with moving the remains of the deceased from a great distance from home to the burial place.

if you are easily grossed out, read no further. the info below has a high ick factor.

with these delayed burials of remains, the body was usually boiled away and only the bones were sent back home to be buried in smaller caskets. this was often done with people who were on pilgramage to holy sites, or who were visiting foreign lands.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's
death
> and burial.
> > george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive.
especially
> if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her
> burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the
coroner's
> role with regards to a murder.
> > http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html
> >
> > i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather
conditions
> a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.
> >
> > roslyn
>
>
> Thank you for finding that article and bringing it to our attention,
> Roslyn. Fascinating.
>
> Perhaps the need for the coroner's inquest accounts for why Isabel
lay
> unburied for weeks after her death. But did those rules apply to
royalty?
>
> Katy

It is a very interesting subject, and I can highly recommend
coroners' depositions as a fascinating source of social history. Many
do survive for this period, as well.

Sadly, I don't think this can possibly be the explanation for the
delay in Isabel's burial. When I was doing my own family history I
encountered no fewer than three deaths of close collaterals for which
inquests were held, and so I had to do a bit of reading up on the
subject.
The reason there were so many coroners for each county is that they
were expected to turn up pretty rapidly after the death because, of
course, there was no refrigeration and the inquests were public
proceedings held in the presence of the corpse, which had to be not
too noisome and still sufficently intact for any external signs of
injury to be visible. This was still true at the time of the inquests
I was looking at in the 19th century. In the 15th century there
wouldn't even have been a delay for a post-mortem dissection.

If Clarence had cried foul play from the start, a coroner would have
been on hand within days - probably less since Warwick is the county
town and Clarence was the most important man in the county.
Also, the coroners were appointed at county level, if Clarence wanted
an inquest Isabel's remains would have had to stay in Warwickshire
until it had taken place. It is possible, therefore, that there was
an inquest held, but if so it was before the body was brought to
Tewkesbury and was not the cause of the 35-day gap between the end of
the funeral obsequies and the burial.
Anyway, the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, which describes Isabel's
obsequies, her long lying in state, and her removal to the vault,
makes no mention of any inquest. Had a coroners' court found foul
play, then I think criminal proceedings would have followed
automatically (does anyone know exactly how that would have worked?),
but there is no suggestion that Ankarette's arrest followed a verdict
of poisoning from a coroner's court.

Does anyone know of any precedents for this sort of delay with
burial? I can only assume it was possible in this case because the
winter was very cold, but it does look to me as though Isabel wasn't
placed in the vault until Clarence absolutely had to leave for London
for that Great Council. Procedural reasons, or psychological?

Marie

>

cancel the question of geo attending the wedding.

he did not. he was at the time flinging his accusations of sorcery against woodville and e4, who he also accused of being a necromancer. the source for this info is halstead. vol 1. pg 330

obviously, george was slipping his gears with grief, and this could be the main reason for the delayed burial. he just couldn't handle the thought she was gone.

real or imagined, geo did believe isabel had been murdered.
i think finding out who was the coroner for this district might lead you to the discovery of something. geo would have had the power to request/demand an inquistion into isabel's death.

therefore, paperwork would have existed at one time. the main question remaining is: does it still exist?

roslyn

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
did george attend the marriage of his nephew, prince richard to anne mowbray? this marriage occurred in jan of 77, just under a month after isabel died, and a week or so after geo's son richard passed on.

if george did attend the wedding this could account for the delay in burial too.

as for delayed burials, i've seen/read assorted accounts of delayed interment, but usually it had to do with moving the remains of the deceased from a great distance from home to the burial place.

if you are easily grossed out, read no further. the info below has a high ick factor.

with these delayed burials of remains, the body was usually boiled away and only the bones were sent back home to be buried in smaller caskets. this was often done with people who were on pilgramage to holy sites, or who were visiting foreign lands.

roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's
death
> and burial.
> > george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive.
especially
> if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her
> burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the
coroner's
> role with regards to a murder.
> > http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html
> >
> > i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather
conditions
> a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.
> >
> > roslyn
>
>
> Thank you for finding that article and bringing it to our attention,
> Roslyn. Fascinating.
>
> Perhaps the need for the coroner's inquest accounts for why Isabel
lay
> unburied for weeks after her death. But did those rules apply to
royalty?
>
> Katy

It is a very interesting subject, and I can highly recommend
coroners' depositions as a fascinating source of social history. Many
do survive for this period, as well.

Sadly, I don't think this can possibly be the explanation for the
delay in Isabel's burial. When I was doing my own family history I
encountered no fewer than three deaths of close collaterals for which
inquests were held, and so I had to do a bit of reading up on the
subject.
The reason there were so many coroners for each county is that they
were expected to turn up pretty rapidly after the death because, of
course, there was no refrigeration and the inquests were public
proceedings held in the presence of the corpse, which had to be not
too noisome and still sufficently intact for any external signs of
injury to be visible. This was still true at the time of the inquests
I was looking at in the 19th century. In the 15th century there
wouldn't even have been a delay for a post-mortem dissection.

If Clarence had cried foul play from the start, a coroner would have
been on hand within days - probably less since Warwick is the county
town and Clarence was the most important man in the county.
Also, the coroners were appointed at county level, if Clarence wanted
an inquest Isabel's remains would have had to stay in Warwickshire
until it had taken place. It is possible, therefore, that there was
an inquest held, but if so it was before the body was brought to
Tewkesbury and was not the cause of the 35-day gap between the end of
the funeral obsequies and the burial.
Anyway, the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, which describes Isabel's
obsequies, her long lying in state, and her removal to the vault,
makes no mention of any inquest. Had a coroners' court found foul
play, then I think criminal proceedings would have followed
automatically (does anyone know exactly how that would have worked?),
but there is no suggestion that Ankarette's arrest followed a verdict
of poisoning from a coroner's court.

Does anyone know of any precedents for this sort of delay with
burial? I can only assume it was possible in this case because the
winter was very cold, but it does look to me as though Isabel wasn't
placed in the vault until Clarence absolutely had to leave for London
for that Great Council. Procedural reasons, or psychological?

Marie

>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> did george attend the marriage of his nephew, prince richard to
anne mowbray? this marriage occurred in jan of 77, just under a month
after isabel died, and a week or so after geo's son richard passed
on.
>
> if george did attend the wedding this could account for the delay
in burial too.


The thing is, there was no delay as regards the funeral obsequies.
Isabel's remains stayed at Warwick until early Jan, then were brought
to Tewkesbury, where they arrived on 4th. There then followed the
usual 3-days of funeral services, at which the Duke was certainly
present. His chapel contributed to the singing, and members of his
household kept vigil by the hearse during the night. With the other
funerals I've read about for this period, the burial takes place
immediately after the funeral services. It would seem that this was
what had been intended, since the last mass, on 7th Jan, was the
Requiem Mass, praying for eternal rest for the deceased. But Isabel
was left lying in the choir of the abbey church for a further 35
days, with solemn exequies every day. Only then was she laid in the
vault, after the morning mass.
I can't help thinking Clarence just couldn't bear to let go of her,
but I don;t know for sure when he left Tewkesbury. And perhaps this
was not so uncommon after all?

Marie

>
> as for delayed burials, i've seen/read assorted accounts of
delayed interment, but usually it had to do with moving the remains
of the deceased from a great distance from home to the burial place.
>
> if you are easily grossed out, read no further. the info below
has a high ick factor.
>
> with these delayed burials of remains, the body was usually
boiled away and only the bones were sent back home to be buried in
smaller caskets. this was often done with people who were on
pilgramage to holy sites, or who were visiting foreign lands.
>
> roslyn
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's
> death
> > and burial.
> > > george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive.
> especially
> > if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her
> > burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the
> coroner's
> > role with regards to a murder.
> > > http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html
> > >
> > > i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather
> conditions
> > a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> >
> >
> > Thank you for finding that article and bringing it to our
attention,
> > Roslyn. Fascinating.
> >
> > Perhaps the need for the coroner's inquest accounts for why
Isabel
> lay
> > unburied for weeks after her death. But did those rules apply to
> royalty?
> >
> > Katy
>
> It is a very interesting subject, and I can highly recommend
> coroners' depositions as a fascinating source of social history.
Many
> do survive for this period, as well.
>
> Sadly, I don't think this can possibly be the explanation for the
> delay in Isabel's burial. When I was doing my own family history I
> encountered no fewer than three deaths of close collaterals for
which
> inquests were held, and so I had to do a bit of reading up on the
> subject.
> The reason there were so many coroners for each county is that they
> were expected to turn up pretty rapidly after the death because, of
> course, there was no refrigeration and the inquests were public
> proceedings held in the presence of the corpse, which had to be not
> too noisome and still sufficently intact for any external signs of
> injury to be visible. This was still true at the time of the
inquests
> I was looking at in the 19th century. In the 15th century there
> wouldn't even have been a delay for a post-mortem dissection.
>
> If Clarence had cried foul play from the start, a coroner would
have
> been on hand within days - probably less since Warwick is the
county
> town and Clarence was the most important man in the county.
> Also, the coroners were appointed at county level, if Clarence
wanted
> an inquest Isabel's remains would have had to stay in Warwickshire
> until it had taken place. It is possible, therefore, that there was
> an inquest held, but if so it was before the body was brought to
> Tewkesbury and was not the cause of the 35-day gap between the end
of
> the funeral obsequies and the burial.
> Anyway, the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, which describes Isabel's
> obsequies, her long lying in state, and her removal to the vault,
> makes no mention of any inquest. Had a coroners' court found foul
> play, then I think criminal proceedings would have followed
> automatically (does anyone know exactly how that would have
worked?),
> but there is no suggestion that Ankarette's arrest followed a
verdict
> of poisoning from a coroner's court.
>
> Does anyone know of any precedents for this sort of delay with
> burial? I can only assume it was possible in this case because the
> winter was very cold, but it does look to me as though Isabel
wasn't
> placed in the vault until Clarence absolutely had to leave for
London
> for that Great Council. Procedural reasons, or psychological?
>
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> did george attend the marriage of his nephew, prince richard to
anne mowbray? this marriage occurred in jan of 77, just under a month
after isabel died, and a week or so after geo's son richard passed
on.

No, it was the following year, just before Clarence's attainder.
Edward took advantage of the fact that all the lords were present for
the parliament. Very peculiar.

Marie



>
> if george did attend the wedding this could account for the delay
in burial too.
>
> as for delayed burials, i've seen/read assorted accounts of
delayed interment, but usually it had to do with moving the remains
of the deceased from a great distance from home to the burial place.
>
> if you are easily grossed out, read no further. the info below
has a high ick factor.
>
> with these delayed burials of remains, the body was usually
boiled away and only the bones were sent back home to be buried in
smaller caskets. this was often done with people who were on
pilgramage to holy sites, or who were visiting foreign lands.
>
> roslyn
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > this essay might help explain the time period between isabel's
> death
> > and burial.
> > > george may have had to wait for the coroner to arrive.
> especially
> > if he was crying foul play from the time of her death until her
> > burial. the second part is where you'll find the info on the
> coroner's
> > role with regards to a murder.
> > > http://www.britannia.com/history/coroner1.html
> > >
> > > i have to wonder how much snow, and what other weather
> conditions
> > a rider would encounter from geo to the coroner and back again.
> > >
> > > roslyn
> >
> >
> > Thank you for finding that article and bringing it to our
attention,
> > Roslyn. Fascinating.
> >
> > Perhaps the need for the coroner's inquest accounts for why
Isabel
> lay
> > unburied for weeks after her death. But did those rules apply to
> royalty?
> >
> > Katy
>
> It is a very interesting subject, and I can highly recommend
> coroners' depositions as a fascinating source of social history.
Many
> do survive for this period, as well.
>
> Sadly, I don't think this can possibly be the explanation for the
> delay in Isabel's burial. When I was doing my own family history I
> encountered no fewer than three deaths of close collaterals for
which
> inquests were held, and so I had to do a bit of reading up on the
> subject.
> The reason there were so many coroners for each county is that they
> were expected to turn up pretty rapidly after the death because, of
> course, there was no refrigeration and the inquests were public
> proceedings held in the presence of the corpse, which had to be not
> too noisome and still sufficently intact for any external signs of
> injury to be visible. This was still true at the time of the
inquests
> I was looking at in the 19th century. In the 15th century there
> wouldn't even have been a delay for a post-mortem dissection.
>
> If Clarence had cried foul play from the start, a coroner would
have
> been on hand within days - probably less since Warwick is the
county
> town and Clarence was the most important man in the county.
> Also, the coroners were appointed at county level, if Clarence
wanted
> an inquest Isabel's remains would have had to stay in Warwickshire
> until it had taken place. It is possible, therefore, that there was
> an inquest held, but if so it was before the body was brought to
> Tewkesbury and was not the cause of the 35-day gap between the end
of
> the funeral obsequies and the burial.
> Anyway, the Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle, which describes Isabel's
> obsequies, her long lying in state, and her removal to the vault,
> makes no mention of any inquest. Had a coroners' court found foul
> play, then I think criminal proceedings would have followed
> automatically (does anyone know exactly how that would have
worked?),
> but there is no suggestion that Ankarette's arrest followed a
verdict
> of poisoning from a coroner's court.
>
> Does anyone know of any precedents for this sort of delay with
> burial? I can only assume it was possible in this case because the
> winter was very cold, but it does look to me as though Isabel
wasn't
> placed in the vault until Clarence absolutely had to leave for
London
> for that Great Council. Procedural reasons, or psychological?
>
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>