The British academic who maintainted that Edward IV probably/possibly was illegitimately conceived, in my opinion was out to make a name for himself and to create mischief. He created enough noise to have a TV program made about his claims. I think this program was irresponsible as it was also dishonestly portraying aspects of the matter.
One kind person in New Zealand already has suplied me with details further weakening the claims but I would like to hear from people what they think about the matter. In my website
http://www.genealogics.org under "Easy Name Search" enter Michael Abney-Hastings and the one born in 1942 has my description of what my believes are in regards to this matter.
I believe this claim should be refuted as much as possible if it is wrong as by proclaiming this as a fact only harm will be done as the story will be believed by many people.
With Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Request input re- paternity Edward IV
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Pierre Aronax
Re: Request input re- paternity Edward IV
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:000a01c48d5d$c5e65ca0$c3b4fea9@email...
and to create mischief. He created enough noise to have a TV program made
about his claims. I think this program was irresponsible as it was also
dishonestly portraying aspects of the matter.
about the matter. In my website
believes are in regards to this matter.
believed by many people.
Completely agree with you on that. Anyway, only legal paternity maters in
succession, not biological paternity, and the paternity of the Duke of York
can not be legally challenged today since he is dead.
Pierre
news:000a01c48d5d$c5e65ca0$c3b4fea9@email...
The British academic who maintainted that Edward IV probably/possibly was
illegitimately conceived, in my opinion was out to make a name for himself
and to create mischief. He created enough noise to have a TV program made
about his claims. I think this program was irresponsible as it was also
dishonestly portraying aspects of the matter.
One kind person in New Zealand already has suplied me with details further
weakening the claims but I would like to hear from people what they think
about the matter. In my website
http://www.genealogics.org under "Easy Name Search" enter Michael
Abney-Hastings and the one born in 1942 has my description of what my
believes are in regards to this matter.
I believe this claim should be refuted as much as possible if it is wrong
as by proclaiming this as a fact only harm will be done as the story will be
believed by many people.
Completely agree with you on that. Anyway, only legal paternity maters in
succession, not biological paternity, and the paternity of the Duke of York
can not be legally challenged today since he is dead.
Pierre
-
Ian Cairns
Re: Request input re- paternity Edward IV
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000a01c48d5d$c5e65ca0$c3b4fea9@email...
I agree with your argument. Would it assist to copy and paste the text into
this thread?
Best wishes
Ian
news:000a01c48d5d$c5e65ca0$c3b4fea9@email...
The British academic who maintainted that Edward IV probably/possibly was
illegitimately conceived, in my opinion was out to make a name for himself
and to create mischief. He created enough noise to have a TV program made
about his claims. I think this program was irresponsible as it was also
dishonestly portraying aspects of the matter.
One kind person in New Zealand already has suplied me with details further
weakening the claims but I would like to hear from people what they think
about the matter. In my website
http://www.genealogics.org under "Easy Name Search" enter Michael
Abney-Hastings and the one born in 1942 has my description of what my
believes are in regards to this matter.
I believe this claim should be refuted as much as possible if it is wrong
as by proclaiming this as a fact only harm will be done as the story will
be believed by many people.
I agree with your argument. Would it assist to copy and paste the text into
this thread?
Best wishes
Ian
-
marshall kirk
Re: Request input re- paternity Edward IV
Without staking out an explicit position on the subject, I might say
that spreading rumors to the effect that a monarch wasn't really his
ostensible father's son seems to me to have been a not-uncommon smear
technique of the period; more or less equivalent to the present-day
"Back in college, I saw him smoke pot," or for that matter the sort of
thing insinuated about an opposing political candidate in today's
push-polls.----As for the British academic's motivation, your "out to
make a name for himself" rings true in *my* ear. I believe I've
already registered my opinion of (some among) this generation of
academic historians, their predilection for revisionism, and the
career-related reason for that predilection.
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message news:<000a01c48d5d$c5e65ca0$c3b4fea9@email>...
that spreading rumors to the effect that a monarch wasn't really his
ostensible father's son seems to me to have been a not-uncommon smear
technique of the period; more or less equivalent to the present-day
"Back in college, I saw him smoke pot," or for that matter the sort of
thing insinuated about an opposing political candidate in today's
push-polls.----As for the British academic's motivation, your "out to
make a name for himself" rings true in *my* ear. I believe I've
already registered my opinion of (some among) this generation of
academic historians, their predilection for revisionism, and the
career-related reason for that predilection.
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote in message news:<000a01c48d5d$c5e65ca0$c3b4fea9@email>...
The British academic who maintainted that Edward IV probably/possibly was illegitimately conceived, in my opinion was out to make a name for himself and to create mischief. He created enough noise to have a TV program made about his claims. I think this program was irresponsible as it was also dishonestly portraying aspects of the matter.
One kind person in New Zealand already has suplied me with details further weakening the claims but I would like to hear from people what they think about the matter. In my website
http://www.genealogics.org under "Easy Name Search" enter Michael Abney-Hastings and the one born in 1942 has my description of what my believes are in regards to this matter.
I believe this claim should be refuted as much as possible if it is wrong as by proclaiming this as a fact only harm will be done as the story will be believed by many people.
With Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Ian Cairns
Re: Request input re- paternity Edward IV (Original text)
On 23 May 2004 on Australian TV appeared a program called 'Britain's Real
Monarch'. It was advertised with 'Tony Robinson was shown evidence that
suggests the royal line was tainted by the illegitimacy of Edward IV', but
if there is 'evidence' then it proves, not suggests.
The crown of any king is not a God given right, which immediately excludes
Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon, living in Australia. The crown has been
passed on, several times, by conquest. To begin with William the Conqueror,
which explains his nickname. The next one to gain the crown by conquest was
Henry IV.
How did Edward IV obtain his crown? Did he succeed his dearly lamented
father, the previous king? No, he did not, he obtained the crown, twice, by
conquest. This alone should have stopped the people who made this
irresponsible TV program. They want to exclude Edward IV because he was
supposedly illegitimate. Legitimate or illegitimate, he still became king by
conquest.
In this program it was maintained that because Richard, Duke of York, was
away from 14 July to 23 August, and Edward IV was born on 28 April the
following year, there was doubt about the paternity of Edward IV. However,
Edward IV was born 41 weeks from 13 July and a normal pregnancy is
considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks, it is well within the time
period when Richard and his wife Cecily were together.
If Richard and Cecily slept together on 13 July, that gives 18 days in July
to be pregnant, add August-September-October-November etc. makes 18 days
plus 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 28, 31, 28 days, totals 289 days, divide by 7
days for a week and we have a pregnancy of 41 weeks and 2 days.
In this program it was maintained that for being monarch they had to be of
the blood line and legitimate. Then a large family tree was displayed and,
trying to impress, the names of Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror and
Henry II were mentioned. Did they not know that William the Conqueror was
not of the House of Wessex nor a descendant of Alfred the Great? Did they
not know that William in his lifetime was known as William the Bastard
because he was illegitimate?
But to continue history, where did the crown go after Edward IV? Edward IV's
sons were most likely murdered and the crown was usurped by Edward IV's
youngest brother. But what did happen then? Richard III was killed in battle
and by conquest Henry VII became king. With this conquest Henry VII wiped
any possible 'rights' of all contenders, wiped by violence, but wiped
nevertheless.
Sadly, Michael Hastings allowed himself to be used in this program, a
program in my opinion dishonest as it was so incorrect.
Leo van de Pas
Monarch'. It was advertised with 'Tony Robinson was shown evidence that
suggests the royal line was tainted by the illegitimacy of Edward IV', but
if there is 'evidence' then it proves, not suggests.
The crown of any king is not a God given right, which immediately excludes
Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon, living in Australia. The crown has been
passed on, several times, by conquest. To begin with William the Conqueror,
which explains his nickname. The next one to gain the crown by conquest was
Henry IV.
How did Edward IV obtain his crown? Did he succeed his dearly lamented
father, the previous king? No, he did not, he obtained the crown, twice, by
conquest. This alone should have stopped the people who made this
irresponsible TV program. They want to exclude Edward IV because he was
supposedly illegitimate. Legitimate or illegitimate, he still became king by
conquest.
In this program it was maintained that because Richard, Duke of York, was
away from 14 July to 23 August, and Edward IV was born on 28 April the
following year, there was doubt about the paternity of Edward IV. However,
Edward IV was born 41 weeks from 13 July and a normal pregnancy is
considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks, it is well within the time
period when Richard and his wife Cecily were together.
If Richard and Cecily slept together on 13 July, that gives 18 days in July
to be pregnant, add August-September-October-November etc. makes 18 days
plus 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 28, 31, 28 days, totals 289 days, divide by 7
days for a week and we have a pregnancy of 41 weeks and 2 days.
In this program it was maintained that for being monarch they had to be of
the blood line and legitimate. Then a large family tree was displayed and,
trying to impress, the names of Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror and
Henry II were mentioned. Did they not know that William the Conqueror was
not of the House of Wessex nor a descendant of Alfred the Great? Did they
not know that William in his lifetime was known as William the Bastard
because he was illegitimate?
But to continue history, where did the crown go after Edward IV? Edward IV's
sons were most likely murdered and the crown was usurped by Edward IV's
youngest brother. But what did happen then? Richard III was killed in battle
and by conquest Henry VII became king. With this conquest Henry VII wiped
any possible 'rights' of all contenders, wiped by violence, but wiped
nevertheless.
Sadly, Michael Hastings allowed himself to be used in this program, a
program in my opinion dishonest as it was so incorrect.
Leo van de Pas
-
Brad Verity
Re: Request input re- paternity Edward IV (Original text)
Dear Ian and Leo,
Comments interspersed.
"Ian Cairns" <news@cairnsfamily.org> wrote (quoting Leo van de Pas) in
message news:
No, not necessarily. Evidence should be reduced to a basic fact. It
is interpretation of the facts, connecting them together, that can
either suggest a theory, or, if one is lucky, be so strong and logical
that a theory is actually considered 'proved'.
Not today - our ancestors fought several bloody revolutions in various
countries to help alter that belief. But in medieval times, the crown
and divinity were very interconnected in people's minds.
I don't think anyone, including the TV producers, seriously thought
that even if Edward IV was really illegitimate, it would alter the
succession today. It was more of an academic exercise to see if the
Tudor/Stuart line were eliminated, who the representative today would
be. I find it interesting.
Yes. Though Henry IV had several problems because he took the crown
by conquest. One could easily argue it set a bad precedent that led
to all the civil warfare the following century.
Yes. But I feel, like I said above (and admit I haven't seen the
programme) that the TV producers were being academic, perhaps
melodramatic, but not irresponsible. They did find the correct
representative (Earl of Loudon) of Richard, Duke of York, if you
eliminate the line of Edward IV.
What I find annoying about Dr. Jones's theory is that he takes the
birthdate of Edward IV - which we only know from a family chronicler
several years after the event - as given fact. What if the chronicler
had been off by a week? He was off by five months for the birthdate
of Edward's younger sister Elizabeth.
In the latest issue of 'Ricardian Bulletin', the magazine of the
Richard III Society, Dr. Joanna Laynesmith, author of _The Last
Medieval Queens_ (Oxford University Press 2004) gives a detailed
rebuttal to Dr Jones's theory. Here is what she says about the
pregnancy term.
Laynesmith: "If, as Jones plausibly assumes, Edward's mother, Cecily,
remained at Rouen in the summer of 1441 when Richard, Duke of York,
was on campaign around Pontoise, then the dating of Edward's birth is
certainly suspicious. A full term pregnancy takes 38 weeks from
conception but Richard of York departed 41 weeks before Edward's birth
and returned about 36 weeks before the birth. Yet legitimate
conception is still quite possible. Before modern induction
techniques, 42-week pregnancies were relatively common, but most often
for first children. Probably more importantly, today birth is
considered premature only if it occurs 35 weeks from conception (as
10% of British births still do). So Edward might easily have been
born early although not necessarily seriously premature."
Yes, see above.
Yes, in the late 15th-century (as opposed to the Norman-1066 era),
this was very true.
It's curious they didn't mention that in the program. But again, not
having seen it, I can't comment on the context.
Yes, but he married Edward IV's eldest daughter - and for
contemporaries of the 1480s - this was an extremely important fact.
There is so much archaelogical evidence still existing of how
important this marriage uniting the White and Tudor (Red) Roses was at
the time.
Well, I find the theory more amusing than dishonest. I think Dr.
Jones truly believes he found an important discrepancy with the
conception dates, and I certainly don't have any problem with history
being looked at from a different perspective. But good methodology
needs to be maintained, and using the basic premise that Edward was
really illegitimate (by presenting evidence that is not terribly
convincing, in my opinion), Jones then concocts a theory of Richard's
motivations in subsequent events that gets increasingly convoluted.
Even if Richard convinced himself that his brother truly was a
bastard, the motivations Jones ascribes him can only be speculation
since Richard did not record his thoughts on the matter for posterity.
But that's the fun of history, both modern and medieval, speculating
on the motivations of those who hold power.
As for Michael Hastings, he's not so different in my mind than the
thirteenth cousin of the 8th Earl Berkekey who ended up inheriting
Berkeley Castle in 1942 - part of the fascination with inheritance is
that it relies solely on an aspect of oneself that is completely out
of one's control - bloodline. Our much more merit-driven modern
society has thankfully come a long way in 500 years. And Hastings
seems a very modern man who found the whole thing rather amusing.
One last comment from Dr. Laynesmith on a subject previously discussed
on the newsgroup - this about the baptism of Edward taking place in
the chapel of Rouen castle, rather than Rouen cathedral where younger
siblings Edmund and Elizabeth were baptized.
Laynesmith: "Edward's low key baptism in a chapel of Rouen Castle
suggests that he probably did arrive considerably earlier than
expected, before preparations for a more splendid christening could be
made and possibly provoking concern for his safety so that his parents
dared not delay the ceremony. Edward's younger brother, Edmund, was
to enjoy a far grander christening than either Edward or apparently
York's short-lived firstborn, Henry, had received: Edmund was baptised
in Rouen cathedral in the font used for the first Norman king, Rollo.
According to P A Johnson, York intended to establish Edmund as a major
Norman landholder because Edward was to inherit all York's English
estates (and a good part of his Norman lands too). This auspicious
baptism could have been the first step in that process for Edmund,
rather than an embarrassingly public sign that Edmund was really
York's heir. York's daughter, Elizabeth, was also christened in the
cathedral. If a mere girl was granted such a privilege, it certainly
looks as if Edward's place of baptism is proof of his early arrival."
Cheers, ----------Brad
Comments interspersed.
"Ian Cairns" <news@cairnsfamily.org> wrote (quoting Leo van de Pas) in
message news:
On 23 May 2004 on Australian TV appeared a program called 'Britain's Real
Monarch'. It was advertised with 'Tony Robinson was shown evidence that
suggests the royal line was tainted by the illegitimacy of Edward IV', but
if there is 'evidence' then it proves, not suggests.
No, not necessarily. Evidence should be reduced to a basic fact. It
is interpretation of the facts, connecting them together, that can
either suggest a theory, or, if one is lucky, be so strong and logical
that a theory is actually considered 'proved'.
The crown of any king is not a God given right,
Not today - our ancestors fought several bloody revolutions in various
countries to help alter that belief. But in medieval times, the crown
and divinity were very interconnected in people's minds.
which immediately excludes
Michael Hastings, Earl of Loudon, living in Australia.
I don't think anyone, including the TV producers, seriously thought
that even if Edward IV was really illegitimate, it would alter the
succession today. It was more of an academic exercise to see if the
Tudor/Stuart line were eliminated, who the representative today would
be. I find it interesting.
The crown has been
passed on, several times, by conquest. To begin with William the Conqueror,
which explains his nickname. The next one to gain the crown by conquest was
Henry IV.
Yes. Though Henry IV had several problems because he took the crown
by conquest. One could easily argue it set a bad precedent that led
to all the civil warfare the following century.
How did Edward IV obtain his crown? Did he succeed his dearly lamented
father, the previous king? No, he did not, he obtained the crown, twice, by
conquest. This alone should have stopped the people who made this
irresponsible TV program. They want to exclude Edward IV because he was
supposedly illegitimate. Legitimate or illegitimate, he still became king by
conquest.
Yes. But I feel, like I said above (and admit I haven't seen the
programme) that the TV producers were being academic, perhaps
melodramatic, but not irresponsible. They did find the correct
representative (Earl of Loudon) of Richard, Duke of York, if you
eliminate the line of Edward IV.
In this program it was maintained that because Richard, Duke of York, was
away from 14 July to 23 August, and Edward IV was born on 28 April the
following year, there was doubt about the paternity of Edward IV.
What I find annoying about Dr. Jones's theory is that he takes the
birthdate of Edward IV - which we only know from a family chronicler
several years after the event - as given fact. What if the chronicler
had been off by a week? He was off by five months for the birthdate
of Edward's younger sister Elizabeth.
However,
Edward IV was born 41 weeks from 13 July and a normal pregnancy is
considered two weeks either side of 40 weeks, it is well within the time
period when Richard and his wife Cecily were together.
In the latest issue of 'Ricardian Bulletin', the magazine of the
Richard III Society, Dr. Joanna Laynesmith, author of _The Last
Medieval Queens_ (Oxford University Press 2004) gives a detailed
rebuttal to Dr Jones's theory. Here is what she says about the
pregnancy term.
Laynesmith: "If, as Jones plausibly assumes, Edward's mother, Cecily,
remained at Rouen in the summer of 1441 when Richard, Duke of York,
was on campaign around Pontoise, then the dating of Edward's birth is
certainly suspicious. A full term pregnancy takes 38 weeks from
conception but Richard of York departed 41 weeks before Edward's birth
and returned about 36 weeks before the birth. Yet legitimate
conception is still quite possible. Before modern induction
techniques, 42-week pregnancies were relatively common, but most often
for first children. Probably more importantly, today birth is
considered premature only if it occurs 35 weeks from conception (as
10% of British births still do). So Edward might easily have been
born early although not necessarily seriously premature."
If Richard and Cecily slept together on 13 July, that gives 18 days in July
to be pregnant, add August-September-October-November etc. makes 18 days
plus 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 28, 31, 28 days, totals 289 days, divide by 7
days for a week and we have a pregnancy of 41 weeks and 2 days.
Yes, see above.
In this program it was maintained that for being monarch they had to be of
the blood line and legitimate.
Yes, in the late 15th-century (as opposed to the Norman-1066 era),
this was very true.
Then a large family tree was displayed and,
trying to impress, the names of Alfred the Great, William the Conqueror and
Henry II were mentioned. Did they not know that William the Conqueror was
not of the House of Wessex nor a descendant of Alfred the Great? Did they
not know that William in his lifetime was known as William the Bastard
because he was illegitimate?
It's curious they didn't mention that in the program. But again, not
having seen it, I can't comment on the context.
But to continue history, where did the crown go after Edward IV? Edward IV's
sons were most likely murdered and the crown was usurped by Edward IV's
youngest brother. But what did happen then? Richard III was killed in battle
and by conquest Henry VII became king. With this conquest Henry VII wiped
any possible 'rights' of all contenders, wiped by violence, but wiped
nevertheless.
Yes, but he married Edward IV's eldest daughter - and for
contemporaries of the 1480s - this was an extremely important fact.
There is so much archaelogical evidence still existing of how
important this marriage uniting the White and Tudor (Red) Roses was at
the time.
Sadly, Michael Hastings allowed himself to be used in this program, a
program in my opinion dishonest as it was so incorrect.
Well, I find the theory more amusing than dishonest. I think Dr.
Jones truly believes he found an important discrepancy with the
conception dates, and I certainly don't have any problem with history
being looked at from a different perspective. But good methodology
needs to be maintained, and using the basic premise that Edward was
really illegitimate (by presenting evidence that is not terribly
convincing, in my opinion), Jones then concocts a theory of Richard's
motivations in subsequent events that gets increasingly convoluted.
Even if Richard convinced himself that his brother truly was a
bastard, the motivations Jones ascribes him can only be speculation
since Richard did not record his thoughts on the matter for posterity.
But that's the fun of history, both modern and medieval, speculating
on the motivations of those who hold power.
As for Michael Hastings, he's not so different in my mind than the
thirteenth cousin of the 8th Earl Berkekey who ended up inheriting
Berkeley Castle in 1942 - part of the fascination with inheritance is
that it relies solely on an aspect of oneself that is completely out
of one's control - bloodline. Our much more merit-driven modern
society has thankfully come a long way in 500 years. And Hastings
seems a very modern man who found the whole thing rather amusing.
One last comment from Dr. Laynesmith on a subject previously discussed
on the newsgroup - this about the baptism of Edward taking place in
the chapel of Rouen castle, rather than Rouen cathedral where younger
siblings Edmund and Elizabeth were baptized.
Laynesmith: "Edward's low key baptism in a chapel of Rouen Castle
suggests that he probably did arrive considerably earlier than
expected, before preparations for a more splendid christening could be
made and possibly provoking concern for his safety so that his parents
dared not delay the ceremony. Edward's younger brother, Edmund, was
to enjoy a far grander christening than either Edward or apparently
York's short-lived firstborn, Henry, had received: Edmund was baptised
in Rouen cathedral in the font used for the first Norman king, Rollo.
According to P A Johnson, York intended to establish Edmund as a major
Norman landholder because Edward was to inherit all York's English
estates (and a good part of his Norman lands too). This auspicious
baptism could have been the first step in that process for Edmund,
rather than an embarrassingly public sign that Edmund was really
York's heir. York's daughter, Elizabeth, was also christened in the
cathedral. If a mere girl was granted such a privilege, it certainly
looks as if Edward's place of baptism is proof of his early arrival."
Cheers, ----------Brad