GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-03 > 0920905740


From: <Michelle.Murphy%>
Subject: Re:Subject: Re: Catherine of Valois / legitimacy of Henry VI
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 16:09 +0100 (BST)


Re: John Parsons

>The last-born was a son, Philip, who died at birth on 10 November 1407; he
>was popularly thought to have been fathered by Charles VI's brother Louis
>d'Orleans, who was murdered one evening very shortly afterward when he was
>leaving Isabeau's residence after having supper with her.

Were there any children between Charles VII and Philip? I'm surprised that
Charles VI and Isabeau had been living as man and wife to any extent at that
stage, particularly as he was mad during the period between Charles VII and
Philip's births.

Also Isabeau would have been quite old at this stage, as it was 18 years after
the birth of her first child, Isabelle.

>But remember, there were plenty of other Valois and Bourbons too, so the mere
>fact that Louis XI might not have been a true Valois would not of itself have
>opened the door to Edward IV.

True, but I'm just surprised that any king, particularly one whose father had to
win his throne back in war, would feel secure enough to reveal that he was not
quite sure of his legitimacy. And remember, it's not as though Isabeau had ANY
claim to the French throne herself, so if Charles VII was not Charles VI's son,
he might effectively be saying that he had no right whatsoever to the French
throne. Even if his father was Louis Duke of Orleans, that would still make him
illegitimate, and the next legitimate male heir would be Charles Duke of Orleans
(Louis's legitimate son, some years older than Charles VII).

So no matter which way you look at it, Louis XI was surely making a severe
misstep by making such a comment, one which is incongruous given his reputation
as being so wily that he was known as the "spider of Europe"!

Also, to John Yohalem:

>Isabelle was 11 when she left England, and 20 when she died in childbirth. >I
mean, is any of this remotely LIKELY?

>Read historical novels by all means, but don't take this kind of >suggestion
>seriously. Jarman made it up. She made it ALL up.

Actually, John, she didn't. There are two kinds of historical novels: one type
are in a historical SETTING, but they do not purport to be in any way
historically accurate, or even to refer to people who actually existed. The
other type dramatise the lives of people who really existed, and include a
considerable amount of historical fact, interspersed with fiction and -
sometimes - considerable literary license, in order to create a story.

One member of this group commented recently on the excellent standard of
research exhibited in historical novels of the latter type written by Sharon Kay
Penman. Writers like Ms. Penman carry out extensive historical research on
their subject matter, before writing their stories. They often give detailed
source information, and I have often found them to be extremely accurate.

It's ridiculous to say that Rosemary Hawley Jarman "made it all up". Did she
make up the fact that Henry V died of dysentry or the "bloody flux" at
Vincennes? No she didn't. Did she make up the fact that Humphrey Duke of
Gloucester married Eleanor Cobham, who was later accused of witchcraft?
Certainly not. There are hundreds upon hundreds of verifiable historical facts
in her book. However, as mentioned above, there is also fiction and literary
license, which Ms. Hawley Jarman would have inserted into the book herself.

I merely inquired as to whether the personal relationship described between
Catherine of Valois and her elder sister Isabelle was historical fact or
literary license? It's a perfectly valid question.

For God's sake, if Isabelle was in France for nine whole years, she would
certainly have MET her younger sister Catherine. They could well have spent
time at the French court. Since Catherine was her youngest sister, and the
Valois children could not depend at all on either father or mother for affection
or protection, it's not such an enormous leap to speculate that Isabelle might
have felt somewhat protective and friendly towards her youngest sister. I just
asked if anyone had any historical verification for this, as I don't want to
accept something merely on the basis of speculation.

thanks,

Michelle Murphy

This thread: