GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1073212276


From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Britain's Real Monarch
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 10:31:16 -0000
References: <bs3o3d$km2$1@usenet.otenet.gr> <bt7c7s$hig$1@usenet.otenet.gr>


Renia wrote:
> I first posted the following to sgm and omitted sending it to shm. The
> programe was on Channel 4 TV tonight, following another about the true
> nature of the crime against the Little Princes in the Tower.
>
> Sadly, we lost the satellite, so I missed much of the programmes. (Drat.)
>
> Anyone else catch them?


I think most of the points have been covered by now, but what I've noted is
summarised below. (As the intention of the programme was clearly not to let
the facts get in the way of a good story, it should be treated with some
caution.)

(1) The "new discovery" while the programme was being made [therefore since
Michael Jones's article questioning Edward's legitimacy in August 2002?] was
an entry in the register of the cathedral chapter of Rouen recording a
payment for a sermon "preached for the safety of the Duke of York on
campaign in Pontoise" (Jones). Elsewhere "going to Pontoise on campaign".
The date is _presumably_ 14 July 1441, as it's immediately followed by a
statement that he was in Pontoise from 14 July to 21 August (whereas
Edward's conception was expected to be in the first week of August). A full
reference for the document was helpfully given in the end titles - as well
as I can read it from the videotape, it's Archives Departementales Rouen
G43, G2130 (fol. 147v). [The G2130 reference is the same one in Linda Jack's
summary from Jones' book.]

(2) This is backed up by the evidence about Edward being christened in a
"tiny private chapel" in the castle (elsewhere and on the website described
as "a side chapel"), in contrast to the "massive celebration" the following
year in the cathedral for the christening of the next son.

(3) There is no record of Edward being small or sickly; if he had been
premature it would have been recorded. [No discussion of the possibility
that this could have been the reason for a private christening in the castle
chapel, and it's not clear how this is consistent with the programme's
strange statement that people didn't know the normal length of a pregnancy
in the 15th century (!). Part of the argument is that Edward's birth would
have attracted special attention as a possible claimant to the throne, but
was the birth even noted elsewhere than in Wyrcester's Annals?]

(4) Edward's date of birth is given as 28 April 1442 without discussion.

(5) Other rumours about Edward's illegitimacy were mentioned, Richard III
"basing his claim to the throne" on it; Edward being stated to have been
illegitimate in [Dr Shaa's] sermon at St Paul's Cross in 1483; Cecily
Neville being reported to have twice said Edward was illegitimate and,
according to neutral observers to have made a legal deposition to that
effect.

(6) On the other hand, Edward and his followers were said to have emphasised
his legitimacy in a suspicious way, describing him as "conceived in wedlock"
and "of the royal blood".

(7) The later claim that Edward was conceived at Hatfield Chase in Yorkshire
[inserted in Wyrcester's Annals] is presented as an attempt to divert
suspicion from the goings-on at Rouen. Jones says that Richard and Cicely
travelled south from Hatfield by the beginning of June 1441, so that
conception at Hatfield would imply an 11-month pregnancy.

Chris Phillips





This thread: