Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-10 13:09:04
Nicholas Brown

Hi,
Recently, I came across an excerpt from John Fisher's funeral oration for Margaret Beaufort. In it he says that she made her confession 'every 3rd day' and that 'her mervaylous weeping the can bere witness of, which here before have herde haer confession...what floodes of teeres yssued forth from her eyes.'
This description doesn't seem consistent with her personality which has always struck me as being hard headed and practical. I don't recall confession ever being such an emotive experience, but then I never had a personal confessor who had a lot of time for discussion - probably confession was the closest thing to therapy for the medieval nobility. Was it customary or expected behaviour at the time to break down in tears while confessing? If it was, I wouldn't want to read too much into it, but if it wasn't, this fact would suggest that the subject of her confession was distressing - either in the sense of terrible personal experiences or that she was confessing that she did something really terrible?

It is particularly interesting in relation to what she did in the late 1490's. As far as I understand, it was generally widows who retired to take religious vows, but she sought a release from her marriage, which seems unusual. I can imagine Margaret Beaufort having quite a few things to feel seriously guilty about - from betraying Richard to being stingy with her tenants - but in later life might she have had regrets, possibly discovering unintended consequences of her actions. Obviously, this could include the fate of the Princes. Maybe Stanley murdered them (or only managed one of them) in contemplation of the benefits he could receive under HT as King, but she didn't know until later. New information may have emerged while Warbeck was in the Tower. Was he have been the 'certain lord' that Perkin mentioned? Her taking of religious vows coincides with the executions of Warwick and Warbeck. It may have been a bit before, but their fates were probably sealed and she was aware of her role in it. She may have been a traitor, but was she such a sociopath that she would be involved in the murder of two children? I have always had doubts that she would go that far, but Stanley didn't even care about his own children. I could definitely see her conspiring to remove them from the country unharmed, but him taking it one step further without her knowledge.

The more I think about HT and Titulus Regius, I do strongly suspect someone told HT that there was good reason to believe that the Princes were dead, but when the pretenders showed up he didn't what to make of it. I had previously thought it must have been MB who led him to think this, but it may well have been Stanley. Could she have been so appalled by him that she felt the need to distance herself?

Nico




Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-10 13:38:11
alan thomas
I've always said that the Lady Margaret was deeply involved in the mystery of the Princes. She was in stu at the time.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
 


Hi,
Recently, I came across an excerpt from John Fisher's funeral oration for Margaret Beaufort.  In it he says that she made her confession 'every 3rd day' and that 'her mervaylous weeping the can bere witness of, which here before have herde haer confession...what floodes of teeres yssued forth from her eyes.'
This description doesn't seem consistent with her personality which has always struck me as being hard headed and practical.  I don't recall confession ever being such an emotive experience, but then I never had a personal confessor who had a lot of time for discussion - probably confession was the closest thing to therapy for the medieval nobility.  Was it customary or expected behaviour at the time to break down in tears while confessing?  If it was, I wouldn't want to read too much into it, but if it wasn't, this fact would suggest that the subject of her confession was distressing - either in the sense of terrible personal experiences or that she was confessing that she did something really terrible?

It is particularly interesting in relation to what she did in the late 1490's.  As far as I understand, it was generally widows who retired to take religious vows, but she sought a release from her marriage, which seems unusual.  I can imagine Margaret Beaufort having quite a few things to feel seriously guilty about - from betraying Richard to being stingy with her tenants - but in later life might she have had regrets, possibly discovering unintended consequences of her actions.  Obviously, this could include the fate of the Princes.  Maybe Stanley murdered them (or only managed one of them) in contemplation of the benefits he could receive under HT as King, but she didn't know until later.  New information may have emerged while Warbeck was in the Tower.  Was he have been the 'certain lord' that Perkin mentioned?  Her taking of religious vows coincides with the executions of Warwick and Warbeck.  It may have been a bit before, but their fates were probably sealed and she was aware of her role in it.  She may have been a traitor, but was she such a sociopath that she would be involved in the murder of two children?  I have always had doubts that she would go that far, but Stanley didn't even care about his own children.  I could definitely see her conspiring to remove them from the country unharmed, but him taking it one step further without her knowledge.

The more I think about HT and Titulus Regius, I do strongly suspect someone told HT that there was good reason to believe that the Princes were dead, but when the pretenders showed up he didn't what to make of it.  I had previously thought it must have been MB who led him to think this, but it may well have been Stanley.  Could she have been so appalled by him that she felt the need to distance herself?

Nico





Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-10 13:40:30
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico I've read it too. The thing that really impresses me is how much Fisher liked her; it really comes through. And he had no need to pander, her son was dead and her grandson wasn't particularly fond of her. In her latter years Margaret seems to have taken on the role of protecting those, particularly women, who had got on the wrong side of Henry. She even intervened to stop him sending his daughter Margaret to Scotland at too early an age. I reckon, having lived what she thought was a pious life, she would be horrified if she found out that the princes were dead and this would be compounded by the death of an anointed King at Bosworth.Fisher says, I recall, that she was the only person he knew who lived up to their religious beliefs. H



From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 10 February 2017, 13:08
Subject: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort


Hi,
Recently, I came across an excerpt from John Fisher's funeral oration for Margaret Beaufort. In it he says that she made her confession 'every 3rd day' and that 'her mervaylous weeping the can bere witness of, which here before have herde haer confession...what floodes of teeres yssued forth from her eyes.'
This description doesn't seem consistent with her personality which has always struck me as being hard headed and practical. I don't recall confession ever being such an emotive experience, but then I never had a personal confessor who had a lot of time for discussion - probably confession was the closest thing to therapy for the medieval nobility. Was it customary or expected behaviour at the time to break down in tears while confessing? If it was, I wouldn't want to read too much into it, but if it wasn't, this fact would suggest that the subject of her confession was distressing - either in the sense of terrible personal experiences or that she was confessing that she did something really terrible?

It is particularly interesting in relation to what she did in the late 1490's. As far as I understand, it was generally widows who retired to take religious vows, but she sought a release from her marriage, which seems unusual. I can imagine Margaret Beaufort having quite a few things to feel seriously guilty about - from betraying Richard to being stingy with her tenants - but in later life might she have had regrets, possibly discovering unintended consequences of her actions. Obviously, this could include the fate of the Princes. Maybe Stanley murdered them (or only managed one of them) in contemplation of the benefits he could receive under HT as King, but she didn't know until later. New information may have emerged while Warbeck was in the Tower. Was he have been the 'certain lord' that Perkin mentioned? Her taking of religious vows coincides with the executions of Warwick and Warbeck. It may have been a bit before, but their fates were probably sealed and she was aware of her role in it. She may have been a traitor, but was she such a sociopath that she would be involved in the murder of two children? I have always had doubts that she would go that far, but Stanley didn't even care about his own children. I could definitely see her conspiring to remove them from the country unharmed, but him taking it one step further without her knowledge.

The more I think about HT and Titulus Regius, I do strongly suspect someone told HT that there was good reason to believe that the Princes were dead, but when the pretenders showed up he didn't what to make of it. I had previously thought it must have been MB who led him to think this, but it may well have been Stanley. Could she have been so appalled by him that she felt the need to distance herself?

Nico






Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-10 19:30:18
mariewalsh2003

Hi Nico,


Interesting post.


Personally I'm not convinced that HT had good information that the Princes were safely out of the way, as he was so chary of relegitimizing or marrying Elizabeth - there's more I could say on that but I'm working on a wee book which will explain it better. In fact, I I'd go so far as to wonder whether he had reason all along to suspect that at least one of them might still be "out there" somewhere like the proverbial truth.


I think weeping was regarded rather differently then rom now. I seem to remember reading that Philip the Good of Burgundy did it a lot, and was one of the things that earned him his sobriquet. But I think Fisher also tells how terrified Margaret was on her death bed. Now that could be just the result of listening to too many hellfire sermons and having been involved in plotting that got people killed. She may have had a conscience about Richard III. Maybe it was partly the guilt that essentially decent but compulsively controlling people inevitably accrue to themselves over a lifetime. But yes of course, maybe she knew she had had some sort of involvement in the deaths of other, really innocent, obstacles to her son's kingship.

I too find it hard to beliee that MB had it in her to murder the boys, but I'm not sure about the alternative scenario you suggest. Stanley wasn't close enough to Richard, and sufficiently well liked by him, for Richard to have entrusted the care of the two boys to him. And what about Sir William? Did he know what his brother had done?

Treating Perkin's story as a genuine account for the moment, I feel it points to Buckingham rather than Stanley having had the younger boy: he was his godfather, and the Divisie Chronicle says quite plausibly that Buckingham was RDoY's godfather (I say plausibly because of the child having been born in Shrewsbury, and the Duchess of Buckingham being the Queen's sister). Margaret Beaufort's involvement in the plotting means she must have been in touch with Buckingham, who was the nephew of her late husband and known to her since his childhood.

Actually, reading Perkin's account (the genuine one in his letter to Queen Isabella) it is not at all clear that the lord he claims to have been handed over to himself was the same person who killed his brother. Richard could well have decided to split the boys up for extra security, and entrusted them to two different people: whether for the purpose of having them killed as PW/York believed, or to keep them safe and secret, is debatable, but if Richard simply wanted them dead he would probably done so rather more simply.

But that opens up a can of worms, because it would suggest that Buckingham took over the rebellion that had been intended to reinstate Edward V whilst having every reason to believe he was still living. I think only two versions of this would work:

a) that Buckingham had both boys for safe keeping, killed the elder one to pave the way for his own claim to the throne, but couldn't go through with murdering the younger boy, his own godchild, and so shooed him off into exile;

b) that Buckingham believed Richard meant for him to murder the boys, killed one before realising he'd got the message wrong, and then changed sides out of desperation.

But why would Richard give the boys into the keeping of Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law? Even if Buck could be trusted, his wife certainly couldn't be.

The whole business is very puzzling, but just why did nobody ever come back claiming to be Edward V?

Anyone any ideas?

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-11 15:05:40
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for some very helpful responses.
It is easy to forget how religion was so central to everyone's life in the 15th century. Some people's faith was more genuine than others, and MB has often been accused of being phony, but if that were the case, I think Fisher would have seen through it. Fisher's comments certainly imply that she was tormented about something, and feared for her immortal soul. She also did have her good points, especially her protectiveness of her family.

But what did she do that tortured her conscience and why? The worst thing she is known to have done was the treason of 1483, but it is possible that she never contemplated some of the consequences. She may well have been a 'decent, but compulsively controlling' person, and her plotting could have had its origins in a desperate frustration with the continual denials of her requests for HT to return from exile, and felt a massive grudge against Edward and Richard for that reason. We will never know exactly when she thought of Henry as King, but I don't think it was the lifelong preoccupation that is often presumed. Could the treachery have originated with Buckingham, who promised her HT's return from exile in return for her co-operation and connections? Since, Buckingham had a better claim throne, could she have been willing to accept him as King, in return for Henry at the early stages, but at some point thought Henry could do better? Whatever went on, there was something in the interior life of Margaret Beaufort that changed a nation.
As for the Princes, Buckingham's involvement is very plausible. He could have planned to remove them with MB, and if he was godfather to the younger one, murdering him would have been a horrendous sacrilege, so he removed him. But what did happen to Edward, and why did no-one claim to be him? If he was not murdered, he could have died naturally. Or could there have been something about him that made him less suitable to claim the throne than his younger brother, such as mental instability, homosexuality, or even simply no desire to pursue his claim?
Nico




On Friday, 10 February 2017, 19:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Hi Nico,
Interesting post.
Personally I'm not convinced that HT had good information that the Princes were safely out of the way, as he was so chary of relegitimizing or marrying Elizabeth - there's more I could say on that but I'm working on a wee book which will explain it better. In fact, I I'd go so far as to wonder whether he had reason all along to suspect that at least one of them might still be "out there" somewhere like the proverbial truth.
I think weeping was regarded rather differently then rom now. I seem to remember reading that Philip the Good of Burgundy did it a lot, and was one of the things that earned him his sobriquet. But I think Fisher also tells how terrified Margaret was on her death bed. Now that could be just the result of listening to too many hellfire sermons and having been involved in plotting that got people killed. She may have had a conscience about Richard III. Maybe it was partly the guilt that essentially decent but compulsively controlling people inevitably accrue to themselves over a lifetime. But yes of course, maybe she knew she had had some sort of involvement in the deaths of other, really innocent, obstacles to her son's kingship. I too find it hard to beliee that MB had it in her to murder the boys, but I'm not sure about the alternative scenario you suggest. Stanley wasn't close enough to Richard, and sufficiently well liked by him, for Richard to have entrusted the care of the two boys to him. And what about Sir William? Did he know what his brother had done? Treating Perkin's story as a genuine account for the moment, I feel it points to Buckingham rather than Stanley having had the younger boy: he was his godfather, and the Divisie Chronicle says quite plausibly that Buckingham was RDoY's godfather (I say plausibly because of the child having been born in Shrewsbury, and the Duchess of Buckingham being the Queen's sister). Margaret Beaufort's involvement in the plotting means she must have been in touch with Buckingham, who was the nephew of her late husband and known to her since his childhood.Actually, reading Perkin's account (the genuine one in his letter to Queen Isabella) it is not at all clear that the lord he claims to have been handed over to himself was the same person who killed his brother. Richard could well have decided to split the boys up for extra security, and entrusted them to two different people: whether for the purpose of having them killed as PW/York believed, or to keep them safe and secret, is debatable, but if Richard simply wanted them dead he would probably done so rather more simply. But that opens up a can of worms, because it would suggest that Buckingham took over the rebellion that had been intended to reinstate Edward V whilst having every reason to believe he was still living. I think only two versions of this would work:a) that Buckingham had both boys for safe keeping, killed the elder one to pave the way for his own claim to the throne, but couldn't go through with murdering the younger boy, his own godchild, and so shooed him off into exile;b) that Buckingham believed Richard meant for him to murder the boys, killed one before realising he'd got the message wrong, and then changed sides out of desperation.But why would Richard give the boys into the keeping of Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law? Even if Buck could be trusted, his wife certainly couldn't be.The whole business is very puzzling, but just why did nobody ever come back claiming to be Edward V?Anyone any ideas?


Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-11 16:56:44
Hilary Jones
I agree very much with your middle paragraph. MB wanted Henry home and didn't necessarily think through the consequences. For example did she really predict that the action of her own husband would be instrumental in the death of an anointed king? Treason was a Stanley trait not an MB trait unless plotting was the only way to help Henry; that didn't mean it involved killing. We think of MB using others but they could just as well have used her, knowing that her weakness was her exiled son. For example did Morton and de Vere really love HT or was he the only instrument left to resurrect 'Lancaster'? As for her relationship with her son when King, it didn't always go to plan. She even defied him after his death when she took Guildford back.
I agree too about Buckingham. He is way at the top of my list of suspects concerning the disappearance of the boys. And I have EW quite close behind too. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017, 15:03
Subject: Re: Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

Thanks for some very helpful responses.
It is easy to forget how religion was so central to everyone's life in the 15th century. Some people's faith was more genuine than others, and MB has often been accused of being phony, but if that were the case, I think Fisher would have seen through it. Fisher's comments certainly imply that she was tormented about something, and feared for her immortal soul. She also did have her good points, especially her protectiveness of her family.

But what did she do that tortured her conscience and why? The worst thing she is known to have done was the treason of 1483, but it is possible that she never contemplated some of the consequences. She may well have been a 'decent, but compulsively controlling' person, and her plotting could have had its origins in a desperate frustration with the continual denials of her requests for HT to return from exile, and felt a massive grudge against Edward and Richard for that reason. We will never know exactly when she thought of Henry as King, but I don't think it was the lifelong preoccupation that is often presumed. Could the treachery have originated with Buckingham, who promised her HT's return from exile in return for her co-operation and connections? Since, Buckingham had a better claim throne, could she have been willing to accept him as King, in return for Henry at the early stages, but at some point thought Henry could do better? Whatever went on, there was something in the interior life of Margaret Beaufort that changed a nation.
As for the Princes, Buckingham's involvement is very plausible. He could have planned to remove them with MB, and if he was godfather to the younger one, murdering him would have been a horrendous sacrilege, so he removed him. But what did happen to Edward, and why did no-one claim to be him? If he was not murdered, he could have died naturally. Or could there have been something about him that made him less suitable to claim the throne than his younger brother, such as mental instability, homosexuality, or even simply no desire to pursue his claim?
Nico




On Friday, 10 February 2017, 19:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Hi Nico,
Interesting post.
Personally I'm not convinced that HT had good information that the Princes were safely out of the way, as he was so chary of relegitimizing or marrying Elizabeth - there's more I could say on that but I'm working on a wee book which will explain it better. In fact, I I'd go so far as to wonder whether he had reason all along to suspect that at least one of them might still be "out there" somewhere like the proverbial truth.
I think weeping was regarded rather differently then rom now. I seem to remember reading that Philip the Good of Burgundy did it a lot, and was one of the things that earned him his sobriquet. But I think Fisher also tells how terrified Margaret was on her death bed. Now that could be just the result of listening to too many hellfire sermons and having been involved in plotting that got people killed. She may have had a conscience about Richard III. Maybe it was partly the guilt that essentially decent but compulsively controlling people inevitably accrue to themselves over a lifetime. But yes of course, maybe she knew she had had some sort of involvement in the deaths of other, really innocent, obstacles to her son's kingship. I too find it hard to beliee that MB had it in her to murder the boys, but I'm not sure about the alternative scenario you suggest. Stanley wasn't close enough to Richard, and sufficiently well liked by him, for Richard to have entrusted the care of the two boys to him. And what about Sir William? Did he know what his brother had done? Treating Perkin's story as a genuine account for the moment, I feel it points to Buckingham rather than Stanley having had the younger boy: he was his godfather, and the Divisie Chronicle says quite plausibly that Buckingham was RDoY's godfather (I say plausibly because of the child having been born in Shrewsbury, and the Duchess of Buckingham being the Queen's sister). Margaret Beaufort's involvement in the plotting means she must have been in touch with Buckingham, who was the nephew of her late husband and known to her since his childhood.Actually, reading Perkin's account (the genuine one in his letter to Queen Isabella) it is not at all clear that the lord he claims to have been handed over to himself was the same person who killed his brother. Richard could well have decided to split the boys up for extra security, and entrusted them to two different people: whether for the purpose of having them killed as PW/York believed, or to keep them safe and secret, is debatable, but if Richard simply wanted them dead he would probably done so rather more simply. But that opens up a can of worms, because it would suggest that Buckingham took over the rebellion that had been intended to reinstate Edward V whilst having every reason to believe he was still living. I think only two versions of this would work:a) that Buckingham had both boys for safe keeping, killed the elder one to pave the way for his own claim to the throne, but couldn't go through with murdering the younger boy, his own godchild, and so shooed him off into exile;b) that Buckingham believed Richard meant for him to murder the boys, killed one before realising he'd got the message wrong, and then changed sides out of desperation.But why would Richard give the boys into the keeping of Elizabeth Woodville's brother-in-law? Even if Buck could be trusted, his wife certainly couldn't be.The whole business is very puzzling, but just why did nobody ever come back claiming to be Edward V?Anyone any ideas?




Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-11 20:07:39
ricard1an
Hilary you don't think EW had anything to do with the death of either of the Princes? I can see her being involved with smuggling them abroad. There is the verbal story from the Tyrrell family which Audrey Williamson quoted in her book that the " boys were at Gipping with their mother by permission of their uncle". Apparently the Tyrrells never told the story because they felt that it proved that James had murdered them. However, I think the fact that she never accused Richard, even when he was dead meant that she knew that either they were not dead or that she knew who had killed them and it wasn't Richard. Of course the question to ask then is if she knew who killed them why didn't she accuse them when Richard was dead?
Maybe we should look at 1483 from another angle as you said, what if EW was contacting MB and promising all sorts of things for HT and not the other way around? That also might explain why Edward Woodville went to join HT in France. Taking the money to pay for an invasion to rescue the Princes from Richard. They would probably wait until E5 was crowned but then Stillington put the cat among the pigeons with his announcement.
Only a theory, as I have said before we need a tardis!!
Mary

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-11 20:12:17
Hilary Jones
Just as you say Marie - no not their deaths. And perhaps the unstable Buckingham got involved and made promises to the pair of them? H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, February 11, 2017, 8:07 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary you don't think EW had anything to do with the death of either of the Princes? I can see her being involved with smuggling them abroad. There is the verbal story from the Tyrrell family which Audrey Williamson quoted in her book that the " boys were at Gipping with their mother by permission of their uncle". Apparently the Tyrrells never told the story because they felt that it proved that James had murdered them. However, I think the fact that she never accused Richard, even when he was dead meant that she knew that either they were not dead or that she knew who had killed them and it wasn't Richard. Of course the question to ask then is if she knew who killed them why didn't she accuse them when Richard was dead?


Maybe we should look at 1483 from another angle as you said, what if EW was contacting MB and promising all sorts of things for HT and not the other way around? That also might explain why Edward Woodville went to join HT in France. Taking the money to pay for an invasion to rescue the Princes from Richard. They would probably wait until E5 was crowned but then Stillington put the cat among the pigeons with his announcement.
Only a theory, as I have said before we need a tardis!!
Mary

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-13 13:11:16
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I think Mary's suggestion about EW initiating contact with MB is certainly possible. Is it known exactly when the conspiracy began and for how long it continued?
Nico


On Saturday, 11 February 2017, 20:07, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


Hilary you don't think EW had anything to do with the death of either of the Princes? I can see her being involved with smuggling them abroad. There is the verbal story from the Tyrrell family which Audrey Williamson quoted in her book that the " boys were at Gipping with their mother by permission of their uncle". Apparently the Tyrrells never told the story because they felt that it proved that James had murdered them. However, I think the fact that she never accused Richard, even when he was dead meant that she knew that either they were not dead or that she knew who had killed them and it wasn't Richard. Of course the question to ask then is if she knew who killed them why didn't she accuse them when Richard was dead?
Maybe we should look at 1483 from another angle as you said, what if EW was contacting MB and promising all sorts of things for HT and not the other way around? That also might explain why Edward Woodville went to join HT in France. Taking the money to pay for an invasion to rescue the Princes from Richard. They would probably wait until E5 was crowned but then Stillington put the cat among the pigeons with his announcement.
Only a theory, as I have said before we need a tardis!!
Mary

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-13 15:41:32
mariewalsh2003

I'm sure Fisher did like MB but we must not forget that his glowing report of her comes from the oration he gave at her funeral.

Margaret wasn't seeking release from he marriage to take religious vows (I.e. she wasn't getting her marriage dissolved to take the veil as Sir John Pilkington's widow seems to have done from her second marriage). She just got the bishop to witness Stanley's permission to take a vow of chastity and live separately from him - more similar to the example of Margery Kempe. So it was about getting away from Stanley rather than wanting to be a nun. It was a retirement from court but not from the world in the sense that Collyweston became quite a hub.

It's also in 1499 that Margaret changes her signature from "Margaret Beaufort" to "Margaret R" and in 1500 she had men who had expressed doubt about who was the rightful king brought to Collyweston for questioning, so she wasn't distancing herself from her son's occupation of the throne in any real sense.

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-13 16:07:04
Hilary Jones
Firstly Marie I do like the theory you put forward a couple of days' ago. I could actually see Buckingham with his ego trying to con the pair of them.
Trying also to be charitable to Edward, do you think there is a possibility that he was suffering from some sort of chronic illness from the mid-1470s onwards? You see again we take other peoples' words that he was fat and liked to eat a lot, but that's all part of the merry monarch story. In the 1460s he'd been energetic and hard-working. Today if we saw someone become lethargic and put on weight we'd think of physical causes - a simple one like a thyroid problem. And he certainly does seem to have become lethargic, conjuring up wars but not participating himself (Scotland and the suggested French one), hardly ever setting foot outside of London, dodging decisions on issues, like he did with the Pastons. And of course weight gain leads to other problems like diabetes, which again it would have been difficult to diagnose in those days. If you were frail because of other problems it wouldn't take much to push you towards pneumonia. Perhaps EW of all people knew just how weak he was, which is why she and the family were able to put things into action so quickly on his death? I for one think that's more likely than poisoning. H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 13 February 2017, 15:41
Subject: Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

I'm sure Fisher did like MB but we must not forget that his glowing report of her comes from the oration he gave at her funeral. Margaret wasn't seeking release from he marriage to take religious vows (I.e. she wasn't getting her marriage dissolved to take the veil as Sir John Pilkington's widow seems to have done from her second marriage). She just got the bishop to witness Stanley's permission to take a vow of chastity and live separately from him - more similar to the example of Margery Kempe. So it was about getting away from Stanley rather than wanting to be a nun. It was a retirement from court but not from the world in the sense that Collyweston became quite a hub.It's also in 1499 that Margaret changes her signature from "Margaret Beaufort" to "Margaret R" and in 1500 she had men who had expressed doubt about who was the rightful king brought to Collyweston for questioning, so she wasn't distancing herself from her son's occupation of the throne in any real sense.


Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-13 20:19:06
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


Yes, I do think Edward IV is likely to have had an underlying health problem, but there is some evidence that he and his courtiers did tend to overeat - a grumble home by one of the Milanese ambassadors in 1473 that he could get no sense out of them as they do nothing but gourmandizing.

I think the jury is out over diabetes. The Greeks apparently knew about it but it's not clear that medieval doctors were tasting urine, which would have been the only way to diagnose it. Nor is there any evidence that Edward suffered from sores that failed to heal. But I personally think it's very possible.

He certainly got more lethargic, and Commines saw a big difference in his appearance between 1471 and 1475. If it was just due to greed, he could have picked himself up for the war with Scotland and got into shape. A couple of hints, I think, of something that may have involved his digestion. First there is the famous report that he used to make himself sick in order to start eating again. Perhaps he just kept being sick and couldn't help it? The second thing is the dispensation he got from the Pope to eat meat during fasting periods on the grounds that fish and seafood made him sick.

I suppose after years of overeating he could simply have developed acid reflux, but maybe it was something more complex.

Hall, incidentally, claims that Edward had the ague (ie malaria), which he picked up in 1475 on the French campaign, but as we know from Commines, his appearance had already changed markedly by that time.


I'm not sure we'd be any more charitable now - at least not with women. Re thyroid even, UK doctors have to enforce a very broad "normal" range even though individuals have differing needs for thyroid hormone. Nonetheless, if a person's thyroid result comes back within the set normal range that person is sent on to a psychologist for a diagnosis of "conversion disorder" (psychosomatic illness) even though there is no evidence that exists either (I know this, since a "friend" of ours is a psychologist who receives patients with unexplained medical symptoms and solemnly dishes out this diagnosis to them). We all know the history of the belief that women are prone to hysterical illness, and the scandalous misattribution of ME to the realms of psychologically perpetuated "chronic fatigue". Sorry - OT rant over.

So, anyway, if Edward fetched up now and modern doctors had a simple and obvious test for his complaint it would be recognised and treated, but otherwise not necessarily. If the digestive tract was involved in his chronic problems we might still not "get" it - it's an area of much current research but has been badly neglected for so long.

Put chronic illness together with a bad chill, and doctors perhaps treating his cold by shutting the windows and sitting him by a smoking fire, and pneumonia wouldn't be too much of a surprise.



Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-14 04:59:07
maroonnavywhite
It turns out that medieval doctors did indeed take the pee of their patients:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5953234/urine-flavor-wheels-helped-doctors-diagnose-patients-pee-centuries

https://erea.revues.org/4413

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-14 15:58:08
ricard1an
Marie I recently read an article about acid reflux and apparent over a long period it can cause esophageal cancer. Also I suppose any fish that he ate might not be as clean as the fish we eat today. I have also read that if prawns are not cleaned properly they can cause sickness.
Mary

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-14 19:31:38
ricard1an
Should be apparently

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-15 14:38:42
mariewalsh2003

Hi Mary,


Hi Mary,


Absolutely, acid reflux can cause oesophageal damage and cancer, but although Edward may have had acid reflux I don't think it can have been oesophageal cancer that killed him - it doesn't fit what we know of his last illness.


The medieval recipes and banquet menus I've seen suggest that he probably didn't see much in the way of shellfish - poor man's fare most likely. Most of the fish would have been freshwater, and I imagine the King would have got it very fresh. I'm in two minds as to whether Edward did have a genuine fish allergy or whether like most medieval people he was sick of fish in the metaphorical sense and so was tempted to blame it for his gastric problems, particularly if he'd had food poisoning from bad fish even once.


In general I'm chary of Mancini's evidence, as I am of all chroniclers and 'historians', but since both his patron (Angelo Cato) and his one known informant (John Argentine) had been royal doctors (Cato to Louis XI and Argentine to Edward V), I think he is likely to have made a point of getting hold of reliable information on Edward IV's last illness, and Dr. Argentine would surely have been filled in on the details by other royal physicians when he got to court with the new king. So I think we probably can trust the story of the chill caught whilst out fishing.


Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-16 10:39:12
Hilary Jones
Can I throw in two or three more things? Firstly like most charismatic people Edward was almost certainly vain. He would have been conscious of his appetite and his ballooning figure so perhaps one way to reconcile himself to it was to make gourmandizing the new 'in' thing?
Secondly, going right back to Henry II, the Plantagenets did not seem to have the longevity gene and I actually think that tends to influence that oft-quoted belief that people didn't live long in the fifteenth century - even Helen Castor says that. The nearest they get to long life is mid-sixties but that still means that Edward's death at 41 was very young and perhaps the Tudors (who also did not inherit a longevity gene) thought it best not to dwell on that.
Finally, there are striking similarities between Edward's decline and that of his grandson. In the case of the latter it's blamed on a leg ulcer and a bump on the head, but inactivity doesn't necessarily mean you grow fat. Perhaps something was inherited there? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2017, 14:38
Subject: Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

Hi Mary,
Hi Mary,
Absolutely, acid reflux can cause oesophageal damage and cancer, but although Edward may have had acid reflux I don't think it can have been oesophageal cancer that killed him - it doesn't fit what we know of his last illness.
The medieval recipes and banquet menus I've seen suggest that he probably didn't see much in the way of shellfish - poor man's fare most likely. Most of the fish would have been freshwater, and I imagine the King would have got it very fresh. I'm in two minds as to whether Edward did have a genuine fish allergy or whether like most medieval people he was sick of fish in the metaphorical sense and so was tempted to blame it for his gastric problems, particularly if he'd had food poisoning from bad fish even once.
In general I'm chary of Mancini's evidence, as I am of all chroniclers and 'historians', but since both his patron (Angelo Cato) and his one known informant (John Argentine) had been royal doctors (Cato to Louis XI and Argentine to Edward V), I think he is likely to have made a point of getting hold of reliable information on Edward IV's last illness, and Dr. Argentine would surely have been filled in on the details by other royal physicians when he got to court with the new king. So I think we probably can trust the story of the chill caught whilst out fishing.


Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-16 12:19:18
Gilda Elise
Yeah, they both liked to eat a lot. Neither seemed to have much impulse control when it came to their appetites. Of any sort.
Gilda


On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Can I throw in two or three more things? Firstly like most charismatic people Edward was almost certainly vain. He would have been conscious of his appetite and his ballooning figure so perhaps one way to reconcile himself to it was to make gourmandizing the new 'in' thing?
Secondly, going right back to Henry II, the Plantagenets did not seem to have the longevity gene and I actually think that tends to influence that oft-quoted belief that people didn't live long in the fifteenth century - even Helen Castor says that. The nearest they get to long life is mid-sixties but that still means that Edward's death at 41 was very young and perhaps the Tudors (who also did not inherit a longevity gene) thought it best not to dwell on that.
Finally, there are striking similarities between Edward's decline and that of his grandson. In the case of the latter it's blamed on a leg ulcer and a bump on the head, but inactivity doesn't necessarily mean you grow fat. Perhaps something was inherited there? H

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-02-16 12:37:24
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I also find the similarities between Henry VIII and Edward IV striking. Both were tall and good looking while young, but obese by middle age. So it appears was John of Gaunt. I also strongly suspect that Both JofG and HVIII suffered from diabetes - Henry's leg ulcer and John's groin ulcer, which doesn't sound like the STD that some historians suggest it was. I'm not aware of any reports of Edward having ulcers or noticeable signs of diabetes, but it does run in families and given his weight and habits, he would be candidate for it. If he did have diabetes, it weakens the immune system and minor infections can easily turn more serious. The stomach problem could also have been an ulcer, which is also common and more risky with diabetics. Overall, he doesn't seem to have been healthy for quite some time.
Nico




On Thursday, 16 February 2017, 10:39, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


Can I throw in two or three more things? Firstly like most charismatic people Edward was almost certainly vain. He would have been conscious of his appetite and his ballooning figure so perhaps one way to reconcile himself to it was to make gourmandizing the new 'in' thing?
Secondly, going right back to Henry II, the Plantagenets did not seem to have the longevity gene and I actually think that tends to influence that oft-quoted belief that people didn't live long in the fifteenth century - even Helen Castor says that. The nearest they get to long life is mid-sixties but that still means that Edward's death at 41 was very young and perhaps the Tudors (who also did not inherit a longevity gene) thought it best not to dwell on that.
Finally, there are striking similarities between Edward's decline and that of his grandson. In the case of the latter it's blamed on a leg ulcer and a bump on the head, but inactivity doesn't necessarily mean you grow fat. Perhaps something was inherited there? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2017, 14:38
Subject: Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

Hi Mary,
Hi Mary,
Absolutely, acid reflux can cause oesophageal damage and cancer, but although Edward may have had acid reflux I don't think it can have been oesophageal cancer that killed him - it doesn't fit what we know of his last illness.
The medieval recipes and banquet menus I've seen suggest that he probably didn't see much in the way of shellfish - poor man's fare most likely. Most of the fish would have been freshwater, and I imagine the King would have got it very fresh. I'm in two minds as to whether Edward did have a genuine fish allergy or whether like most medieval people he was sick of fish in the metaphorical sense and so was tempted to blame it for his gastric problems, particularly if he'd had food poisoning from bad fish even once.
In general I'm chary of Mancini's evidence, as I am of all chroniclers and 'historians', but since both his patron (Angelo Cato) and his one known informant (John Argentine) had been royal doctors (Cato to Louis XI and Argentine to Edward V), I think he is likely to have made a point of getting hold of reliable information on Edward IV's last illness, and Dr. Argentine would surely have been filled in on the details by other royal physicians when he got to court with the new king. So I think we probably can trust the story of the chill caught whilst out fishing.




Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-03-19 10:37:59
hjnatdat
Hi I resurrected this because in the week I was watching a very interesting series on 1066. Various historians, including Janina Ramirez, role play the protagonists. I wish they'd do a similar programme about our period!
However, one point that was made was that William of Normandy was hesitant about invading England because he might kill an anointed king. Apparently once someone was anointed king, albeit whether they had a right to the throne or not, the act of anointing meant that to kill them would be highly sacrilegious.William got round this by petitioning the Pope and getting both his absolution and more importantly support.
Did HT do this before his invasion? The oath at Vannes would not absolve him, neither would a post-conquest petition to the Pope. One can imagine that this would eat away at a religious woman like MB. She had helped rescue her son but in doing so had condemned his eternal soul. No wonder she cried a lot. H

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-03-19 12:29:28
Karen O

From what I've read Bishop Morton had been in Rome promising the Pope more me money. I'm sure absolution would not be a problem. The modern Catholic Herald has written several articles on Richard. Guess that Tudor thing didn't work out very well.


On Mar 19, 2017 6:38 AM, "hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Hi I resurrected this because in the week I was watching a very interesting series on 1066. Various historians, including Janina Ramirez, role play the protagonists. I wish they'd do a similar programme about our period!
However, one point that was made was that William of Normandy was hesitant about invading England because he might kill an anointed king. Apparently once someone was anointed king, albeit whether they had a right to the throne or not, the act of anointing meant that to kill them would be highly sacrilegious.William got round this by petitioning the Pope and getting both his absolution and more importantly support.
Did HT do this before his invasion? The oath at Vannes would not absolve him, neither would a post-conquest petition to the Pope. One can imagine that this would eat away at a religious woman like MB. She had helped rescue her son but in doing so had condemned his eternal soul. No wonder she cried a lot. H

Re: Confessions of Margaret Beaufort

2017-03-19 12:58:31
Pamela Bain
Fascinating........
On Mar 19, 2017, at 5:38 AM, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi I resurrected this because in the week I was watching a very interesting series on 1066. Various historians, including Janina Ramirez, role play the protagonists. I wish they'd do a similar programme about our period!
However, one point that was made was that William of Normandy was hesitant about invading England because he might kill an anointed king. Apparently once someone was anointed king, albeit whether they had a right to the throne or not, the act of anointing meant that to kill them would be highly sacrilegious. William got round this by petitioning the Pope and getting both his absolution and more importantly support.
Did HT do this before his invasion? The oath at Vannes would not absolve him, neither would a post-conquest petition to the Pope. One can imagine that this would eat away at a religious woman like MB. She had helped rescue her son but in doing so had condemned his eternal soul. No wonder she cried a lot. H

Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.