Birth of WSC

[Michael Gallagher]

In several biographies and articles (with the exception of William Manchester) the fact that WSC was born at Blenheim at about 30 weeks gestation seems to be passed over. (I am figuring from the date of "seven and one-half months" widely quoted and, of course the calculation back to his parents' marriage date). There is speculation (Manchester) that his birth was term and his conception "premature," but not much is made of it. His birth annoucement stated that he was born prematurely--period. That, of course could be the only official conclusion at the times. Given victorian mores that overlooked much in order to retain propriety, that could have been the only solution. Yet, a 30-week birth at that time in that place would have been disastrous. I remember my first exposure to a 30-week premature infant in the 80's. Survival rate was relatively high but only with much support and with the risk of impairment. Today, however, 30-week fetuses have a very high chance of survival, but still with support.

There are stories of premature babies born at home who survived intact (the Dionne quintuplets), but this was a very noteworthy event. I fail to think that a desperate struggle to keep the prmature Winston alive would not have been documented. Surely, WSC would have relished such a tale.

Has anyone ever come upon a frank discussion of this? I think it matters little in the course of events, but it is an interesting study in how socially awkward situations were handled at the time.

Thanks.

Michael

Michael W. Gallagher, MD
Greater Washington Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Genetics
9707 Medical Center Drive, Suite 230, Rockville, MD 20850
1400 Forest Glen Rd., Suite 355, Silver Spring, MD 20910

[Todd Ronnei]

There are, I feel, two ways to look at this:

1. Winston Churchill was an exceptional individual, beginning at birth.
2. He was a full term baby, and the premature story was simply a cover.

I happen to believe both.  :)

We did have a rather full discussion of this matter on the old listserv a few years ago, but no consensus was reached. Unfortunately, that discussion is not archived anywhere it can be easily accessed (which is not the case with discussions taking place on ChurchillChat today).

-Todd Ronnei

[Johnm...@aol.com]

Dear Michael and Todd,

 

I addressed this very issue at great length on the previous listserve and I wish I had kept the text from that discussion.  There is evidence on both sides of the issue but I come down on the side that he was a full term baby.  Just a coiule of brief points.  I believe the marriage was a "shot-gun" one in Paris and that the report in the Times of his birth included the note that he had a full head of red of hair. The arguments for and against this conclusion are lengthy and would take some considerable time to iterate here. 

 

Having studied Churchills' haeah amd  medical issues for over a decade, I can assure you that this is only one of several issues that I have looked into and finally come to a conclusions after much research and reflection!!

 

John H Mather MD

[Michael Gallagher]

Dr. Mather: Thank you for the info. I agree with you. I wish I had your previous discussion to read.

Michael

Michael W. Gallagher, MD
Greater Washington Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Genetics
9707 Medical Center Drive, Suite 230, Rockville, MD 20850
1400 Forest Glen Rd., Suite 355, Silver Spring, MD 20910

________________________________
> From: Johnm...@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:39:18 -0500
> Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Birth of WSC
> To: Church...@googlegroups.com

>
> Dear Michael and Todd,
> I addressed this very issue at great length on the previous listserve and I wish I had kept the text from that discussion. There is evidence on both sides of the issue but I come down on the side that he was a full term baby. Just a coiule of brief points. I believe the marriage was a "shot-gun" one in Paris and that the report in the Times of his birth included the note that he had a full head of red of hair. The arguments for and against this conclusion are lengthy and would take some considerable time to iterate here.
> Having studied Churchills' haeah amd medical issues for over a decade, I can assure you that this is only one of several issues that I have looked into and finally come to a conclusions after much research and reflection!!
> John H Mather MD
> In a message dated 1/21/2007 9:06:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, tro...@comcast.net writes:
> There are, I feel, two ways to look at this:

> 1. Winston Churchill was an exceptional individual, beginning at birth.
> 2. He was a full term baby, and the premature story was simply a cover.

[Johnm...@aol.com]

Dear Micahel,

 

I will do some digging around to see if I can find something easily and not have to reconstruct the whole set of arguments.  I would also be interested if anyone else has a thought to share on this issue!!

 

John

 

In a message dated 1/21/2007 12:16:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, galla...@msn.com writes:

Dr. Mather: Thank you for the info. I agree with you. I wish I had your previous discussion to read.

Michael


Michael W. Gallagher, MD
Greater Washington Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Genetics
9707 Medical Center Drive, Suite 230, Rockville, MD 20850
1400 Forest Glen Rd., Suite 355, Silver Spring, MD 20910


________________________________
> From: Johnm...@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:39:18 -0500
> Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Birth of WSC
> To: Church...@googlegroups.com
>
> Dear Michael and Todd,

> I addressed this very issue at great length on the previous listserve and I wish I had kept the text from that discussion.  There is evidence on both sides of the issue but I come down on the side that he was a full term baby.  Just a couple of brief points.  I believe the marriage was a "shot-gun" one in Paris and that the report in the Times of his birth included the note that he had a full head of red of hair. The arguments for and against this conclusion are lengthy and would take some considerable time to iterate here.
> Having studied Churchills' health amd  medical issues for over a decade, I can assure you that this is only one of several issues that I have looked into and finally come to a conclusions after much research and reflection!!

> John H Mather MD
> In a message dated 1/21/2007 9:06:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, tro...@comcast.net writes:
> There are, I feel, two ways to look at this:
>  1.  Winston Churchill was an exceptional individual, beginning at birth.
>  2.  He was a full term baby, and the premature story was simply a cover.
> I happen to believe both.  :)
> We did have a rather full discussion of this matter on the old listserv a few years ago, but no consensus was reached. Unfortunately, that discussion is not archived anywhere it can be easily accessed (which is not the case with discussions taking place on ChurchillChat today).
> -Todd Ronnei
> Michael Gallagher wrote:
> In several biographies and articles (with the exception of William Manchester) the fact that WSC was born at Blenheim at about 30 weeks gestation seems to be passed over. (I am figuring from the date of "seven and one-half months" widely quoted and, of course the calculation back to his parents' marriage date). There is speculation (Manchester) that his birth was term and his conception "premature," but not much is made of it. His birth annoucement stated that he was born prematurely--period. That, of course could be the only official conclusion at the times. Given victorian mores that overlooked much in order to retain propriety, that could have been the only solution. Yet, a 30-week birth at that time in that place would have been disastrous. I remember my first exposure to a 30-week premature infant in the 80's. Survival rate was relatively high but only with much support and with the risk of impairment. Today, however, 30-week fetuses have a very high chance of survival, but still with support.

[Angl...@aol.com]

Dear Doctor Gallagher,

 

Many in this group and elsewhere have discussed the issue, noting the alleged horseback ride taken by Jennie just before the birth, baby Winston's relatively healthy weight, red hair, etc.  Some have attempted to pinpoint the conception to a specific time Jennie and Randolph were together before marriage, and nine months before the birth.  I know I have seen a full discussion in numerous places.  As I recall, our own Dr, Mather has been the most informative, as he often is.

 

I agree completely with your statement, "I think it matters little in the course of events, but it is an interesting study in how socially awkward situations were handled at the time."  Particularly interesting are the norms in a society of peerage, before DNA paternity testing.  Do I recall correctly that women (including Diana) marrying future kings had to prove their virginity?  (Is that possible?)  Did that extend down the peerage ladder?

 

Andy Guilford

 

[Johnm...@aol.com]

Dear Folks,

 

In his 2006 book "Dark Lady" Charles Higham records (pages 49-50) other information about Jennie that might lead one to suspect that randlph and she attempted some sort of cover up, even at this late stage.  The actual events of the day Winston was born and where Jennie was and what Jennie did and did not do, are not well recorded with any accepted accuracy anyhere that I have been able to determine. 

 

The several books about her and Winston are somewhat conflicted.  Maybe author Anne Sebba who is writing a further book on Jennie will be able to shed some additional definitive light on the events of that day!!

 

John H Mather MD

[Bruce - Australia]

In the book Jennie, The Life of Lady Randolph Churchill - 2 volumes by
Ralph G Martin, the birth is discussed. It talks of Jennie being at a
shoot party and falling ill, a rather imprudent and rough drive bought
on the pains on Saturday night.

The baby was born at 1.30 in the morning after 8 hours Labour. It was
apparently a healthy baby.

The birth was unexpected so the family had to borrow clothes.

The birth notice in the times said " On the 30th Nov. at Blenheim
Palace, the Lady Randolph Churchill, prematurely, of a son."

The book goes on to say "Apparently the Times announcement caused some
snickers, no one had ever stated that the baby looked premature. He was
obviously healthy and robust."

The book does not attribute a source to the above.

Bruce Cowie
Melbourne, Australia

[johnm...@aol.com]

Dear Bruce,

 

Unfortunately there are a lot of things that Ralph Martin wrote which are not accurate and verified or that I have found to be verifiable.  It would be good to elicit all of the areas in which he and others have written, especially without attribution, which are pure 'myth'. There seem to be so many of them, some of which Winston himself promulgated in his own biograhy 'My Early Life'. Of course the most notable Ralph Martin "blunder" was to assert that Jack, Winton's younger brotrher, was not fathered by Randolph.  A suit ensued and Ralph Martin had to retract this assertion.

 

At this distance in time it may not be possible to identify all of the 'myths' including the circumstances surrounding Winston's birth.  Where was Jennie at what point in time and what did she really do on the day of Winston's birth?  How unprepared was she as compared to actually contriving some things and events to hide the true "full term" birth? It remains peculiar that her London obstetrician was kept out of the way or otherwise unavailable.  He did apparently turn up the next day although this is difficult to verify!!

 

More grist for the mill.

 

John H. Mather MD 

 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: cowieb_ch...@bigpond.com.au
To: Church...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 4:32 AM
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: Birth of WSC

---

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

[Suzanne Sigman]

I seem to recall Martin Gilbert (I think) making a study of the dates when Randolph and Jennie were together before their marriage and deducing that Winston could not have been a full-term baby because his parents were apart during the time when he would have to have been conceived, i.e. nine months before Nov 30. Obviously, though,  exact dates of conception and time of gestation are in a range of possibilities....

Suzanne Sigman