Plausibility of Clemence de Dauntsey mothering Joan
Paul Davis
[I attempted to send this earlier, and it apparently didn't
get through. If you receive it twice, I apologize.]
In the past few days there has been discussion here of the
mother of Joan (daughter of king John of England and wife of
prince Llywelyn of Wales). Various people have contributed much
valuable information to this subject. I thank them all very
much.
One contender for the mother-of-Joan award is Clemence de
Dauntsey, championed by Doug Richardson. Paul Reed has pointed
out that this is chronologically difficult.
It seems to me that it is chronologically plausible for this
Clemence to have been the mother of Joan. I still do not draw a
conclusion that she was. There are others in the running. I
present my plausibility argument in the form of a hypothetical
timeline:
1156 approximately - Roger de Dauntsey is born
1167 Dec 24 - prince John is born
1176 approximately - Clemence is born to ~20-year-old Roger
de Dauntsey
1184 - Nicholas de Verdun is born
1185 Jan 25 - Geoffrey Fitz Piers marries Beatrice de Say
1186 approximately - Maud, later countess of Essex, is born
to the recently wed Geoffrey and Beatrice
1188 approximately - ~20-year-old prince John seduces
~12-year-old Clemence
1189 approximately - Joan is born
1189 Aug. 29 - John marries Isabelle de Clare, of Gloucester
1199 May 27 - John becomes king
1200 Aug. 24 - John marries 12-year-old Isabelle of
Angouleme, his previous marriage having been annulled
1205 - Nicholas de Verdun has livery of his lands in Ireland
1205-6 - ~16/17-year-old Joan marries prince Llywelyn; one
result is Clemence's status now rises from "John's teenage tart"
to "mother of a princess" and Roger is now the grandfather of a
princess
1206-7 - ~30/31-year-old Clemence marries 22/23-year-old
Nicholas de Verdun; and sometime hereabouts Maud marries Henry
de Bohun
1207-8 - Rohese is born to the recently wed Nicholas and
~31/32-year-old Clemence
1216 Oct. 9 - king John dies
1220 June 1 - Henry de Bohun dies
1221 approximately - 36-year-or-younger Maud, countess of
Essex, widow of Henry de Bohun, marries the 65-year-or-older
Roger de Dauntsey
1225 - ~17/18-year-old Rohese de Verdun marries Theobald le
Botiler
1231 - Nicholas de Verdun dies
1237 Feb. 02 - Joan dies; subsequently chronicler records her
mother as having been "Regina Clementia", basing the queenly
title on Joan's legitimization, which implies a virtual
marriage, which in turn implies virtual queenship (for the brief
time from John's accession to his marriage to Angouleme)
1240 Llywelyn dies
It seems to me that the least plausible entry here, as
pointed out by Paul Reed, is the age disparity in the marriage
of Maud to Roger de Dauntsey, but it's not impossible, and Roger
had the status of grandfather of a princess to recommend him to
Maud.
Have I made any mistakes? Is anything here less plausible
than I imply?
My sources have been various e-mails to this group, and data
in my files. If it becomes an issue, I can separate out which
data came from which source.
Let me also throw out another idea, namely, since the given
name of Clemence de Dauntsey's mother seems not to be known,
perhaps it was Clemence, and she was the mother of Joan. Then
Clemence de Dauntsey and Nicholas de Verdun were Joan's
children's aunt and uncle. This would make John FitzAlan and
Isabel de Mortimer half third cousins, rather than half second
cousins once removed. Yet another idea, perhaps already
mentioned, would be that the Roger de Dauntsey who married Maud
of Essex was a nephew of the one who fathered Clemence.
Thanks again for all the information that various of you have
provided. This includes Doug, Paul Reed, Rosie, and others
Remember, this is only a chronological plausibility claim, not a
claim that Joan's maternity is now determined.
- Paul K Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> It seems to me that it is chronologically plausible for this
> Clemence to have been the mother of Joan. I still do not draw a
> conclusion that she was. There are others in the running. I
> present my plausibility argument in the form of a hypothetical
> timeline:
> 1188 approximately - ~20-year-old prince John seduces
> ~12-year-old Clemence
>
> 1189 approximately - Joan is born
at 13? It's not impossible, but damn rare. If you have to do
this kind of thing to make a scenario work, it doesn't.
taf
Roz Griston
From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
wrote
taf
are you possibly reflecting modern thought on a medieval lifestyle.
think of the coal miners daughter..the singer..she began early. think
of the other singer..jerry lee lewis..great balls of fire..he married
his 12 or 13 year old cousin. he also married other teenagers.
teenage pregancies/marriages are not all that uncommon today. a high
school friend had her dau at age 17..the dau had my friend's grandson
at age 14.
my 4x's great grandmother had her first child at age 15.
i'm researching elizabeth de grey 5th baroness d'lisle betrothed to
charles brandon had two children by him. little eliz was born in 1505
and d. 1519. yet there are supposed to be records in suffolk saying she
had two children..matthew and jane via brandon prior to his marriage to
mary tudor sister to henry vii.
the only difference between "then" and "now" regarding teenage sex is
the availability of birth control and abortions. a girl reaching
puberty at age 10 is not uncommon. it can even commence earlier in 3rd
world countries.
therefore, it is not too far reaching to believe a 12 year old girl got
pregnant way back then. they do it today..
regards
roz
D. Spencer Hines
high school friend had her dau at age 17..the dau had my friend's
grandson at age 14."
Anecdotal Evidence Is Not Worth The Powder To Blow It To Hell.
Hmmmmmmm.
Griston hangs out with a really tony crowd. <g>
Not Surprising.
Hell, She Can't Even Spell _Mediaeval_.
Hilarious!
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Paul C. Reed
If you want to get pertinently medieval, there is a difference between when
children could be betrothed, when they could give consent, and when they
were of age. Don't foist modern concepts about how children in arranged
marriages would have been treated. ; )
When unions involved land and money of inheritance, their guardians were
generally careful to regulate things. We went through that back in the
discussion we had with a certain discussion abour Rhodri of Wales and the
daughter of the King of Man (Llywelyn was involved too) in October 1999.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
Yes, and considering how many other maidens there would likely have
been who were more developed in, shall we say, visual areas, would it
not be more likely the prince would pick an older girl to ravage,
rather than a 12 year old? (Oh, but then again, we are talking about
King John....)
Paul
Roz Griston
has repeatedly stated he has the greatest respect for the issue of such
relationships..now calls them tony..ahhh..just a little more evidence
of baka buta inu's hipocracy.
ancedotal evidence often gives us an understanding of long forgotten
history. it is the little tales of our ancestors and others that add
colour to the eras being researched..most often they are found in
diaries/journals/letters. ka-thump..<groak> cough cough.
mediaeval is an antiquated english spelling, as is the word
encyclopaedia. trust baka to use obscure terms to impress the
readership of this forum.
there is little else he has to impress us. whats the name of the
college in california you graduated from baka? what years did you
attend yale? who are your GARD's? prove you have something to impress
us with. hmm..how do always sign off..do the words have any sincere
meaning..or are they just part of the propaganda that is whiney-hiney.
wanna see me do a baka impression? here's a quote.
"Speak properly, and in as few words as you can, but always plainly;
for the end of speech is not ostentation, but to be understood." -
William Penn
gotta watch out for those old diphthongs ..oi..buka aka the chief
DIP-THONG=a mind numbed pain in the dererrier. or perhaps soleless
footwear?
later ya ole boot.
roz
From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu]
"teenage pregancies/marriages [sic] are not all that uncommon today. a
high school friend had her dau at age 17..the dau had my friend's
grandson at age 14."
-----------------------
Anecdotal Evidence Is Not Worth The Powder To Blow It To Hell.
Hmmmmmmm.
Griston hangs out with a really tony crowd. <g>
Not Surprising.
Hell, She Can't Even Spell _Mediaeval_.
Hilarious!
snip the boring crud..once again.
Deus Vult.
D. Spencer Hines
hmm..see \/ who are you trying to convince?
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
> wrote
>
> Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> > 1188 approximately - ~20-year-old prince John seduces
> > ~12-year-old Clemence
> >
> > 1189 approximately - Joan is born
>
> at 13? It's not impossible, but damn rare. If you have to do
> this kind of thing to make a scenario work, it doesn't.
>
No.
> i'm researching elizabeth de grey 5th baroness d'lisle betrothed to
> charles brandon had two children by him. little eliz was born in 1505
> and d. 1519. yet there are supposed to be records in suffolk saying she
> had two children..matthew and jane via brandon prior to his marriage to
> mary tudor sister to henry vii.
>
> therefore, it is not too far reaching to believe a 12 year old girl got
> pregnant way back then. they do it today..
Today is irrelevant. I can only think of three instances, in the
entire medieval period in England, of such an early birth.
Again, if a reconstruction requires such a rare event, then it is
likely wrong, and pointing to one of a handful of other instances
(or Jerry Lee Lewis) doesn't change that. Strange things happen,
but that doesn't justify invoking on one every time you need to
"rescue" a troubled chronology, just to make a guess hold up. 12
year olds could get pregnant - rarely did they. If the only link
between Joan's mother and Clemence of Dauntsey is that their
given name happened to be the same, then the alternative
hypothesis that they were different women has to be prefered over
such a problematic chronology.
taf
taf
D. Spencer Hines
*Don't* try to take contemporary anecdotal evidence from one's personal
experience with trailer-park-trash Juliets and randy entertainers and
project it back onto the Middle Ages.
It is Bad History and Bad Genealogy.
Verbum Sapienti.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3BF97EB4...@interfold.com...
Gryphon801
she was barely able to bear a child, and was barren thereafter as a result.
But this is not the "normal" pattern and should not be used to support the
Dauntsey theory.
Ian Cairns
"Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
news:01C170FD.0884...@dccnet.com...
<snip>
> mediaeval is an antiquated english spelling, as is the word
> encyclopaedia. trust baka to use obscure terms to impress the
> readership of this forum.
<snip>
Far from being antiquated or obscure, both 'mediaeval' and
'encyclopaedia' are current English spellings - although medieval and
encyclopedia also appear as acceptable spellings in the dictionaries.
Regards
Ian
D. Spencer Hines
Thank You.
And all four spellings are quite acceptable ---- and, more important,
CORRECT.
She should learn that ---- and not prattle from the depths of her own
crudely-crafted pit of ignorance and cluelessness ---- as she has
ignorantly done ---- in "correcting" me ---- incorrectly.
Now she has learned the truth ---- after her egregious error and the
immediately subsequent pratfall.
Hilarious!
Praise The Lord.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Ian Cairns" <ne...@cairnsfamily.org> wrote in message
news:1006210281.62.0....@news.demon.co.uk...
Roz Griston
exceptions to every rule. if my research on little eliz de grey holds
true. she is a definate exception.
king john was known to be a cad. king henry vii wasn't exactly the most
honourable of men and charles brandon wasn't a shy young man either.
thanks for the lead below. i'll check it out.
roz
Roz,
If you want to get pertinently medieval, there is a difference between
when
children could be betrothed, when they could give consent, and when
they
were of age. Don't foist modern concepts about how children in
arranged
marriages would have been treated. ; )
When unions involved land and money of inheritance, their guardians
were
generally careful to regulate things. We went through that back in the
discussion we had with a certain discussion abour Rhodri of Wales and
the
daughter of the King of Man (Llywelyn was involved too) in October
1999.
Paul
Roz Griston wrote:
> From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
> wrote
>
> Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that it is chronologically plausible for this
> > Clemence to have been the mother of Joan. I still do not draw a
> > conclusion that she was. There are others in the running. I
> > present my plausibility argument in the form of a hypothetical
> > timeline:
>
> > 1188 approximately - ~20-year-old prince John seduces
> > ~12-year-old Clemence
> >
> > 1189 approximately - Joan is born
>
> at 13? It's not impossible, but damn rare. If you have to do
> this kind of thing to make a scenario work, it doesn't.
>
> taf
>
> are you possibly reflecting modern thought on a medieval lifestyle.
> think of the coal miners daughter..the singer..she began early. think
> of the other singer..jerry lee lewis..great balls of fire..he married
> his 12 or 13 year old cousin. he also married other teenagers.
>
> teenage pregancies/marriages are not all that uncommon today. a high
> school friend had her dau at age 17..the dau had my friend's grandson
> at age 14.
>
> my 4x's great grandmother had her first child at age 15.
>
> i'm researching elizabeth de grey 5th baroness d'lisle betrothed to
> charles brandon had two children by him. little eliz was born in 1505
> and d. 1519. yet there are supposed to be records in suffolk saying
she
> had two children..matthew and jane via brandon prior to his marriage
to
> mary tudor sister to henry vii.
>
> the only difference between "then" and "now" regarding teenage sex is
> the availability of birth control and abortions. a girl reaching
> puberty at age 10 is not uncommon. it can even commence earlier in
3rd
> world countries.
>
> therefore, it is not too far reaching to believe a 12 year old girl
got
> pregnant way back then. they do it today..
>
> regards
> roz
Louise Staley
> Today is irrelevant. I can only think of three instances, in
the
> entire medieval period in England, of such an early birth.
Todd,
Can you enlighten us as to the three instances you are thinking
of? Does anyone else have any other documented cases?
Louise
Arthur Murata
female puberty. However, the age is only now becoming that
young as a common thing. Medical periodicals say that the
age of first menses is lowering as we head into the future
- probably because of reduced childhood mortality and
better nutrition. It goes hand in hand with today's
tendency for people to become obese - our starving
ancestors became all too efficient at utilizing what scraps
of food they could find. A girl must have a certain amount
of body fat relative to her height and bone structure
before she can conceive; that is why so many female
marathon runners and sufferers of eating disorders
discontinue menstruation. I'm just adding another layer to
the comment in this post that conception by a 12 year old
during the medieval period would be almost unheard of. But,
again, not impossible. Much less likely than even a century
ago or, as when I was coming of age, about 45 years ago. It
was common when I was in high school for girls to begin as
late as 16 - in fact, it was the norm. If she was strong
enough, fat enough, well-developed enough to actually start
her menses, she would also have been able to carry the baby
to full term. Best, Bronwen Edwards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote in message:
> > Today is irrelevant. I can only think of three instances, in
> the
> > entire medieval period in England, of such an early birth.
>
> of? Does anyone else have any other documented cases?
In addition to the one Roz mentioned (which I can't confirm, but
I was giving it the benefit of the doubt), the two I had in mind
were Margaret (Beaufort) Tudor and Katherine (Shaa) Brown,
neither of which was quite this young.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
This might be a partial explanation as to why fat junior/high-school
girls with low self-esteem "go all the way".
Perhaps their hormones kick in, they are horny ---- and they see "giving
in" as an instant route to popularity with the boys.
Short-sighted, if true.
But we need more evidence and a truly scientific study ---- before
coming to any conclusions.
Girls who watch their weight closely and watch Ali McBeal might escape
the trap. <g>
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Arthur Murata" <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2001111923385...@web13302.mail.yahoo.com...
Roz Griston
count how many times i've seen the terms.. born about. born after, born
before in gedcoms/webpages.. online info..often citing accepted
sources.
it is only an assumption that there were not more teenage pregancies.
look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
catherine of aragon denied the consumation. henry viii said it
occurred. only arthur and catherine really knew for sure. arthur
bragged about it..typical macho 15 year old. catherine wasn't overly
fertile or able to carry to full term pregancies..as evidenced by a
sole surviving child...bloody mary.
do i believe teenage pregancy was a prevalent lifestyle..no..but, i do
believe it occurred a lot more than some of us would like to believe or
have/allow others to believe.
ya just gotta love that victorian era influence on our thinking
patterns. people are people, are people it doesn't matter what decade
or era..our ancestors were not hormonally challenged..and neither are
we. having sex at any age depends upon the level of emotional, mental
or ethical maturity the participants have..willing and unwilling.
men in three piece suits are the most common customers for kiddie
prostitutes. they've got the bucks to pay for their deviance. oh and
gee they come from nice families too.
why do think the boogie man legends exist..what would you call the
creeps and perverts and other deviants who lurk among us and our
ancestors?
in short teen pregancies..occurred and the DAUNTSEY theory retains
plausibility because of it.
roz
Roz Griston
roz wrote
snip
>
> therefore, it is not too far reaching to believe a 12 year old girl
got
> pregnant way back then. they do it today..
Today is irrelevant. I can only think of three instances, in the
entire medieval period in England, of such an early birth.
Again, if a reconstruction requires such a rare event, then it is
likely wrong, and pointing to one of a handful of other instances
(or Jerry Lee Lewis) doesn't change that. Strange things happen,
but that doesn't justify invoking on one every time you need to
"rescue" a troubled chronology, just to make a guess hold up. 12
year olds could get pregnant - rarely did they. If the only link
between Joan's mother and Clemence of Dauntsey is that their
given name happened to be the same, then the alternative
hypothesis that they were different women has to be prefered over
such a problematic chronology.
taf
chronology is not that problematic and two different clemences are
plausible too. the verdict is still *unknown* and "here are some
possibilities....".
regards
roz
taf
D. Spencer Hines
conception of Henry VII about 28 April 1456 ---- The Rites of Spring.
At that time she was just a month shy of 13. Her husband, Edmund Tudor
was about 25.
Margaret was about four months shy of 14 when Henry was born ---- about
three months after his father died.
This doesn't prove a *damned thing*, of course, about Clemence de
Dauntsey.
Rosie Bevan
years old but her first child Henry III was not born until 1 Oct 1207 when
she was 19. Her following children by John were born in 1209, 1210, 1214,
1215. Isabella went on to have another 8 children by her second husband.
It is my impression that generally first births took place well after the
age of 12, say 15/16, but not as late as 19.
Does anyone know of any studies on fertility trends in medieval times?
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Early Births (was Plausibility of Clemence etc.)
> Margaret was born on 31st May1443 and gave birth to Henry VII on 28
January
> 1457. That would make her 13 years and 8 months. This is the youngest
birth
> I know of in medieval times.
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Early Births (was Plausibility of Clemence etc.)
>
>
> > Louise Staley wrote:
> > >
> > > "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote in message:
> > > > Today is irrelevant. I can only think of three instances, in
> > > the
> > > > entire medieval period in England, of such an early birth.
> > >
Amanda Jones
(Roz Griston) wrote:
> it is only an assumption that there were not more teenage pregancies.
> look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
> catherine of aragon denied the consumation. henry viii said it
> occurred. only arthur and catherine really knew for sure. arthur
> bragged about it..typical macho 15 year old. catherine wasn't overly
> fertile or able to carry to full term pregancies..as evidenced by a
> sole surviving child...bloody mary.
Catherine of Aragon has several full-term pregnancies, I believe, but the
children died young.
Amanda
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> but..how do we know it is not a somewhat normal pattern. i've lost
> count how many times i've seen the terms.. born about. born after, born
> before in gedcoms/webpages.. online info..often citing accepted
> sources.
That's right. There are a lot of dates we don't know. We cannot
base theories on what we don't know, assuming that our lack of
knowledge hides all of the examples that support us. For all you
know they were all 25. We can only base arguments on what we do
know. How many medieval English births to 13-year-olds do you
know?
> look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
> catherine of aragon denied the consumation. henry viii said it
> occurred. only arthur and catherine really knew for sure. arthur
> bragged about it..typical macho 15 year old. catherine wasn't overly
> fertile or able to carry to full term pregancies..as evidenced by a
> sole surviving child...bloody mary.
OK, let's look at Catherine. Did she give birth at age 13? No.
End of story. Next . . .
> do i believe teenage pregancy was a prevalent lifestyle..no..but, i do
> believe it occurred a lot more than some of us would like to believe or
> have/allow others to believe.
Your evidence being . . . ? (And what is this "allow others to
believe", as if you need the permission of "some of us" to
believe in anything, however ridiculous.)
> ya just gotta love that victorian era influence on our thinking
> patterns.
Ah, yes. We - those who disagree with you - are victims of
Victorian prudery. It is easier to dismiss it that way rather
than actually address the question. It would be equally easy for
me to attribute such early-birth wishfull thinking to the
titilation factor alone, as revealed by:
> men in three piece suits are the most common customers for kiddie
> prostitutes. they've got the bucks to pay for their deviance. oh and
> gee they come from nice families too.
>
> why do think the boogie man legends exist..what would you call the
> creeps and perverts and other deviants who lurk among us and our
> ancestors?
(I have to say, this is the first I have seen the "boogie man"
interpreted as a sex offender. I guess though it was inevitable,
since he was, after all, a man.) However, rather than attribute
each other's opinions to their psychological flaws, how about we
look at the actual issue.
> people are people, are people it doesn't matter what decade
> or era..our ancestors were not hormonally challenged..
Yes, they were. In general their nutrition, even among the
gentry, sucked. Likewise, there were few environmental
estrogenic compounds, which in modern times excellerate puberty
in girls. (or do you wish to call them normal and us
hyperhormonal?)
From a statistical point of view, first-birth age is going to be
a bell curve, and there will be early and late first-births on
the tails of that curve. There will be a very small number of
events at the very end of this curve, just as on extremely rare
occasions, you can flip a quarter and get 10 heads in a row.
However, if you HAVE to get 10 heads in a row to win a bet, would
you take the bet? Age-13 birth's have to be outside the 99th
percentile, and it is not rational to require such an event when
reconstructing a historical occurance without strong evidence in
favor - there is no such evidence.
> in short teen pregancies..occurred and the DAUNTSEY theory retains
> plausibility because of it.
In short, you have named one such early birth in the medieval
period, and others have identified a second. Two in over 500
years. That is not "frequent" by any stretch of the imagination,
and cannot legitimately be used to support a theory which has
nothing more than "name's the same" to it's favor. An age-13
birth is REMOTELY possible in this case, but compared to the more
simple explanation that Clemence was some other (adult) woman,
favor has to go to the latter.
taf
Paul C. Reed
Amanda Jones wrote:
> In article <01C17117.2B37...@dccnet.com>, r_gr...@dccnet.com
> (Roz Griston) wrote:
>
> > it is only an assumption that there were not more teenage pregancies.
> > look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
[snip]
Again, we are talking about the likelihood of John, as Prince, having his way
with a woman. John is not known to have had a lot of illegitimate children.
Would his carnal desire be worked up from a 12 year old?
The question in this case is not just, is it possible for a 12 year old to
give birth, but also, given the circumstances, is it likely that John would
have chosen such a girl?
This was not an arranged marriage, or young children placed together. It was
a clandestine event outside of church marriage, and any offspring would have
initially been assumed to be without rights, other than the good favor of
others.
Paul
Roz Griston
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Cairns [SMTP:ne...@cairnsfamily.org]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:51 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Plausibility of Clemence de Dauntsey As Mother of Joan
"Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
news:01C170FD.0884...@dccnet.com...
<snip>
> mediaeval is an antiquated english spelling, as is the word
> encyclopaedia. trust baka to use obscure terms to impress the
> readership of this forum.
<snip>
Far from being antiquated or obscure, both 'mediaeval' and
'encyclopaedia' are current English spellings - although medieval and
encyclopedia also appear as acceptable spellings in the dictionaries.
Regards
Ian
good points ian, but how often do you read encyclopaedia or mediaeval
in your everyday life? think of adverts in newspapers or on television.
the americanization of the english language has crept into canadian
newspapers.
send a letter to the editor of a canadian newspaper using the words
colour or honour..poof..good ole yankee spelling is printed.
as baka buta inu lives in the usa..was educated in the usa, and claims
american ancestry..one can only assume he is being his boorishly
pretentious self when he uses spelling..which in north america is
considered antiquated or obscure.
if you were using the words..i would not nor could not make the same
level of assumption. as they are still actively used, according to you,
amongst the common population.
regards
roz
Shawn Potter
On the other hand, if Roger de Dauntsey was born before about 1152,
and Clemence was born about 1172, then this chronology works nicely.
One needs evidence concerning Roger de Dauntsey's year of birth in
order to draw any conclusions from this chronology.
Shawn
Nathaniel Taylor
(Rosie Bevan) wrote:
>King John married Isabella of Angouleme on 24 Aug 1200 when she was about 12
>years old but her first child Henry III was not born until 1 Oct 1207 when
>she was 19. Her following children by John were born in 1209, 1210, 1214,
>1215. Isabella went on to have another 8 children by her second husband.
>
>It is my impression that generally first births took place well after the
>age of 12, say 15/16, but not as late as 19.
>
>Does anyone know of any studies on fertility trends in medieval times?
Medieval historians James Brundage (U. Kansas) and David Herlihy (Harvard,
Brown) both did major surveys of these issues (both marriage and
childbearing patterns). Herlihy focused his own research on Italian
households, but assembled lots of data in his _Medieval Households_. I
can't remember whether Jim Brundage's _Law Sex and Christian Society_
(something like that title) has similar statistical data on age at first
marriage and age of childbearing--Brundage's focus is on law and theory
more than observed social trends. I don't have these books to hand, but
people would do well to do some basic reading before arguing too heatedly
on plausibility of a single specific posited case. I am tending to think
that chronology appears to weaken the Clemence de Dauntsey case, but I've
kept my mouth shut because I haven't checked Herlihy or Brundage on this
lately.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On the other hand, if Roger de Dauntsey was born before about 1152,
> and Clemence was born about 1172, then this chronology works nicely.
> One needs evidence concerning Roger de Dauntsey's year of birth in
> order to draw any conclusions from this chronology.
True, but the older you make Clemence, the later and hence more
implausible becomes her marriage to Nicholas de Verdun. She both
becomes significantly older than Nicholas - not impossible, but
not the norm - and also it becomes implausible that a noble woman
(and her marriage portion) would not have been snatched up
sooner.
Again, we are fighting our way upstream when it would be easier
to get out and walk. The Queen Clemence = Clemence of Dauntsey
hypothesis has nothing but name similarity (and the possible
hostage = kinswoman link) to support it. Why is everyone trying
so hard to preserve it in the face of a deluge of chronological
difficulties, when there were other women named Clemence about?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> chronology is not that problematic and two different clemences are
> plausible too. the verdict is still *unknown* and "here are some
> possibilities....".
Possibilities are fine, but it is better if the likelihood of
them is reasonably evaluated, rather than simply saying that one
possibility is just as good as every other.
taf
canberra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Amanda Jones" <avj...@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Subject: RE: Plausibility of Clemence de Dauntsey mothering Joan
> In article <01C17117.2B37...@dccnet.com>, r_gr...@dccnet.com
> (Roz Griston) wrote:
>
> > it is only an assumption that there were not more teenage pregancies.
> > look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
> > catherine of aragon denied the consumation. henry viii said it
> > occurred. only arthur and catherine really knew for sure. arthur
> > bragged about it..typical macho 15 year old. catherine wasn't overly
> > fertile or able to carry to full term pregancies..as evidenced by a
> > sole surviving child...bloody mary.
>
> Catherine of Aragon has several full-term pregnancies, I believe, but the
> children died young.
>
> Amanda
I believe I read somewhere that her trouble with childbearing may have been
caused by Henry VIII's catching of VD at the "Field of Cloth and Gold".
Apparently female children conceived are stronger than the male which may
explain why
of the six pregnancies Henry, born 1 January 1511 died 22 February 1511, and
only Mary Tudor survived.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
bush ---- and they are hanging on to Clemence de Dauntsey for dear life.
They want those links to Royalty ---- and they want them NOW ---- not
"after further study" ---- in a few years. They might not be above
ground then.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3BF9C518...@interfold.com...
Paul C. Reed
Shawn Potter wrote:
But if Rohese de Verdun was not born until about 1205-10 [she was an heiress of substantial lands], I
think it would be a stretch to assume her mother was born as early as 1172, if one has nothing better to
go on than the preponderance of what others of ther class did at that time. Substantial land holders
tended to have their marriages arranged while they were still fairly young [though consent was ultimately
still required]. One can go on and on about "what ifs", but from what we know, what is the most likely
and reasonable conclusion? That is what I had been trying to work towards.
What we KNOW still makes Clemence de Dougers a better candidate for Joan's mother based on chronology.
Paul
Nichol
I'd say it's not completely impossible. I've heard of cases with
mothers as young as seven conceiving (though not usually surviving
delivery) and judging from King John's second marriage to Isabelle
d'Angouleme, he didn't seem to have much trouble with the concept of
twelve-year-old bed partners. Not that it makes it right, but that it
is not neccesarily impossible.
.:Nichol:.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I'd say it's not completely impossible.
I am not saying that it is impossible either - just that all of
those horses used to fill out the Derby field have better odds,
but they NEVER win.
> I've heard of cases with
> mothers as young as seven conceiving (though not usually surviving
> delivery) and judging from King John's second marriage to Isabelle
> d'Angouleme, he didn't seem to have much trouble with the concept of
> twelve-year-old bed partners.
But did he bed her that early? Her first child was not born
until years later.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
marriage and age of eldest surviving children, in England & elsewhere, in
the 12th to 14th centuries. The _Rotuli de dominabus_ of 1185 gives him a
small sample of widows, with ages listed, and the ages of their children.
Å‚For 14 widows younger than age 30 in the survey, the average age at which
they gave birth to their first surviving child was 18.4 years.Ë› He then
cites a Åšlady AldaÄ… who was 30, with a 16-year-old child (birth at 14).
He then goes on to use other data to suggest that the later teens were a
more typical age for childbearing and first marriage among women below the
highest classes. This section has a great deal of anecdotal evidence on
very young marriages, but does not sufficiently distinguish the time at
which such brides became sexually active and/or fertile (many of the
12-year-old marriages he cites were surely unconsummated at that time).
The section on later medieval Florence (based on the Catasto) has much
information regarding fertility, with a large number of married women,
ages 13-17, who do not yet bear children.
I would appreciate learning of other literature which takes this question
further, with either anecdotal or statistical evidence.
Nat Taylor
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> judging from King John's second marriage to Isabelle
> d'Angouleme, he didn't seem to have much trouble with the concept of
> twelve-year-old bed partners. Not that it makes it right, but that it
> is not neccesarily impossible.
>
> .:Nichol:.
Again, I think there is a definite difference between an arranged marriage and what we are discussing.
Isabella was about twelve [we don't have a date of birth for her giving month and day, do we?], she was
heiress of the important County of Angouleme.
Though there is a romantic tale about John carrying her off, the reality is that she was an important
heiress, and she had been, in fact, betrothed to Hugh de Lusignan, but her parents, preferring their
daughter to become Queen, and John wanting the county, quickly negotiated, with the compliance of the
Archbishop of Bordeaux, that her betrothal to Lusignan was not valid, and that there was no impediment to
a marriage with John.
And AGAIN, her marriage at about age twelve was on 24 August 1200, yet her first child was not born until
1 October 1207. Thus, the key consideration is not age at marriage [John did not marry 'Clemence'], but
in this case the chronology of Joan being conceived about 1186-88, yet Clemence's KNOWN daughter and heir
Rohese being born about 1205-10.
And again, we are not arguing in an effort to find ANY possibility which is not absolutely impossible, but
what the best conclusion is given the evidence.
Paul
Roz Griston
From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
Roz Griston wrote:
>
> but..how do we know it is not a somewhat normal pattern. i've lost
> count how many times i've seen the terms.. born about. born after,
born
> before in gedcoms/webpages.. online info..often citing accepted
> sources.
todd said
That's right. There are a lot of dates we don't know. We cannot
base theories on what we don't know, assuming that our lack of
knowledge hides all of the examples that support us. For all you
know they were all 25. We can only base arguments on what we do
know. How many medieval English births to 13-year-olds do you
know?
rg/one can reverse the arguement here, todd. we don't know they were
25..we don't know how old they were because most documents available
have a date of when the person of interest flourished/lived. it may
mention that they were of age..or underage..but there is no exact date
of birth..ergo the conundrum.
moreover, i have a little over 18 months experience researching the
medieval time frame..i'm still on a very steep learning curve.
additionally, i am not approaching my research in the accepted format
of genealogist...i'm gathering information from every available
source..filling in a puzzle so to speak. in spite of my avante gard
approach.. i'm becoming knowledgeable in medieval lifestyle and i'm
getting quite good at spotting valid vs wayout there gedcoms/webpages.
> look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
> catherine of aragon denied the consumation. henry viii said it
> occurred. only arthur and catherine really knew for sure. arthur
> bragged about it..typical macho 15 year old. catherine wasn't overly
> fertile or able to carry to full term pregancies..as evidenced by a
> sole surviving child...bloody mary.
todd/OK, let's look at Catherine. Did she give birth at age 13? No.
End of story. Next .
rg/not quite..it was a teenaged marriage that may have been consumated,
but definately bore no known fruit. that in itself being a teenage
marriage gives some veracity to the fact there may have been other
teenage marriages were consumated that possibly bore fruit..but we lack
dates to verify the birth year and therefore, the true age of the birth
mother.
this does not preclude the fact there might be other early teen
mothers.
was catherine 13? no
was catherine a teenager? yes.
if you shut your eyes to all possible avenues of research you will
never get to the truth. brickwalls were made to get over, under around
or through..if you are persistant like water you will erode the almost
any blockade..and sometimes..you do have to admit defeat and move on to
another path..because there just isn't any answer available.
end of story
rg/> do i believe teenage pregancy was a prevalent lifestyle..no..but,
i do
> believe it occurred a lot more than some of us would like to believe
or
> have/allow others to believe.
todd/Your evidence being . . . ?
rg/ human nature, we really aren't so much different than our medieval
ancestors. look to "modern" cultures that still believe in arranged
marriages. the dowery is still used in many middle/far eastern
countries. we've lots of marital taboos that regularily get broken..in
fact, in the industrialised nations about the only thing different is
we don't draw and quarter or execute..legally unfaithful partners or
lovers. domestic murder/suicides are not too terribily uncommon tho one
spouse offs the other..and maybe the lover too. sort of the modern
equivilent of "do ya wanna joust over that".
todd said (And what is this "allow others to
believe", as if you need the permission of "some of us" to
believe in anything, however ridiculous.)
rg/ experts making pronouncements of this is right and this is wrong
will often sway the insecure thinker to jump on the bandwagon of the
expert. we are programmed/taught to follow the authority of the "most
informed" as part of our culture. its how the hiearchy maintains
control. we are cued to follow the party-line. follow the leader..its
easier, you don't have to think. thats why there are so many dippy on
line ged-coms..lax researchers...a "i've got more ancestors recorded
than you do mentality."
rg/> ya just gotta love that victorian era influence on our thinking
> patterns.
todd/Ah, yes. We - those who disagree with you - are victims of
Victorian prudery. It is easier to dismiss it that way rather
than actually address the question.
rg/we are "victims" of our culture if we choose to be..for most of
us..the victorian era has played a large role in our thinking
processes, that and religion...whatever religion.
i did not dismiss anything..i stated a fact. our culture is full of
sheep aka sheeples who follow and frolic along with the least amount of
creative or critical thinking.
todd/ It would be equally easy for
me to attribute such early-birth wishfull thinking to the
titilation factor alone, as revealed by:
rg/> men in three piece suits are the most common customers for kiddie
> prostitutes. they've got the bucks to pay for their deviance. oh and
> gee they come from nice families too.
>
> why do think the boogie man legends exist..what would you call the
> creeps and perverts and other deviants who lurk among us and our
> ancestors?
todd/(I have to say, this is the first I have seen the "boogie man"
interpreted as a sex offender. I guess though it was inevitable,
since he was, after all, a man.)
women can be sexual offenders too. in canada we have karla holmauka
(sp). britian has a woman too. she and her husband lured several young
women into their home. sexually abused them and buried them in the
cellar/yard.
culturally, a woman molesting a young boy isn't seen as being as
horrific as man molesting a young girl..and he's even worse if he
molests a boy.
a woman sexual predator is usually seen as teaching a young fellow the
ropes so to speak. a male predator is removing innocence. i didn't set
up this stupid double standard..but, i'm more than willing remove the
blinders to the general population, speaking about the issue. women can
be as sexually deviant as men..so would you prefer...i said boogie
person?
.
todd/ However, rather than attribute
each other's opinions to their psychological flaws, how about we
look at the actual issue.
rg/> people are people, are people it doesn't matter what decade
> or era..our ancestors were not hormonally challenged..
todd/Yes, they were. In general their nutrition, even among the
gentry, sucked. Likewise, there were few environmental
estrogenic compounds, which in modern times excellerate puberty
in girls. (or do you wish to call them normal and us
hyperhormonal?)
rg/these ppl, even the gentry ate more organic food than us. they are
more normal than us. ppl in third world countries are more normal than
us. dietarily speaking...mmmm, yum must go buy some more edible oil
product..i.e. coffee mate..the same sort of chemical glop mickey D's
uses for their ice *cream* cones.
or lets even look at our pets/animals. in general they reach sexual
maturity at a certain age..depending upon species.
they generally have the same gestation period as others within their
species. some breed very young, others are older..some have
scientifically balanced diets and others of the same or similiar genus
forage wild for food.
it does little to effect their ability to reproduce..what it does do is
reduce or improve the ability of the birth mother to carry to term and
produce healthy offspring. it has very little effect upon the norm..for
the age of the female to achieve an age to breed.
our ancestors where quite adept at breeding. look at the variety of
working dogs originating in the u.k. old english sheep dogs, border
collies, bull mastiffs, english bull dogs, pit bulls, terriers,
spaniels..all bred for and by the gentry. no reason they wouldn't
attempt to guide human bloodlines that way..especially when the right
"breeding" kept the wealth in the family or brought in more. if so and
so was producing a lot of kids..it might be smart to try and match
brood for brood..
todd/From a statistical point of view, first-birth age is going to be
a bell curve, and there will be early and late first-births on
the tails of that curve. There will be a very small number of
events at the very end of this curve, just as on extremely rare
occasions, you can flip a quarter and get 10 heads in a row.
rg/ very true todd..i have not said anything different than the
above..only that teen age pregancies occurred in the medieval time
frame. it is the number and frequency of these youthful pregnancies
that needs to be determined..if it ever can be.
todd/However, if you HAVE to get 10 heads in a row to win a bet, would
you take the bet?
rg/ sure if i could use a magnet..one can fix statistics.
todd/ Age-13 birth's have to be outside the 99th
percentile, and it is not rational to require such an event when
reconstructing a historical occurance without strong evidence in
favor - there is no such evidence.
rg/ here is were we disagree strongly. i am willing to bet at 10 to 20
percent of medieval births occurred to young teens. the evidence is not
revealed as of yet...it doesn't mean it doesn't exist..it means it has
not been found or proven.
> in short teen pregancies..occurred and the DAUNTSEY theory retains
> plausibility because of it.
todd/In short, you have named one such early birth in the medieval
period, and others have identified a second. Two in over 500
years. That is not "frequent" by any stretch of the imagination,
and cannot legitimately be used to support a theory which has
nothing more than "name's the same" to it's favor.
rg/ all responses are not in yet. i think one could safely assume there
are now several readers of this list scrutinizing birth ages of
mothers..some will come back in support of your position..others will
come back in support of my position..but, until someone takes on the
research of the birth ages of medieval mothers we will not approach a
conclusive answer.
todd/An age-13
birth is REMOTELY possible in this case, but compared to the more
simple explanation that Clemence was some other (adult) woman,
favor has to go to the latter.
rg/ that is your choice. i personally am open to either/or..or maybe
not at all, perhaps the monk who transcribed the document made an error
and completely wrote the wrong name by accident or on purpose (you know
how civil servants can be) <vbg>...
quite simply..who clemence is remains an unknown.
roz
taf
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
> it may mention that they were of age..or underage..but there is no exact
> date
> of birth..ergo the conundrum.
Roz,
If there is evidence they were "of age" then we have a set point to work
from. If a man was "of age" he was not 12 years old fathering children.
Even if we do not know what their exact age is now, they did (at least
those inheriting land in capite did).
Are you going to argue endless possibilities, just for the sake or
arguing. or are you trying to go in a certain direction with this?
Must we always conclude that anything is possible, or can we
conclude that some things are more likely and less likely?
Paul
Roz Griston
only thanks to modern medical technology do more babies of young teens
survive.
both you and paul are presenting very informative commentary to take
into consideration.
and todd too..he's right when you need to look at the best
possibility..but the best possibility isn't always the correct or even
nearly correct answer.
the identity of clemence remains unknown. more research is needed.
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Taylor [SMTP:nta...@post.harvard.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:52 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Early Births (was Plausibility of Clemence etc.)
Herlihy, _Medieval Households_, 105, reviews some data on age at first
marriage and age of eldest surviving children, in England & elsewhere,
in
the 12th to 14th centuries. The _Rotuli de dominabus_ of 1185 gives
him a
small sample of widows, with ages listed, and the ages of their
children.
?For 14 widows younger than age 30 in the survey, the average age at
which
they gave birth to their first surviving child was 18.4 years.? He
then
cites a ?lady Alda? who was 30, with a 16-year-old child (birth at 14).
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> comments interspersed.
>
> From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
>
> Roz Griston wrote:
> >
> > but..how do we know it is not a somewhat normal pattern. i've lost
> > count how many times i've seen the terms.. born about. born after,
> born
> > before in gedcoms/webpages.. online info..often citing accepted
> > sources.
>
> todd said
> That's right. There are a lot of dates we don't know. We cannot
> base theories on what we don't know, assuming that our lack of
> knowledge hides all of the examples that support us. For all you
> know they were all 25. We can only base arguments on what we do
> know. How many medieval English births to 13-year-olds do you
> know?
>
> rg/one can reverse the arguement here, todd. we don't know they were
> 25..we don't know how old they were because most documents available
> have a date of when the person of interest flourished/lived. it may
> mention that they were of age..or underage..but there is no exact date
> of birth..ergo the conundrum.
Which was exactly my point. When we don't know the age, we don't
know the age, so you can't point to the fact that we don't know a
lot of dates and say that therein must hide a wealth of
13-year-old births. There is every likelihood that were these to
be known, they would look similar to the ones we already know.
> moreover, i have a little over 18 months experience researching the
> medieval time frame.
OK, but how many medieval English births to 13-year-olds do you
know?
> todd/OK, let's look at Catherine. Did she give birth at age 13? No.
> End of story. Next .
>
> rg/not quite..it was a teenaged marriage that may have been consumated,
or may not have . . .
> but definately bore no known fruit.
So this is relevant, how . . . ?
> this does not preclude the fact there might be other early teen
> mothers.
Of course not. I never said it did. It does not meet the
criteria at all, so is completely irrelevant.
> was catherine 13? no
> was catherine a teenager? yes.
We are talking about 13. Nineteen is a teenager, but there is a
world of difference.
> rg/> do i believe teenage pregancy was a prevalent lifestyle..no..but,
> i do
> > believe it occurred a lot more than some of us would like to believe
> or
> > have/allow others to believe.
>
> todd/Your evidence being . . . ?
>
> rg/ human nature, we really aren't so much different than our medieval
> ancestors.
In other words, proof by personal affirmation. When I asked for
evidence, I meant from the actual time period in question.
> todd said (And what is this "allow others to
> believe", as if you need the permission of "some of us" to
> believe in anything, however ridiculous.)
>
> rg/ experts making pronouncements of this is right and this is wrong
> will often sway the insecure thinker to jump on the bandwagon of the
> expert.
Well, that need not be a bad thing. After all, they are experts
for a reason, and the insecure are insecure because they realize
that they don't know enough to be certain. Unfortunately, there
are too many people who have only dabbled but think they have
some special knowledge or insight that has somehow escaped the
experts. These people come up with the most outlandish material,
cloaked as iconoclastic "free thinking". They would be better
served to listen to people who actually know what they are
talking about.
[bunch of irrelevant sexual politics deleted.]
> rg/> people are people, are people it doesn't matter what decade
> > or era..our ancestors were not hormonally challenged..
>
> todd/Yes, they were. In general their nutrition, even among the
> gentry, sucked. Likewise, there were few environmental
> estrogenic compounds, which in modern times excellerate puberty
> in girls. (or do you wish to call them normal and us
> hyperhormonal?)
>
> rg/these ppl, even the gentry ate more organic food than us. they are
> more normal than us. ppl in third world countries are more normal than
> us. dietarily speaking...mmmm, yum must go buy some more edible oil
> product..i.e. coffee mate..the same sort of chemical glop mickey D's
> uses for their ice *cream* cones.
The point, which you seem to be missing, is that our diet makes
us fatter and gives us more nutrients than we need. That results
in accelerated reproductive function. This is well documented,
and backed up by hundreds of animal studies. It is standard
reproductive endocrinology. Your groundless speculation about
what it does to humans, dogs and wild animals is simply
misinformed.
> todd/From a statistical point of view, first-birth age is going to be
> a bell curve, and there will be early and late first-births on
> the tails of that curve. There will be a very small number of
> events at the very end of this curve, just as on extremely rare
> occasions, you can flip a quarter and get 10 heads in a row.
>
> rg/ very true todd..i have not said anything different than the
> above..only that teen age pregancies occurred in the medieval time
> frame.
Again, lets get this straight. We are not talking about teen
pregnancies. The average woman would have given birth in her
teens. We are talking about 13.
> todd/ Age-13 birth's have to be outside the 99th
> percentile, and it is not rational to require such an event when
> reconstructing a historical occurance without strong evidence in
> favor - there is no such evidence.
>
> rg/ here is were we disagree strongly. i am willing to bet at 10 to 20
> percent of medieval births occurred to young teens. the evidence is not
> revealed as of yet...it doesn't mean it doesn't exist..it means it has
> not been found or proven.
I see. Even you admit that there is absolutely no evidence for
it, but you want it to be true, so the lack of evidence is just
an inconvenience.
> todd/An age-13
> birth is REMOTELY possible in this case, but compared to the more
> simple explanation that Clemence was some other (adult) woman,
> favor has to go to the latter.
>
> rg/ that is your choice. i personally am open to either/or..or maybe
> not at all, perhaps the monk who transcribed the document made an error
> and completely wrote the wrong name by accident or on purpose (you know
> how civil servants can be) <vbg>...
This "anything is possible" approach to genealogy is actually
antithetical to it. If all theories are equally likely, and we
don't know anything, and every document may be wrong, you don't
even know who your real parents are. Part of
historical/genealogical analysis involves evaluating the
likelihood of alternatives.
> quite simply..who clemence is remains an unknown.
Now that I can agree with.
taf
Ian Cairns
> news:01C170FD.0884...@dccnet.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > mediaeval is an antiquated english spelling, as is the word
> > encyclopaedia. trust baka to use obscure terms to impress the
> > readership of this forum.
>
> <snip>
ITC said:
> Far from being antiquated or obscure, both 'mediaeval' and
> 'encyclopaedia' are current English spellings - although medieval and
> encyclopedia also appear as acceptable spellings in the dictionaries.
RG said:
> good points ian, but how often do you read encyclopaedia or mediaeval
> in your everyday life? think of adverts in newspapers or on
television.
> the americanization of the english language has crept into canadian
> newspapers.
As I mentioned, these are the predominant spellings used in the UK
documents (along with haemo- words, etc.). As a result, I would guess
that I see them daily in the press and my (sadly) very occasional forays
into Record Offices. The only place I generally see the American 'e'
spellings (which appear in UK dictionaries as acceptable spellings) are
in this newsgroup or on the web.
Regards
Ian
Paul C. Reed
Ian Cairns wrote:
> "Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
[snip]
I think it almost ironic that in this long discussion about spelling
medi/e/val as medi/ae/val, no one has pointed out that in
medieval times and texts the Classical /ae/ was frequently
shortened to /e/.
Paul
Renia
I was looking in Flandrin's "Families In Former Times" for some statistics on
childbearing age, and while there are some, they are not relevant. I thought it
was in this book, but it must have been another, where betrothal could take place
at any age, but there were social practices where sex did not occur until the
wife (not betrothed) was at least 15 years of age. Girls' periods start much
earlier these days, sometimes at age nine or ten, but in earlier times, the more
usual age was 17. I thought Flandrin had something on this, but I couldn't find
it in my quick scan.
Renia
>
>
> Nat Taylor
Paul C. Reed
> Herlihy, _Medieval Households_, 105, reviews some data on age at first
> marriage and age of eldest surviving children, in England & elsewhere, in
> the 12th to 14th centuries. The _Rotuli de dominabus_ of 1185 gives him a
> small sample of widows, with ages listed, and the ages of their children.
> ³For 14 widows younger than age 30 in the survey, the average age at which
> they gave birth to their first surviving child was 18.4 years.² He then
> cites a Œlady Alda¹ who was 30, with a 16-year-old child (birth at 14).
> He then goes on to use other data to suggest that the later teens were a
> more typical age for childbearing and first marriage among women below the
> highest classes. This section has a great deal of anecdotal evidence on
> very young marriages, but does not sufficiently distinguish the time at
> which such brides became sexually active and/or fertile (many of the
> 12-year-old marriages he cites were surely unconsummated at that time).
> The section on later medieval Florence (based on the Catasto) has much
> information regarding fertility, with a large number of married women,
> ages 13-17, who do not yet bear children.
>
> I would appreciate learning of other literature which takes this question
> further, with either anecdotal or statistical evidence.
>
> Nat Taylor
I thought I'd just post the following, from Scott Waugh's excellent study
_The Lordship of England: Royal Warships and Marriages in English Society
and Politics, 1217-1327_ (which I recommend to all interested in England of
this period):
"As these last examples illustrate, partners were often quite young at the
time of
their betrothal. [William] Marshal's eldest son was probably about twelve
years old when the match with the heiress of Aumale was arranged, and she
was only about six or seven. The marriage itself was not celebrated until
1214,
nearly eleven years after the contract was drawn up. Information about the
ages
of landholders is not often available, so that reliable statistics about the
age at
marriage are hard to come by. Yet marriage contracts often involved children
or young adults, because the heads of most families, like William Marshal,
wanted to ensure before they died that their sons and daughters were well
matched and that the descent of patrimonies was, to some extent, ensured.
The marriage could be arranged, lands exchanged, and the partners safely
taken care of until they reached the canonical age of consent, twelve for
girls,
fourteen for boys." [p. 56]
Waugh also made a study of ages of 534 male wards as given in the IPMs [p.
146]:
1 year or less: 23
2-7 years: 140
8-14 years: 189
15-19 years: 171
20 years: 11
"When wards were that young [under 14], the advantage to the Crown lay not
only in the fact that tthe minority lasted longer, but that the heir was below
the age
of valid consent. The king got the right of marriage along with the lands if
the
child had not been betrothed. In fact, a substantial proportion of the boys
were
below the age of making a valid betrothal (seven years)." [p. 147]
References are made to
Richard H. Helmholz, _Marriage Litigation in Medieval England_ (Cambridge,
1974)
Josiah Cox Russell, _British Medieval Population (Albuquerque, 1948)
J. B. Post, "Another Demographic Use of Inquisitions Post Mortem," _Journal of
the Society of Archivists 5 (1974-77):110-14.
Sue Sheridan Walker, "Free Consent and Marriage of Feudal Wards in
Medieval England," _Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982):123-34.
[There are many other interesting references in the bibliography. I'd like to
look at
Helmholz's "Bastardy Litigation in Medieval England," _American Journal of
Legal History_ 13 (1969):360-83.]
Paul
[PS Roz, you really ought to go to the archives and check our discussion
about
Rhodri of Wales and the daughter of the King of Man, including a detailed
discussion about age of betrothal, marriage, etc.]
CHOM...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/19/01 6:40:13 PM, r_gr...@dccnet.com writes:
<< 12
year olds could get pregnant >>
I haven't read the entire thread, but would like to point out in case no one
else has yet done so that early menarche -- that is, the ability of 12 year
olds to become pregnant -- is a relatively new phenomenon, attributed to
higher levels of protein in the diet. Some in fact say it is the growth
hormones fed the protein sources. In any case, 12 is still fairly early for a
girl to menstruate, let alone become fertile. Even in the early twentieth
century, 15 or 16 were more usual ages. Medieval 12 year olds almost surely
were not often fertile.
felicitations -- Rebecca
Rosie Bevan
1457. That would make her 13 years and 8 months. This is the youngest birth
I know of in medieval times.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: Early Births (was Plausibility of Clemence etc.)
Doug McDonald
Renia wrote:
>
>
> I was looking in Flandrin's "Families In Former Times" for some statistics on
> childbearing age, and while there are some, they are not relevant. I thought it
> was in this book, but it must have been another, where betrothal could take place
> at any age, but there were social practices where sex did not occur until the
> wife (not betrothed) was at least 15 years of age. Girls' periods start much
> earlier these days, sometimes at age nine or ten, but in earlier times, the more
> usual age was 17. I thought Flandrin had something on this, but I couldn't find
> it in my quick scan.
We must not conclude that the average age at which a noble or royal girl
became
fertile in the middle ages was the same as that at which the average
non-noble girl became fertile. There might have been a substantial
difference
due to differences in nutrition. I have no knowledge of this,
only guessing, but would not one expect that nobles would be well-fed,
except perhaps for problems with getting certain vitamins in the winter?
Doug McDonald
Brad Verity
> > 1205-6 - ~16/17-year-old Joan marries prince Llywelyn; one
> > result is Clemence's status now rises from "John's teenage tart"
I got lost. How do we know that 1205-6 was the year for Joan's
marriage to Llywelyn? And why are we assuming Joan was 16 or 17 at
the time?
"Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> Yes, and considering how many other maidens there would likely have
> been who were more developed in, shall we say, visual areas, would it
> not be more likely the prince would pick an older girl to ravage,
> rather than a 12 year old? (Oh, but then again, we are talking about
> King John....)
I got lost here, too. Why are we assuming John "ravaged" Joan's
mother, which implies that she was unwilling.
Perhaps the undisputed fact that John acknowledged Joan as his
daughter can help shine a little light? If the above marriage date
for Joan is correct, then we also can reasonably assume that she was
conceived before John became King of England.
He didn't have to publicly proclaim her as his child, but he did.
Plus, she was a daughter, which meant she'd need to be clothed and
dowered and married off, or sent to a nunnery. I don't know much
about the late 12th/early 13th century period - would her illegitimacy
make it more difficult to find her a husband (even after John
acknowledged her and became King) than if she were legitimate? In
other words, can it be assumed John had to go through some trouble on
her behalf to get her settled? This can be viewed in two scenarios,
that I can see:
A) He had a genuine fondness for the girl Joan and/or her mother, and
his actions in acknowledging his fathering her (when there were
households knights, squires, etc. who'd have been willing, or made, to
do so instead), and in arranging a good marriage for her (when he
could have sent her to a religious life), are because of his fondness.
B) There were too many others who knew of his affair with Joan's
mother that he had no choice but to acknowledge his paternity of the
girl.
In either scenario, it seems unlikely that Joan was the result of some
brief fling between the prince and an unwilling girl. I think the
fact that he acknowledged his paternity and arranged a marriage for
her lends weight to a meaningful affair of some length with the mother
of Joan.
I don't know how much of an impact this has on the chronology Mr.
Davis presented, but I think it makes it much less likely that Joan's
mother was an unwilling, or "tart", 12-year-old.
Regards, ----------Brad Verity
Roz Griston
rg/but there is no exact date
> of birth..ergo the conundrum.
todd/Which was exactly my point. When we don't know the age, we don't
know the age, so you can't point to the fact that we don't know a
lot of dates and say that therein must hide a wealth of
13-year-old births.
rg/wealth of 13 year old births? when did i say wealth or even
plethora? i stated that there are probably more 13/14 year old birth
mothers than are known of or recognised. rather old hat debate tactic
todd. please don't put words in my mouth to *win* your point.
todd/There is every likelihood that were these to
be known, they would look similar to the ones we already know.
rg/> moreover, i have a little over 18 months experience researching
the
> medieval time frame.
todd/OK, but how many medieval English births to 13-year-olds do you
know?
rg/ as i had not gone looking for any, i have not found any. i find the
little eliz de grey story interesting, given she was born 1505 and
d.1519..and said to have had two children prior to her early
demise..certainly raises a flag of caution. nonetheless, i will
continue the research to see if the information holds true.
> todd/OK, let's look at Catherine. Did she give birth at age 13? No.
> End of story. Next .
>
> rg/not quite..it was a teenaged marriage that may have been
consumated,
or may not have . . .
> but definately bore no known fruit.
todd/So this is relevant, how . . . ?
rg/ it is about as relevant as some of your comments.
> this does not preclude the fact there might be other early teen
> mothers.
todd/Of course not. I never said it did. It does not meet the
criteria at all, so is completely irrelevant.
rg/ not..arthur was 15. his "duty" was to reproduce. his marriage to
catherine was a political arrangement. it just happened to be that she
was older than him. teens have sex..then and now. sometimes the result
is pregnancy.
> was catherine 13? no
> was catherine a teenager? yes.
todd/We are talking about 13. Nineteen is a teenager, but there is a
world of difference.
rg/there is a six year chronological difference.
we don't know the personalities of these two kids..so we can not state
what their emotional or physical development was. i've met 13 year olds
who are far more mature in thought and behaviour than many adults.
> rg/> do i believe teenage pregancy was a prevalent
lifestyle..no..but,
> i do
> > believe it occurred a lot more than some of us would like to
believe
> or
> > have/allow others to believe.
>
> todd/Your evidence being . . . ?
>
> rg/ human nature, we really aren't so much different than our
medieval
> ancestors.
todd/In other words, proof by personal affirmation. When I asked for
evidence, I meant from the actual time period in question.
rg/ well since nat has posted since this thread began..lets use his
info.
nat said/ For 14 widows younger than age 30 in the survey, the average
age at which
they gave birth to their first surviving child was 18.4 years.? He
then
cites a ?lady Alda? who was 30, with a 16-year-old child (birth at 14).
so 14 women had children. the first *surviving* child was used in the
equation. we do not know if the child was a first born or not. what we
do know is the average age of the birth mother was 18.4. therefore a
percentage of those birth mothers were well under 18 and a percentage
were well over 18..there's your bell curve. one can almost safely
assume that the majority of the mothers were near the age of 18 when
they gave birth to their eldest *surviving* child.
reading between the lines, i believe the author of the study felt it to
be important to mention the word *surviving* to enable the discerning
reader to realise the "numbers" could be off. and the actual age
average of a medieval birth mother could be younger than 18.4. cheers
to the author, for leaving a valuable clue..meaning more research is
needed to come to a solid conclusion.
> todd said (And what is this "allow others to
> believe", as if you need the permission of "some of us" to
> believe in anything, however ridiculous.)
>
> rg/ experts making pronouncements of this is right and this is wrong
> will often sway the insecure thinker to jump on the bandwagon of the
> expert.
todd/Well, that need not be a bad thing. After all, they are experts
for a reason, and the insecure are insecure because they realize
that they don't know enough to be certain. Unfortunately, there
are too many people who have only dabbled but think they have
some special knowledge or insight that has somehow escaped the
experts. These people come up with the most outlandish material,
cloaked as iconoclastic "free thinking". They would be better
served to listen to people who actually know what they are
talking about.
roz/ yeah right...how many politicians tell us they are experts? how
many idiot prof's did you run into at school..meaning you knew they
were off their rockers..but you had to turn in papers to meet their
theories..or your GPA took a beating.
there are ex-spurts..and there are experts. real experts don't resort
to *tricks* to win an discussion/debate/arguement.
your statement of prove there are a *wealth* of early teen
pregnancies/birth can be easily swapped to..you prove there are not.
that kind of argument is not very condusive to proving anything. shall
we draw a line in the sand and stare at each other? thankfully, we have
a knowledgeable person like nat..who dropped in on the discussion and
actually added some concrete evidence.
an expert does not belittle an idea or the person putting forth the
idea..
an expert offers solid info to enhance or correct or debunk the idea.
not insults or snide off side remarks.
i am not an expert, i am attempting to gain more knowledge/information
to be able to make an informed decision. my arguement is based on what
i know to be true. teen agers have sex..sex can result in pregnancy.
history shows us that there are *despots* and *saints* and all kinds of
ppl inbetween..just like in our era..we have bin laden and we had
mother theresa (i am cognizant, some do not believe she was as saintly
as the propaganda surrounding her) the bottom line i human nature
really hasn't changed that much since adam and eve or the first cave
ppl.
todd/[bunch of irrelevant sexual politics deleted.]
rg/ scared ya huh. c'est la vie.
> rg/> people are people, are people it doesn't matter what decade
> > or era..our ancestors were not hormonally challenged..
>
> todd/Yes, they were. In general their nutrition, even among the
> gentry, sucked. Likewise, there were few environmental
> estrogenic compounds, which in modern times excellerate puberty
> in girls. (or do you wish to call them normal and us
> hyperhormonal?)
>
> rg/these ppl, even the gentry ate more organic food than us. they are
> more normal than us. ppl in third world countries are more normal
than
> us. dietarily speaking...mmmm, yum must go buy some more edible oil
> product..i.e. coffee mate..the same sort of chemical glop mickey D's
> uses for their ice *cream* cones.
The point, which you seem to be missing, is that our diet makes
us fatter and gives us more nutrients than we need. That results
in accelerated reproductive function. This is well documented,
and backed up by hundreds of animal studies. It is standard
reproductive endocrinology. Your groundless speculation about
what it does to humans, dogs and wild animals is simply
misinformed.
rg/ perhaps, but malnourished ppl still procreate. and some are very
young. the infant mort rate is high. there are 8 year females in bombay
who have reached puberty. tell me, do you think they are receiving all
the nutriants of a middle class north american child?
someone mentioned the protein intake of the average person in our era
is more than the medieval era..perhaps for the peasants this might hold
true. but, meat was a staple of the upper classes diet. poultry,
mutton, beef and pork..all protien. cheese.more protien.
this link has some very simplistic info on the lifestyle of the
elizabethean. check out the page links to food. to gain an idea of the
types of food they ate.
http://renaissance.dm.net/compendium/home.html
this link is on the operation of a manor in the 1200's. very
informative. listing crops, and how to get the best results. these
people knew the importance of quality food and how to yeild a greater
harvest.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1275manors1.html
most certainly there were times of malnourishment. but, their diets
didn't suck.. lack of proper food storage caused spoilage..but, for the
most food was good and healthy.
this link tells you how they preserved and prepared the meals, and more
on what was eaten, plus even has some recipes.(get out your olde
englishe translators)
http://www.godecookery.com/mtales/mtales14.htm
> todd/From a statistical point of view, first-birth age is going to be
> a bell curve, and there will be early and late first-births on
> the tails of that curve. There will be a very small number of
> events at the very end of this curve, just as on extremely rare
> occasions, you can flip a quarter and get 10 heads in a row.
>
> rg/ very true todd..i have not said anything different than the
> above..only that teen age pregancies occurred in the medieval time
> frame.
todd/Again, lets get this straight. We are not talking about teen
pregnancies. The average woman would have given birth in her
teens. We are talking about 13.
rg/ there's the keyword todd..*average*. to get an average..you have
numbers greater than and less than the mean.
> todd/ Age-13 birth's have to be outside the 99th
> percentile, and it is not rational to require such an event when
> reconstructing a historical occurance without strong evidence in
> favor - there is no such evidence.
>
> rg/ here is were we disagree strongly. i am willing to bet at 10 to
20
> percent of medieval births occurred to young teens. the evidence is
not
> revealed as of yet...it doesn't mean it doesn't exist..it means it
has
> not been found or proven.
todd/I see. Even you admit that there is absolutely no evidence for
it, but you want it to be true, so the lack of evidence is just
an inconvenience.
rg/ when did i say absolutely no evidence? evidence is coming to light
even within the last 24 hours..to support the fact that young teens had
children. not a *wealth* of them..but enough of them to determine 18.4
is an average age. meaning there were younger mom's in the survey.
> todd/An age-13
> birth is REMOTELY possible in this case, but compared to the more
> simple explanation that Clemence was some other (adult) woman,
> favor has to go to the latter.
>
> rg/ that is your choice. i personally am open to either/or..or maybe
> not at all, perhaps the monk who transcribed the document made an
error
> and completely wrote the wrong name by accident or on purpose (you
know
> how civil servants can be) <vbg>...
todd/This "anything is possible" approach to genealogy is actually
antithetical to it. If all theories are equally likely,
rg/ again todd..not all theories are equally likely. a rather weak and
silly arguement in an attempt to discredit. one would have to
incredibly stupid or gullible to sincerely believe all theories are
equal. there are degrees of probability.
and we
don't know anything, and every document may be wrong, you don't
even know who your real parents are. Part of
historical/genealogical analysis involves evaluating the
likelihood of alternatives.
rg/um yeah duh..and..i definately know who my birth mother is, i am
reasonably sure i know who my bio father is..i look his side of the
family...but there is a really, really remote chance..the hospital
swapped me for another baby..so nope..without dna testing..i can't
positively assure you i know who my parents are. but, it most likely my
parents are who the ppl who registered my birth and raised me. but, you
know..my older sister does not look like she belongs in the
family..so..was there an oops there?
what do think is likely? which is most likely? sorry, as stupid as you
would like to think me to be..i'm not. feed your ego elsewhere.
you are no more an expert on early teen pregnancy in the medieval
period than i am. you have not argued your position well..you have
twisted the context and planted words to discredit my theory.
you have offered no valid proof other than your opinion ..
" it can not be because i have not seen evidence of it..i haven't
looked for evidence of it., but i'm an "expert" in another field..so
i'm an expert in this field too." i found this to be a most persuasive
arguement. look how its changed my opinion.
thank you nat for supplying a meager bit of evidence that may suggest
early teen pregnancies were not unheard of.
roz
Rosie Bevan
Joan and Llywelyns's marriage was celebrated at Ascensiontide 1206 and John
dowered her as part of her marriage portion with the castle of Ellesmere.
[DNB quoting Worcester Annals, p.394]
Paul was being ironic about ravaging Clemence. Contemporary chroniclers gave
John a very bad press. Whether this was deserved or not we have to look at
the motivation behind the chroniclers to weigh up the veracity of their
statements.
Kings at this time generally acknowledged their bastards. For one thing
illegitimacy was not considered disgraceful, and another, bastard children,
like legitimate children, were very useful in cementing alliances by
marriage. Henry I made good use of this practice. As did John with Joan. You
cannot interpret his actions to measure the depth of his attachment to Joan
or her mother. I think Joan just happened to be available at the right time
to help John forge peace with Llewelyn.
The feeling is that Joan was a fairly mature girl because she started
producing children immediately after marriage.
I agree that Joan's mother was highly unlikely to have been 12 when she
caught the attentions of John. She was more likely to have been a mature
young woman and probably already married.
I hope these comments have answered your questions.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
Paul C. Reed
[snip]
There might have been a substantial
> difference
> due to differences in nutrition. I have no knowledge of this,
> only guessing, but would not one expect that nobles would be well-fed,
> except perhaps for problems with getting certain vitamins in the winter?
>
> Doug McDonald
It was not just a 'richness' of diet, but habit of diet which caused problems.
The lack of any vital nutrient could cause problems (I remember as a
teenager going through my sister's college nutrition books and seeing all
the pictures from third world countries of people with various diseased
and conditions caused by vitamin deficiency).
I remember that even in this century in the Southern US, poorer populations
suffered a mysterious disease. A study of prisoners finally proved it
was caused by an unbalanced diet. In a test, prisoners fed on the typical
Southern diet of corn bread, molasses and pork were clearly not starving,
but over time became deficient in B vitamins.
Thus socio-economic position is not the only factor. If they weren't getting
a balanced diet, because of culture, they were going to suffer, and it would
affect the physically and hormonally.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
> > > Paul Davis wrote:
>
> > > 1205-6 - ~16/17-year-old Joan marries prince Llywelyn; one
> > > result is Clemence's status now rises from "John's teenage tart"
>
> I got lost. How do we know that 1205-6 was the year for Joan's
> marriage to Llywelyn? And why are we assuming Joan was 16 or 17 at
> the time?
>
We are assuming that Joan was born just before John's marriage (1189),
given the possibility that he would be watched and chroniclers might
have made comment. It is not that we KNOW he must have fooled
around as a young twenty-something before marriage, just a more
likely scenario. To answer your next question, Joan's known son
and heir was born by 1208 as he was of age in 1229. We might
theorize that Joan was at least sixteen in 1208, or born 1192, but
if she were born 1187-9, just before John was married and sowing
his oats, it would make the chronology more comfortable.
I would suggest people go to
http://www.google.com/grphp?hl=en [google group search]
and enter Rhodri and consent in the search terms. This will lead you
to two threads on "The hitherto unknown marriages of Llywelyn of
North Wales" which will discuss Llywelyn's marriage negotiations
for a daughter of the King of Man (who had been betrothed to his
uncle Rhodri) just before Llywelyn made arrangements to marry
Joan.
>
> "Paul C. Reed" <rp...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>
> > Yes, and considering how many other maidens there would likely have
> > been who were more developed in, shall we say, visual areas, would it
> > not be more likely the prince would pick an older girl to ravage,
> > rather than a 12 year old? (Oh, but then again, we are talking about
> > King John....)
>
> I got lost here, too. Why are we assuming John "ravaged" Joan's
> mother, which implies that she was unwilling.
That was a more tongue in cheek term. Given how the average male
reacts, I was trying to point out that John would have been aroused
by a more precoscious girl who was endowed with curves, not a
prepubescent child.
> Perhaps the undisputed fact that John acknowledged Joan as his
> daughter can help shine a little light? If the above marriage date
> for Joan is correct, then we also can reasonably assume that she was
> conceived before John became King of England.
Yes, that was what I thought most likely.
>
> He didn't have to publicly proclaim her as his child, but he did.
> Plus, she was a daughter, which meant she'd need to be clothed and
> dowered and married off, or sent to a nunnery. I don't know much
> about the late 12th/early 13th century period - would her illegitimacy
> make it more difficult to find her a husband (even after John
> acknowledged her and became King) than if she were legitimate? In
> other words, can it be assumed John had to go through some trouble on
> her behalf to get her settled?
Actually, having an illegitimate child at that period was an advantage
King Henry had used to his advantage. It would enable him to marry
such a girl to a minor noble, cementing ties of loyalty, etc. They would
still have the ties of blood to the King, but no chance of inheritance.
The Earl of Chester practiced the same thing.
> This can be viewed in two scenarios,
> that I can see:
> A) He had a genuine fondness for the girl Joan and/or her mother, and
> his actions in acknowledging his fathering her (when there were
> households knights, squires, etc. who'd have been willing, or made, to
> do so instead), and in arranging a good marriage for her (when he
> could have sent her to a religious life), are because of his fondness.
>
> B) There were too many others who knew of his affair with Joan's
> mother that he had no choice but to acknowledge his paternity of the
> girl.
>
> In either scenario, it seems unlikely that Joan was the result of some
> brief fling between the prince and an unwilling girl. I think the
> fact that he acknowledged his paternity and arranged a marriage for
> her lends weight to a meaningful affair of some length with the mother
> of Joan.
>
> I don't know how much of an impact this has on the chronology Mr.
> Davis presented, but I think it makes it much less likely that Joan's
> mother was an unwilling, or "tart", 12-year-old.
>
> Regards, ----------Brad Verity
That was my thinking as well.
Paul
B.M. Kamp
> Margaret was born on 31st May1443 and gave birth to Henry VII on 28
> January 1457. That would make her 13 years and 8 months. This is the
> youngest birth I know of in medieval times.
>
31 May 1443 is also given in the Europäische Stammtafeln Bd III-1 table 157.
But strangely enough Burke's Guide to the Royal family , London, 1973 states
on p 200 that Margaret de Beaufort was born at Bletso, Beds, April 1441. If
this Guide should be right Margaret would have been 15 years and 9 months!
Regards to all,
Bert M. Kamp
Todd A. Farmerie
Roz Griston wrote:
>
> todd/OK, but how many medieval English births to 13-year-olds do you
> know?
>
> rg/ as i had not gone looking for any, i have not found any.
So there is no historical basis, then, for your position.
> i've met 13 year olds
> who are far more mature in thought and behaviour than many adults.
Modern anecdote not withstanding.
> nat said/ For 14 widows younger than age 30 in the survey, the
> average age at which they gave birth to their first surviving
> child was 18.4 years.? He then cites a ?lady Alda? who was 30,
> with a 16-year-old child (birth at 14).
So the best we can do is a 14 year old, but no 13 year olds.
> reading between the lines,
You can read anything you want between the lines, but it is the
lines themselves that represent the actual information.
> todd/[bunch of irrelevant sexual politics deleted.]
> rg/ scared ya huh. c'est la vie.
No, just bored me.
> The point, which you seem to be missing, is that our diet makes
> us fatter and gives us more nutrients than we need. That results
> in accelerated reproductive function. This is well documented,
> and backed up by hundreds of animal studies. It is standard
> reproductive endocrinology. Your groundless speculation about
> what it does to humans, dogs and wild animals is simply
> misinformed.
>
> rg/ perhaps, but malnourished ppl still procreate.
People of all flavors procreate, but (in the absence of
contraceptive intervention) malnourished people procreate less
efficiently, and later in life - I am talking about your
generalizations that all humans are the same, in whatever period
they live. It is simply untrue.
> there are 8 year females in bombay
> who have reached puberty. tell me, do you think they are receiving all
> the nutriants of a middle class north american child?
No, but they probably do get a share of environmental estrogens.
That being said, this says nothing about medieval English
nobility.
> most certainly there were times of malnourishment.
I am not talking about malnourishment - I am talking about
undernourishment vs. our overnourishment. (And this whole
dietary discussion misses the cultural practices that again
militate against such an occurance, and have nothing to do with
the biology.)
[more anecdote removed]
> todd/Again, lets get this straight. We are not talking about teen
> pregnancies. The average woman would have given birth in her
> teens. We are talking about 13.
>
> rg/ there's the keyword todd..*average*. to get an average..you have
> numbers greater than and less than the mean.
Yes, and the farther you get from the mean, the less likely and
the more tenuous becomes any theory requiring such deviation. As
I said, their is a world of difference between 18 and 13, both
biologically and culturally.
> evidence is coming to light even within the last 24 hours..
We must also differ in our definition of "new" evidence, as this
is long-published.
> to support the fact that young teens had children.
> not a *wealth* of them..but enough of them to determine 18.4
> is an average age. meaning there were younger mom's in the survey.
Now you are talking specifics. That 18.4 average was based on
exactly ZERO age thirteen births (and just one age 14 birth). We
know the data that produced the 18.4, and there were no 13s.
> what do think is likely? which is most likely? sorry, as stupid as you
> would like to think me to be..i'm not. feed your ego elsewhere.
It ain't about you being stupid and my ego (and you are
complaining about others using debate tricks). It is about you
supporting a position for which you yourself admit we will have
to await data to find actual support. That is not how history is
done.
We have one, possibly two age thirteen births identified for the
whole medieval period in England, and the one you cite, you
yourself say raises a red flag. How can you then argue for the
plausibility of a chronology based on an age 13 birth when the
alternative requires no such extremely rare event? Yes, Clemence
could, remotely, have been 13. She could also, remotely, have
been 40. It is a hell of a lot more likely that she was neither,
so why force it?
taf
KHF...@aol.com
Do you really think that King John would have waited 7 years to begin sexual
relations with Isabella? Married at12 but no birth until age 19 sounds very
much like contraceptive practices were used. Certainly the girl would have
been desirable even at age 12 or 13 -- definitely by 14 -- and they were
already married! It is really unthinkable that they did not have sexual
relations early on. It is just that these relations did not result in a
birth. There also could have been miscarriages that were never recorded.
According to Paul's chronology, the primary problem is that Joan was
conceived no later than 1288 and Clemence's heir, another daughter, was not
born until possibly 1205. It could be earlier or later, but this window is
around 17 years. I am 16 years older than my younger sister and many families
usewd to have 15 or more children, all taking at least a year in between, the
chronology itself does not really stand in the way. If Joan were conceived
at 13 and born when her mother was 14, then the later daughter would have
been born when she was only 31. That is not only possible, it is rather usual
for the time. You can even tack some years on and make her 36 to 38 when she
bore her last daughter. Nothing really stands in the way of a 14 year old
girl giving birth to an illegitimate daughter except a few attitudes in this
forum.
However, was there not something stated earlier that a grandchild of Joan's
married a person who would have been her second cousin? That is a much more
serious impediment to this identification. Could someone refresh me on these
details? Chris, I think pointed it out.
- Ken
In a message dated 11/19/01 10:47:31 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< And AGAIN, her marriage at about age twelve was on 24 August 1200, yet her
first child was not born until1 October 1207. Thus, the key consideration is
not age at marriage [John did not marry 'Clemence'], but in this case the
chronology of Joan being conceived about 1186-88, yet Clemence's KNOWN
daughter and heir
Rohese being born about 1205-10. >>
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/20/01 2:48:48 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< I think it almost ironic that in this long discussion about spelling
medi/e/val as medi/ae/val, no one has pointed out that in
medieval times and texts the Classical /ae/ was frequently
shortened to /e/. >>
Yes, and also the word media has become something different in our brave new
world, so mediaeval sounds very much like something bad in the media.
- Ken
Arthur Murata
typical *medieval* 13 year old and the typical *medieval*
seventeen year old, or at least one would assume such to be
the case. The length of adolescence is only partly
biological; much is cultural and differs according to both
time and place. Local custom or law determines age of
consent but biology determines the ability to bear healthy
children. Teen pregnancies were certainly known during that
period simply because a woman's overall lifespan was
normally shorter (with several great exceptions), as was a
man's. You had to come of age earlier in the social sense
and the sooner children could be borne, the sooner the girl
could be married off to someone politically well placed. I
am recalling the interesting medieval womens' fashions
that, as fashions always do, were intended to accentuate
the most positive attributes of the girl or woman. In those
days, it was the height of fashion to shave the hairline
back in women so as to heighten the forehead; it was also
the height of fashion to dress or be depicted in such a way
as to look pregnant. A little meat on the bones didn't
hurt, either, modern adolescent-minded boys who think that
a woman shaped like a Barbie doll could even stand up on
her own notwithstanding. If you were chubby, you were not
sick - plain and simple. And if you were a chubby teenager,
you were probably menstruating. And if you were doing that,
of course, you could bear children. Good thoughts, Bronwen
--- Roz Griston <r_gr...@dccnet.com> wrote:
> but..how do we know it is not a somewhat normal pattern.
> i've lost
> count how many times i've seen the terms.. born about.
> born after, born
> before in gedcoms/webpages.. online info..often citing
> accepted
> sources.
>
> it is only an assumption that there were not more teenage
> pregancies.
> look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother,
> married at 15.
> catherine of aragon denied the consumation. henry viii
> said it
> occurred. only arthur and catherine really knew for sure.
> arthur
> bragged about it..typical macho 15 year old. catherine
> wasn't overly
> fertile or able to carry to full term pregancies..as
> evidenced by a
> sole surviving child...bloody mary.
>
> do i believe teenage pregancy was a prevalent
> lifestyle..no..but, i do
> believe it occurred a lot more than some of us would like
> to believe or
> have/allow others to believe.
>
> ya just gotta love that victorian era influence on our
> thinking
> patterns. people are people, are people it doesn't matter
> what decade
> or era..our ancestors were not hormonally challenged..and
> neither are
> we. having sex at any age depends upon the level of
> emotional, mental
> or ethical maturity the participants have..willing and
> unwilling.
>
> men in three piece suits are the most common customers
> for kiddie
> prostitutes. they've got the bucks to pay for their
> deviance. oh and
> gee they come from nice families too.
>
> why do think the boogie man legends exist..what would you
> call the
> creeps and perverts and other deviants who lurk among us
> and our
> ancestors?
>
> in short teen pregancies..occurred and the DAUNTSEY
> theory retains
> plausibility because of it.
>
> roz
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gryphon801 [SMTP:gryph...@aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:10 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Plausibility of Clemence de Dauntsey
> mothering Joan
>
> Quite right. We all know that Margaret Beaufort gave
> birth to Henry
> Tudor when
> she was barely able to bear a child, and was barren
> thereafter as a
> result.
> But this is not the "normal" pattern and should not be
> used to support
> the
> Dauntsey theory.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Arthur Murata
Trees They Do Grow High" (or at least that's what modern
folkrists have been calling it). The storyline is that a
young girl is betrothed or actually married to a young boy
and the song is from her point of view. She plaintively
sings about his immaturity (though her own age is unclear)
and the stanzas end with the line "He's young but he's
daily growing". The ending, however, is rather sad: "By the
age of fourteen, he was a married man / by the age of
fifteen, the father of a son / by the age of seventeen, his
grave was growing green / and death has put an end to his
growing". Best, Bronwen
--- Rosie Bevan <cbe...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> King John married Isabella of Angouleme on 24 Aug 1200
> when she was about 12
> years old but her first child Henry III was not born
> until 1 Oct 1207 when
> she was 19. Her following children by John were born in
> 1209, 1210, 1214,
> 1215. Isabella went on to have another 8 children by her
> second husband.
>
> It is my impression that generally first births took
> place well after the
> age of 12, say 15/16, but not as late as 19.
>
> Does anyone know of any studies on fertility trends in
> medieval times?
>
> Cheers
>
> Rosie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rosie Bevan" <cbe...@paradise.net.nz>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Early Births (was Plausibility of Clemence
> etc.)
>
>
> > Margaret was born on 31st May1443 and gave birth to
> Henry VII on 28
> January
> > 1457. That would make her 13 years and 8 months. This
> is the youngest
> birth
> > I know of in medieval times.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Rosie
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
brad verity
>Joan and Llywelyns's marriage was celebrated at Ascensiontide 1206 and John
>dowered her as part of her marriage portion with the castle of Ellesmere.
>[DNB quoting Worcester Annals, p.394]
Very good.
>Paul was being ironic about ravaging Clemence. Contemporary chroniclers
>gave
>John a very bad press. Whether this was deserved or not we have to look at
>the motivation behind the chroniclers to weigh up the veracity of their
>statements.
Apologies - I wasn't sure if Paul was being ironic or not.
>Kings at this time generally acknowledged their bastards. For one thing
>illegitimacy was not considered disgraceful, and another, bastard children,
>like legitimate children, were very useful in cementing alliances by
>marriage. Henry I made good use of this practice. As did John with Joan.
>You
>cannot interpret his actions to measure the depth of his attachment to Joan
>or her mother. I think Joan just happened to be available at the right time
>to help John forge peace with Llewelyn.
Are there any articles or books you can recommend that cover the bastards of
medieval English kings? I'm curious about the details of acknowledgment -
was there an official procedure or custom? Why was a brood of illegitimate
children by various mothers not considered disgraceful for Christian kings -
did the Church have nothing to say on it? If you were King with several
mistresses and offspring, how did this differ from a Sultan's harem?
I understand your point, Rosie, about Joan's marriage fulfilling a political
purpose for John in his negotiations with Wales, but I still feel we can't
completely rule out his level of affection in the equation. I concede that
it might not be the primary motivator, but my guess remains it played some
part. It was a great arrangement with a promising future for the young
lady. Was Joan the only daughter John had in 1205 - was there no other girl
of marriageable age suitable to be Llewellyn's wife? If Joan's mother was a
household damsel that John had dallied with briefly, would the girl be put
forward as the bride in such an important marriage? Were the illegitimate
offspring of a King treated differently depending on the status of their
mother?
Another question that just occurred to me: if illegitimacy did not have a
negative stigma to it at the time, why did Joan go through the process of
being legitimized?
>The feeling is that Joan was a fairly mature girl because she started
>producing children immediately after marriage.
This makes much sense, and puts into the 'almost certain' category that her
conception was before John became King in 1199.
>I agree that Joan's mother was highly unlikely to have been 12 when she
>caught the attentions of John. She was more likely to have been a mature
>young woman and probably already married.
Why already married? And, married or widowed when Joan was conceived with
John? For if the husband was alive, then legally Joan would be her mother's
husband's daughter [I remember this from the Amie de Gaveston debate], and
John declaring Joan his own would become quite a declaration of the
importance he placed on the girl and her mother?
>I hope these comments have answered your questions.
Yes, and as usual, made me think of quite a few new ones. It's a
fascinating topic. I appreciate the response, Rosie. Many thanks.
Best regards, ---------Brad
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Arthur Murata
>
> I'd say it's not completely impossible. I've heard of
> cases with
> mothers as young as seven conceiving (though not usually
> surviving
The only such cases I have heard of are within the past
century and each was newsworthy and memorable enought for
us to....remember it. Off the thread, the subject was
brought up of the stuff that goes into our food today that
may not be healthy for us and the twin effects of premature
sexual maturation in the female and disabilities in the
offspring. Are the cases you are referring to in the
medieval period or even before, say, World War I? Bronwen
> delivery) and judging from King John's second marriage to
> Isabelle
> d'Angouleme, he didn't seem to have much trouble with the
> concept of
> twelve-year-old bed partners. Not that it makes it right,
> but that it
> is not neccesarily impossible.
>
> .:Nichol:.
>
D. Spencer Hines
Pregnancy is a topic that absolutely FASCINATES them.
Charming.
And Cute.
I Love 'Em.
Fortem Posce Animum.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Arthur Murata" <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2001112023473...@web13307.mail.yahoo.com...
canberra
Subject: Re: Plausibility of Clemence de Dauntsey mothering Joan
<Huge snip>
>
> Why already married? And, married or widowed when Joan was conceived with
> John? For if the husband was alive, then legally Joan would be her
mother's
> husband's daughter [I remember this from the Amie de Gaveston debate], and
> John declaring Joan his own would become quite a declaration of the
> importance he placed on the girl and her mother?
>
Dear Brad,
This is one of the few contributing observations in this debate. Hope this
will steer the debate in the right direction. Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Renia
> snip
>
> rg/but there is no exact date
> > of birth..ergo the conundrum.
>
> todd/Which was exactly my point. When we don't know the age, we don't
> know the age, so you can't point to the fact that we don't know a
> lot of dates and say that therein must hide a wealth of
> 13-year-old births.
>
> rg/wealth of 13 year old births? when did i say wealth or even
> plethora? i stated that there are probably more 13/14 year old birth
> mothers than are known of or recognised.
Biologically, girls were less able to have babies so early in the Middle
Ages when so few of them started menstruating before the age of about
17-19. Girls today grow up much faster, menstruate earlier, and can,
biologically, have babies earlier. We can't put today's actions on
yesterday's events.
Renia
Roz Griston
refer to you as baka buta inu. unless of course you are implying todd,
leo, ken, brad, paul and others are really women..sad..very
sad...anything for a troll. have a biccie and back under your porch.
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:08 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Early Births (was Plausibility of Clemence etc.)
CHOM...@aol.com
but fourteen"? She is, you may recall, bemoaning the fact that her father has
"married me to a boy who is too young." I don't know that this is evidence of
any kind for or against any of the positions taken on this thread, but I
couldn't resist the reminder.
felicitations -- Rebecca
Amanda Jones
(Roz Griston) wrote:
> rg/ perhaps, but malnourished ppl still procreate. and some are very
> young. the infant mort rate is high. there are 8 year females in bombay
> who have reached puberty. tell me, do you think they are receiving all
> the nutriants of a middle class north american child?
A lot of Indian kids are probably much better nourished than the average
obese, hamburger-scoffing American child!
Amanda
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I agree that Joan's mother was highly unlikely to have been 12 when she
> caught the attentions of John. She was more likely to have been a mature
> young woman and probably already married.
If she was already married, then it is unlikely the child would
have been recognized as John's. After all, in spite of what
everyone thought they knew, it could have been the husband's.
(And legally, a child of a married woman is child of the husband,
independent of biology.) Most mothers of recognized royal
bastards were unmarried at the time.
taf
Arthur Murata
Child ballads but I'm not sure. In any case, if it is as
old as medieval times, it must have gone through many
changes and I suspect it is not that old, anyway. But still
- such a beautiful song! Sigh! Best, Bronwen
Arthur Murata
is an old pub song or music hall and was intended to be
done comically. I could see it that way - melodrama, a
funny (therefore probably unusual) situation.....Bronwen
CHOM...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/21/01 7:33:44 PM, lostc...@yahoo.com writes:
<< such a beautiful song! >>
It is, indeed.
felicitations -- Rebecca
CHOM...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/21/01 7:35:59 PM, lostc...@yahoo.com writes:
<< Maybe this
is an old pub song or music hall and was intended to be
done comically. >>
I don't think so -- because of the tune, if nothing else. If you think of
comic songs of this nature, such as "Get Me to a Wedding" or "The Wee Cooper
of Fife" or "The Tying of the Garter," they have tunes which you might well
describe as rollicking. "The Trees They do Grow High" doesn't necessarily
sound like a very early one, but is I think of the same kind as, say,
"Barbara Allen." Especially since, I have heard, it was not customary to sing
with much variation in dynamics, the tune would have to give a clue as to the
emotional content of the song.
felicitations -- Rebecca
Janet Ariciu
I know that Thanksgiving is America but I want to wish you all Happy Day
Janet de Missouri
Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr.
President George W. Bush asked
Americans to do, to: "express our
profound thanks for the many
blessings we enjoy, and reach out
in true gratitude and friendship
to our friends around the world. "
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/bush116.html
----------------------------------------
Renia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Cairns [SMTP:ne...@cairnsfamily.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:51 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Plausibility of Clemence de Dauntsey As Mother of Joan
>
> "Roz Griston" <r_gr...@dccnet.com> wrote in message
> news:01C170FD.0884...@dccnet.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > mediaeval is an antiquated english spelling, as is the word
> > encyclopaedia. trust baka to use obscure terms to impress the
> > readership of this forum.
>
> <snip>
>
> Far from being antiquated or obscure, both 'mediaeval' and
> 'encyclopaedia' are current English spellings - although medieval and
> encyclopedia also appear as acceptable spellings in the dictionaries.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> good points ian, but how often do you read encyclopaedia or mediaeval
> in your everyday life? think of adverts in newspapers or on television.
> the americanization of the english language has crept into canadian
> newspapers.
Actually, in England, all the time, as it happens. Though medieval and
encyclopedia are now acceptable alternatvie spellings and will probably take
over in time and with the advance of American English..
Renia
Renia
> Amanda Jones wrote:
>
> > In article <01C17117.2B37...@dccnet.com>, r_gr...@dccnet.com
> > (Roz Griston) wrote:
> >
> > > it is only an assumption that there were not more teenage pregancies.
> > > look at prince arthur, henry viii's older brother, married at 15.
>
> [snip]
>
> Again, we are talking about the likelihood of John, as Prince, having his way
> with a woman. John is not known to have had a lot of illegitimate children.
> Would his carnal desire be worked up from a 12 year old?
He had at least five illegits and perhaps others. That's quite "a lot". I'll
repeat what I sent a few days ago. I think you, yourself added another possible
one.
The Oxford History of England series, vol From Domesday Book To Magna Carta, has
the following footnote on page 428.
Q
The names of some of his (King John's) mistresses are known. He gave a handsome
present of clothes to a certain Suzanne who is described as 'domicella, amica
domini Regis' [Rot. Misae 14 Jo. (ed. Cole), p. 267]. The mother of his
illegitimate daughter Joan, who married Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, is said to be
Clementia, [Annals of Tewkesbury, sub anno 1236]. He had a not inconsiderable
family of bastards besides Joan: Geoffrey [Curia Regis Rolls, iii. 321], John
[Rot. Lit. Pat., p. 117], Oliver [Mat. Paris, iii. 41], Richard [Wendover, iv.
29], and doubtless others.
UNQ
Renia
> The question in this case is not just, is it possible for a 12 year old to
> give birth, but also, given the circumstances, is it likely that John would
> have chosen such a girl?
>
> This was not an arranged marriage, or young children placed together. It was
> a clandestine event outside of church marriage, and any offspring would have
> initially been assumed to be without rights, other than the good favor of
> others.
>
> Paul
D. Spencer Hines
two possibles ---- and one doubtful, Isabel la Blanche.
My descents are legitimate, in case you were wondering. <g>
Deus Vult.
Magna Carta.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C02DC4C...@btinternet.com...