Sad thing (for Elizabeth) was that it was a political marriage to unite York and Lancaster and the King was noted to be 'nothing uxorious' despite her having produced two sons.
Which is to say I don't see them leaping into the sack prenuptially.
But did she get engaged to the king whilst he was still married ?
No. It had been decided that Elizabeth of York would marry whoever won the Battle of Bosworth, Richard III or Henry Tudor, even though the former was her uncle!
Engagement wasn't really a thing then: you had betrothal but that was much nearer to marriage than engagement.
This is a poor argument. On average, yes, first babies will stay in longER than subsequent babies born to any individual woman, but that is not a basis for drawing a firm conclusion of pre-marital impregnation regarding a particular person, especially when, as has been said, the gestation period looks to be eight months. I mean, if the baby had been born in July, that would be a different matter...
@anoesis, whose first child arrived at 38w4d after 5 1/2 hours labour and whose second arrived later and took longer about it.
If you think about it, the practice of counting the beginning of a pregnancy from the first day of the last menstrual period is probably a relatively modern convention, meaning that if you're looking for an impregnation date, you can immediately subtract two weeks (for the average woman), making eight months even less out-of-the-box...
If you think about it, the practice of counting the beginning of a pregnancy from the first day of the last menstrual period is probably a relatively modern convention, meaning that if you're looking for an impregnation date, you can immediately subtract two weeks (for the average woman), making eight months even less out-of-the-box...
And of course that's what we're concerned with here - possible times for playing at Hide the Pink Gherkin.
Sorry! Ours arrived on a pre-arranged day so my knowledge is limited. My own mother's children were all born late: 11 days, 8 days, 29 days, 12 days and days.
Ok. Human gestation is 38 weeks. That's the time from conception to birth. From a practical perspective though, it makes a lot of sense to measure gestation from the 1st day of the mother's last period when you think about it. Essentially, conception depends on two unrelated events coinciding; namely sexual intercourse and ovulation. There is a little bit of wiggle room of a few hours to a couple of days in terms of what we mean by coinciding.
For most women, sex will have happened more than once in the time frame of interest but whilst we cannot be precise with ovulation, it is something close to 14 days after the commencement of menstruation and thus measuring pregnancy by post-menstrual age is the logical thing to do. Hence we refer to pregnancy as a number of weeks out of 40. (38 + 2).
As an aside, whilst this is the convention in most of the world, I understand that the French always take 2 weeks off and refer to post-conception age. Still worked out from last menstrual period but with reference to assumed date of conception. That's logical and precise, if a little confusing.
Of course, in practice, the actual number used is calculated based on the size of the foetus as measured on the 13 week scan. So if you have access to antenatal ultrasound the date of LMP (last menstrual period) is less important. But it's all calibrated the same way.
So, full term is 40 weeks (PMA*). But there's a lot of variation around that. Anything from 37/40 to 41/40 is considered full term. And it's always been the case that a minority of babies are born spontaneously before 37 weeks. Whilst on-average, first babies are often later than subsequent pregnancies, that's a very small effect and it's still the case that most babies are within the 37-42 window. (After 41 weeks in most healthcare systems, medics would want to act as the risks go up after 42, so that distorts the data a bit in modern times).
So coming back to the case in question; 18th January to 18th September is 35 weeks. If we convert PMA* to PCA** then that's in the window for term (37 to 42). Equally would also fit with mild prematurity (say 35 or 36 weeks PMA*). Conversely, if said baby was later within the normal window or even post term then that puts conception in early January or late December at the latest.
What is less likely is that conception occured before the marriage and she knew she was pregnant when she wed. It's just possible she had a late period and suspected pregnancy at the time of nuptials. Just. Conversely, conception immediately post wedding fits the timeframe perfectly.
AFZ
*PMA = post-menstrual age (/40) conventional measure
**PCA = post-conception age (/38) more technically correct but confusing and not normally used in most of the world.
Frankly, I (and probably a fair proportion of the population of the Sad Southlands, O'erwhelmed In Shade) couldn't give a fig about The Mad Mophead, and the fact that he may be the father of yet another Mopheadling.
The lady in question deserves a modicum of Christian Love™, as she is clearly quite mad. I refrain from using the word bonkers, as that conjures up the image NSFW.
All we want is for The Mad Mophead to disappear, as though he had never been.
Frankly, I (and probably a fair proportion of the population of the Sad Southlands, O'erwhelmed In Shade) couldn't give a fig about The Mad Mophead, and the fact that he may be the father of yet another Mopheadling.
The lady in question deserves a modicum of Christian Love™, as she is clearly quite mad. I refrain from using the word bonkers, as that conjures up the image NSFW.
All we want is for The Mad Mophead to disappear, as though he had never been.
There's a short story by Lord Dunsany (I can't recall the title) where a certain King is treated thus, for the sin of having created an image of himself in the image of the Gods.
I had to share this excellent comment in the Guardian. It says it all about wiffle waffle spiffle de Pfeffel -
Continuing the narrative that Johnson is a "skilled politician" adept at spinning plates is one of the main problems. Johnson isn't skilled and has shown no skill in anything he's done, either politically or as a hack journalist. He's lazy, overprivileged and doesn't give a rat's arse for anything apart from his own cushy survival via the old boy's network. He's merely continuing what worked for him at Eton and at Oxford.
He's a grifter, not even talented at that as he's too bone idle to actually do it well, and he'll continue in this way as long as he gets away with it. And then he'll be done; no mea culpa, no great realisation that he's been conning everyone forever and is going to change his idle ways; he knows nothing else, and he'll drift away into some pointless existence making his one rehashed 'speech' at any old guard dinner parties that are still open to him and will be too pissed to care.
A comment piece in The Times (by its Chief Leader Writer) quotes an unnamed senior Civil Servant: 'Whenever this government has had a choice, it has chosen Stupid.'
I read that open-mouthed. It is not the place for a civil servant to make such comments, even unattributed.
A remark like that, especially to a journalist, gives the lie to the loudly proclaimed impartiality that senior civil servants wrap themselves in whenever they're criticised.
I read that open-mouthed. It is not the place for a civil servant to make such comments, even unattributed.
A remark like that, especially to a journalist, gives the lie to the loudly proclaimed impartiality that senior civil servants wrap themselves in whenever they're criticised.
Or reflects the fact that impartiality does not extend (or rather shouldn't) to giving facts and lies equal weight.
The government has the same problem with bias that Trump does: reality is biased against them.
I read that open-mouthed. It is not the place for a civil servant to make such comments, even unattributed.
A remark like that, especially to a journalist, gives the lie to the loudly proclaimed impartiality that senior civil servants wrap themselves in whenever they're criticised.
You could be right. But the truth will out. I admit I'm biased because I think the Tory governments of later years have demonstrated the dregs of political human behaviour and gloried in them. But there must come a time when some administrations are so perniciously ignorant, dangerous and incompetent that it's impossible for anyone with intelligence to say otherwise, however much it may be their job to pretend otherwise.
I read that open-mouthed. It is not the place for a civil servant to make such comments, even unattributed.
A remark like that, especially to a journalist, gives the lie to the loudly proclaimed impartiality that senior civil servants wrap themselves in whenever they're criticised.
You could be right. But the truth will out. I admit I'm biased because I think the Tory governments of later years have demonstrated the dregs of political human behaviour and gloried in them. But there must come a time when some administrations are so perniciously ignorant, dangerous and incompetent that it's impossible for anyone with intelligence to say otherwise, however much it may be their job to pretend otherwise.
Exactly.
I wish more of the people surrounding tRump did the same.
These emperors have no clothes. The civil servants who say so are brave, sensible and correct.
I read that open-mouthed. It is not the place for a civil servant to make such comments, even unattributed.
A remark like that, especially to a journalist, gives the lie to the loudly proclaimed impartiality that senior civil servants wrap themselves in whenever they're criticised.
Ministers aren’t playing by the “rules” either. We have a passive-aggressive government and the members of the cabinet neither like, trust nor respect their senior civil servants very much.
Ministers aren’t playing by the “rules” either. We have a passive-aggressive government and the members of the cabinet neither like, trust nor respect their senior civil servants very much.
And have senior advisors that are openly at war with the civil service.
There is a moral imperative to speak out, if not a legal one. If the behaviour of the minister and/or department to civil servants they have whistle blower rights. If they feel that is not enough they can speak out morally. Bullies should not prosper
I personally think that if civil servants are turning on the government of the day, however mildly or not, given the expectations about keeping their opinions to themselves, it suggests a lot of provocation and/or genuine worry about the country's future, and that we ought to take notice.
I personally think that if civil servants are turning on the government of the day, however mildly or not, given the expectations about keeping their opinions to themselves, it suggests a lot of provocation and/or genuine worry about the country's future, and that we ought to take notice.
Yep.
Of course it's possible that said Civil Servants might have their own agenda and just because they say something does not mean that it is true. However, as you say, the expectation of silence is really deeply embedded in the UK Civil Service such that it really is unusual and thus we would be foolish not to take heed. Even if at the end of it all we disagree with the position of said Civil Servants. The point being that Civil Servants do not speak out because they disagree with a policy - that's the job. They speak out when things are egregiously awry....
@TheOrganist, even if true, unlike yours, my mouth remains closed.
It is, though, quite likely that the 'unnamed senior Civil Servant' might not have thought he or she was saying, or even giving away, anything like as much as the reporter has attributed to them. Suppose the reporter asked them 'So do you think this is a case where whenever this government has had a choice, it has chosen Stupid?'. If he or she didn't immediately say explicitly, 'No of course not', that is then interpreted as his or her very words.
After all, an 'unnamed senior Civil Servant' could be anyone and can't be verified. What is more, the statement attributed to them is eminently believable. It's an opinion which is shared by most even remotely thinking or intelligent people in the country.
Going further, do you know anyone who doesn't think that? I don't think I do.
@Enoch Oh, I agree that members of the fourth estate use leading questions and extrapolate much from silence.
As for HMG being on the right track, I don't think they're on any track at the moment, rather the series of events that have unfolded over the past few weeks have resulted in them reacting piecemeal as things occur.
you can be on the right track, but still heading in the wrong direction
Anyone who knows much about trains will know that one can be on the right track, going in the right direction at the right speed but there can still be a lot of trouble ahead.
No. It had been decided that Elizabeth of York would marry whoever won the Battle of Bosworth, Richard III or Henry Tudor, even though the former was her uncle!
Strange, then, that at the time of his death Richard III was negotiating to marry her off to a Portuguese prince and also to marry Joan of Portugal himself. There was a rumour that he was considering marrying her himself, but most historians don't think much of it. The main source for it is the Crowland Chronicle, which was written after his death and is very hostile towards him.
One feels sorry, in a way, for Richard III. A bad press for pretty well all the centuries after his untimely death, not to mention being buried under a car park.
A Ditch might be more sympathetic towards our current Ruler (and I DO NOT mean HMQ, on whom be peace).
One feels sorry, in a way, for Richard III. A bad press for pretty well all the centuries after his untimely death, not to mention being buried under a car park. ...
I don't.
To listen to Philippa Langley and others one would get the impression that Richard III has been wickedly traduced by history, and in particular his successors, that there was nothing he liked better than to sit his dear little nephews on his knee and teach them their catechism.
Shakespeare's pantomime villain might ham it up a bit, but it was widely and generally assumed in London that Richard had done away with his nephews long before Henry Tudor had even left France. If that was mere tavern tittle-tattle he could easily have countered it by producing them in public, entertaining them at court etc. He didn't. One has to assume that was because he couldn't.
One feels sorry, in a way, for Richard III. A bad press for pretty well all the centuries after his untimely death, not to mention being buried under a car park. ...
I don't.
To listen to Philippa Langley and others one would get the impression that Richard III has been wickedly traduced by history, and in particular his successors, that there was nothing he liked better than to sit his dear little nephews on his knee and teach them their catechism.
Shakespeare's pantomime villain might ham it up a bit, but it was widely and generally assumed in London that Richard had done away with his nephews long before Henry Tudor had even left France. If that was mere tavern tittle-tattle he could easily have countered it by producing them in public, entertaining them at court etc. He didn't. One has to assume that was because he couldn't.
There is plenty of evidence that Richard III was far from stupid. Bearing in mind the speed at which "evidence" of Edward IV's marriage being unlawful, thus rendering Edward V and Richard of York illegitimate, he had no reason to kill them because bastards couldn't inherit the throne. Moreover there are many accounts of the young Richard of Gloucester enjoying happy relations with his oldest brother and his children.
Henry Tudor would have been threatened by anyone with Plantagenet blood and his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was famous even in her own time for being single-minded and ruthless when it came to defending, or promoting, the cause of her son.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that Elizabeth of York would have been happy to be married to Henry Tudor if she seriously thought him the murderer, or instigator of the murder, of her brothers.
It all points towards either Margaret Beaufort or her husband.
My money's on Henry VII as the murder/instigator. Nothing was rumored about the boys' having disappeared until after he usurped the throne, and H7 and H8 were a notoriously bloody lot.
Anything Shakespeare wrote on Richard was heavily influenced by Thomas More's History, an entertaining but wildly inaccurate work very obviously tailored to the times and the opinion of TPTB. First up, More was a child at the time of Bosworth, second he would have been anxious to ingratiate himself with the Tudor kings after his father famously fell foul of Henry VII. Any remaining doubts about the History's accuracy should be answered by the substantial differences between the English and Latin versions: he was tailoring the book to the market.
My money's on Henry VII as the murder/instigator. Nothing was rumored about the boys' having disappeared until after he usurped the throne, and H7 and H8 were a notoriously bloody lot.
I've never understood why Henry VIII often tops the poll of favourite English monarchs. He was a murderous bastard, lecherous beyond belief and all-round Bad King.
Comments
Which is to say I don't see them leaping into the sack prenuptially.
No. It had been decided that Elizabeth of York would marry whoever won the Battle of Bosworth, Richard III or Henry Tudor, even though the former was her uncle!
Engagement wasn't really a thing then: you had betrothal but that was much nearer to marriage than engagement.
@KarlLB First babies tend to arrive late.
This is a poor argument. On average, yes, first babies will stay in longER than subsequent babies born to any individual woman, but that is not a basis for drawing a firm conclusion of pre-marital impregnation regarding a particular person, especially when, as has been said, the gestation period looks to be eight months. I mean, if the baby had been born in July, that would be a different matter...
@anoesis, whose first child arrived at 38w4d after 5 1/2 hours labour and whose second arrived later and took longer about it.
You can draw no conclusions from averages like this.
An eight month first pregnancy is entirely possible.
And of course that's what we're concerned with here - possible times for playing at Hide the Pink Gherkin.
News to me. Mine arrived at 25 weeks. And that’s with the benefit of modern medicine that reduces the incidence of catastrophic crap like that.
For most women, sex will have happened more than once in the time frame of interest but whilst we cannot be precise with ovulation, it is something close to 14 days after the commencement of menstruation and thus measuring pregnancy by post-menstrual age is the logical thing to do. Hence we refer to pregnancy as a number of weeks out of 40. (38 + 2).
As an aside, whilst this is the convention in most of the world, I understand that the French always take 2 weeks off and refer to post-conception age. Still worked out from last menstrual period but with reference to assumed date of conception. That's logical and precise, if a little confusing.
Of course, in practice, the actual number used is calculated based on the size of the foetus as measured on the 13 week scan. So if you have access to antenatal ultrasound the date of LMP (last menstrual period) is less important. But it's all calibrated the same way.
So, full term is 40 weeks (PMA*). But there's a lot of variation around that. Anything from 37/40 to 41/40 is considered full term. And it's always been the case that a minority of babies are born spontaneously before 37 weeks. Whilst on-average, first babies are often later than subsequent pregnancies, that's a very small effect and it's still the case that most babies are within the 37-42 window. (After 41 weeks in most healthcare systems, medics would want to act as the risks go up after 42, so that distorts the data a bit in modern times).
So coming back to the case in question; 18th January to 18th September is 35 weeks. If we convert PMA* to PCA** then that's in the window for term (37 to 42). Equally would also fit with mild prematurity (say 35 or 36 weeks PMA*). Conversely, if said baby was later within the normal window or even post term then that puts conception in early January or late December at the latest.
What is less likely is that conception occured before the marriage and she knew she was pregnant when she wed. It's just possible she had a late period and suspected pregnancy at the time of nuptials. Just. Conversely, conception immediately post wedding fits the timeframe perfectly.
AFZ
*PMA = post-menstrual age (/40) conventional measure
**PCA = post-conception age (/38) more technically correct but confusing and not normally used in most of the world.
The lady in question deserves a modicum of Christian Love™, as she is clearly quite mad. I refrain from using the word bonkers, as that conjures up the image NSFW.
All we want is for The Mad Mophead to disappear, as though he had never been.
From your lips to God's ears.
Oops...
What USE is he to beast, man, or country?
He is neither use nor ornament. In HM Forces people like this are dubbed “Oxygen thieves”.
A remark like that, especially to a journalist, gives the lie to the loudly proclaimed impartiality that senior civil servants wrap themselves in whenever they're criticised.
Or reflects the fact that impartiality does not extend (or rather shouldn't) to giving facts and lies equal weight.
The government has the same problem with bias that Trump does: reality is biased against them.
AFZ
Sir Humphrey would have put it somewhat differently, and certainly with rather more circumlocution...
Hacker was a great statesman by comparison.
You could be right. But the truth will out. I admit I'm biased because I think the Tory governments of later years have demonstrated the dregs of political human behaviour and gloried in them. But there must come a time when some administrations are so perniciously ignorant, dangerous and incompetent that it's impossible for anyone with intelligence to say otherwise, however much it may be their job to pretend otherwise.
Exactly.
I wish more of the people surrounding tRump did the same.
These emperors have no clothes. The civil servants who say so are brave, sensible and correct.
Ministers aren’t playing by the “rules” either. We have a passive-aggressive government and the members of the cabinet neither like, trust nor respect their senior civil servants very much.
And have senior advisors that are openly at war with the civil service.
Yep.
Of course it's possible that said Civil Servants might have their own agenda and just because they say something does not mean that it is true. However, as you say, the expectation of silence is really deeply embedded in the UK Civil Service such that it really is unusual and thus we would be foolish not to take heed. Even if at the end of it all we disagree with the position of said Civil Servants. The point being that Civil Servants do not speak out because they disagree with a policy - that's the job. They speak out when things are egregiously awry....
AFZ
It is, though, quite likely that the 'unnamed senior Civil Servant' might not have thought he or she was saying, or even giving away, anything like as much as the reporter has attributed to them. Suppose the reporter asked them 'So do you think this is a case where whenever this government has had a choice, it has chosen Stupid?'. If he or she didn't immediately say explicitly, 'No of course not', that is then interpreted as his or her very words.
After all, an 'unnamed senior Civil Servant' could be anyone and can't be verified. What is more, the statement attributed to them is eminently believable. It's an opinion which is shared by most even remotely thinking or intelligent people in the country.
Going further, do you know anyone who doesn't think that? I don't think I do.
I do. I know quite a few people who think the Government are on the right track...
I have no way of processing that.
AFZ
As for HMG being on the right track, I don't think they're on any track at the moment, rather the series of events that have unfolded over the past few weeks have resulted in them reacting piecemeal as things occur.
Anyone who knows much about trains will know that one can be on the right track, going in the right direction at the right speed but there can still be a lot of trouble ahead.
I'll get my coat ...
Or, if there are, it's your own fault for not washing your hands properly.
Strange, then, that at the time of his death Richard III was negotiating to marry her off to a Portuguese prince and also to marry Joan of Portugal himself. There was a rumour that he was considering marrying her himself, but most historians don't think much of it. The main source for it is the Crowland Chronicle, which was written after his death and is very hostile towards him.
A Ditch might be more sympathetic towards our current Ruler (and I DO NOT mean HMQ, on whom be peace).
To listen to Philippa Langley and others one would get the impression that Richard III has been wickedly traduced by history, and in particular his successors, that there was nothing he liked better than to sit his dear little nephews on his knee and teach them their catechism.
Shakespeare's pantomime villain might ham it up a bit, but it was widely and generally assumed in London that Richard had done away with his nephews long before Henry Tudor had even left France. If that was mere tavern tittle-tattle he could easily have countered it by producing them in public, entertaining them at court etc. He didn't. One has to assume that was because he couldn't.
Henry Tudor would have been threatened by anyone with Plantagenet blood and his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was famous even in her own time for being single-minded and ruthless when it came to defending, or promoting, the cause of her son.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that Elizabeth of York would have been happy to be married to Henry Tudor if she seriously thought him the murderer, or instigator of the murder, of her brothers.
It all points towards either Margaret Beaufort or her husband.
Every day I find another reason to like you!