On 25/08/17 08:33, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are >> still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't >> breath unaided. [...] I'm sure there were instances of mediæval >> babies born thispremature who survived nonetheless, but it must >> have been very rare. > > But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain > when the baby was conceived, It wouldn't require anyone a century later to know exactly when the baby was conceived, only to within a two months, and anyone with knowledge of the date of birth could have done that, though there's no reason to suppose many people would have known the date of birth. In that respect Richard could have been in a privileged position. In any case, the point is moot. I've already said I don't believe Beaufort was born of double adultery. Had he been, Gaunt had a strong incentive to say so during his petition for dispensation to marry Katherine. He didn't and that speaks volumes. I think it is quite possibly that, if so minded, he could have covered up Katherine's side of the double adultery had it occurred, as I don't image dates of birth, marriage and death would have have been known outside a small circle of family and close acquaintances who, back in the 1390s, may not have had reason to rock the boat. But doing so would have been risky and I can't see any motive for him to do so. Richard

On 25-Aug-17 6:14 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 08:33, Peter Stewart wrote: > >>> Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are >>> still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't >>> breath unaided. [...] I'm sure there were instances of mediæval >>> babies born thispremature who survived nonetheless, but it must >>> have been very rare. >> >> But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain >> when the baby was conceived, > > It wouldn't require anyone a century later to know exactly when the > baby was conceived, only to within a two months, and anyone with > knowledge of the date of birth could have done that, though there's no > reason to suppose many people would have known the date of birth.  In > that respect Richard could have been in a privileged position. > > In any case, the point is moot.  I've already said I don't believe > Beaufort was born of double adultery.  Had he been, Gaunt had a strong > incentive to say so during his petition for dispensation to marry > Katherine.  He didn't and that speaks volumes.  I think it is quite > possibly that, if so minded, he could have covered up Katherine's side > of the double adultery had it occurred, as I don't image dates of > birth, marriage and death would have have been known outside a small > circle of family and close acquaintances who, back in the 1390s, may > not have had reason to rock the boat.  But doing so would have been > risky and I can't see any motive for him to do so. Nor can I. However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it. I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the 14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway. There doesn't seem to be any plausible ground for devil's advocacy here. Peter Stewart