User Name  Password
Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Chat Room | Photos | Help | Sign In | | | | | Follow Aimoo_Com on Twitter
Title: The Eclipse of the Sunne in Splendor
Hop to: 
Views:387     
New Topic New Poll
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
AuthorComment
Forever_Amber
 Author    



Rank:Diamond Member

Score: 572
Posts: 572
From: USA

(Date Posted:02/19/2009 7:26 AM)
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo

From: Greensleeves  (Original Message)Sent: 7/18/2005 8:30 PM
Got to thinking about how Edward IV only managed to last till age 42.  You look at contemporary accounts of his demise, & basically wenching & drinking gets the blame for it LOL  Now naturally that I want to I can't recall where I read this , but I remember seeing something which said that Edward simply just couldn't get out of bed one morning & went into a speedy decline.  So I was wondering what on earth do you think he actually died of?  Any opinions?
From: MSN NicknameMarkGB5Sent: 7/19/2005 2:06 PM
Some reports say he died of a surfeit, exactly what he surfeited on is not clear. If so he went the same way as Henry I and King John. More likely it was pneumonia.
From: ForeverAmberSent: 7/19/2005 3:45 PM
Congestive heart failure, maybe?
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 7/19/2005 6:47 PM
A surfeit of Woodvilles...enough to finish anyone off.....certainly make you feel sick!!!!
From: GreensleevesSent: 7/20/2005 6:08 AM
Ohhh good one, Alan!
From: BerengariaSent: 7/26/2005 6:35 PM
How about Guillain-Barre Syndrome for him?
 
From: MSN NicknamesilentsilverscreenSent: 7/27/2005 3:14 AM
Sorry, couldn't resist that dig at the Woodvilles!!!
From: MSN Nicknameterrilee62Sent: 7/27/2005 1:42 PM
 
How about Guillain-Barre Syndrome for him?
 
 
That website listed, among other symptoms, paralysis.  I don't remember reading about that symptom when E4 died.  I was thinking it was more along the lines of pneumonia, or a nasty upper respitory infection.  With no antibiotics back then, that could easily carry someone off, especialy if they weren't in the best physical condition.
From: GreensleevesSent: 7/28/2005 1:58 AM
I kind of like it as it explains why Edward just couldn't get out of bed one morning....sudden onset of the condition & all, & if the respiratory aspects are left untreated, it CAN be a killer, which ties in with what Terrilee & Mark think regarding pneumonia....hmmm.
usertype:1
Criccieth
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 1# 



From: usa

Re:The Eclipse of the Sunne in Splendor
(Date Posted:06/07/2010 5:07 PM)

I read recently and now can't for the life of me remember where but recently a medic got interested, posted the symptoms (sudden serious illness, vomting, recovery, decline and death etc) to various experts without adding name and date. Only a handful could come up anything specific and only three of those agreed - all on arsenic.
usertype:5 tt= 0
Greensleeves
Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo 2# 



Rank:Platinum Member

Score:256
Posts:256
From: USA

RE:The Eclipse of the Sunne in Splendor
(Date Posted:06/28/2010 11:26 PM)

The 1st rule of thumb in pondering any crime is "quo beni?".  Who benefits?  Don't even start bashing Richard III LOL 

I always thunk twas accepted that Edward IV died of a respiratory illness, & suddenly.  Suddenly is the key word here.  Arsenic is a tricky poison in that natch there's no set dosage that would kill a human, & the dosage that would do it as fast as it took a man as large as Edward to die would have to be so enormous that it could hardly have escaped notice.  He was not only Longshanks Revisited in terms of height, but he'd also gotten pudgy & prolly would've rivaled his grandson Henry in girth had he lived longer.  A severe respiratory infection or virus compromises all vital organs, & a viral illness might especially give a peep the heaves.  It could just as easily have been the flu as arsenic.  Lore has it that Edward caught cold whilst hunting & poof gone in less than a wk.

Who benefits from chopping down a lazy fat king past his prime, one who's ground the Wars of the Roses to a halt & brought peace & prosperity to his realm? 

Not the Woodvilles, who got all of their goodies from him.

Buckingham resented him greatly for putting Anthony Woodville & not himself in charge of Prince Edward's household at Ludlow, as Buckingham was the premier landholder in the Welsh Marches & a royal duke at that.  Never slight a duke.  Buckingham did rebel against Richard III, but had no real base of support & was quickly taken down.  Did Buckingham's royal pretensions extend to sitting his arse on the throne?  But did Buckingham know in advance the likelihood of setting Edward's apparently legitimate sons aside?  What would that get him, if not, except the usual regency pickings?

Margaret Beaufort was by then married to Stanley.  Did she think if she get rid of Edward it would make it easier for Sonny Boy to overthrow a minor monarch & restore the House of Lancaster?

If Richard III had the dangerous knowledge that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville could be made invalid, all he had to do was wait.  And if he didn't, would the Woodvilles & their ilks allow him to continue to basically rule half of England during young Edward's short majority, & would Edward V let it go on?  Richard's edgy detente w/ the Woodvilles stemmed from the same reasons.....sans Edward, no goodies.

Methinks if you propose Edward was murdered & look at who benefits, you come up w/ the same pool of suspects as who killed the Princes in the Tower.  But if you look at is as who stood to benefit the MOST, it would be the sole remaining scion of the House of Lancaster.
usertype:1 tt= 0
<<Previous ThreadNext Thread>>
Page 1 / 1    
New Topic New Poll

" height=86 width=189>
[List Sites] [Random] [Join]
Sign Up | Create | About Us | SiteMap | Features | Forums | Show Off | Faq | Help
Copyright © 2000-2013 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.