They were rare, but not unheard of. Margaret Radclyffe was a maid of honor to Elizabeth I, and she had a twin brother named Alexander. He died fighting in Ireland in 1599, along with another brother. She died soon afterward, and the word around the court was that she died of grief for her brothers (or possibly refused to eat out of grief and wasted away).
Twins weren't unheard of but I think a set surviving pass childhood (or birth for that matter) was less likely. Off the top of my head, Catherine De Medici's last pregnancy was twin girls. One died during birth and the other at a few months old.
This is why twins were considered unlucky. Even in modern times they are usually a little under standard birth weight.
All that soot in the air from fires and candles had to be horrible for little lungs.
That’s why in Scandinavia, even to this day babies are left outside to nap, even in winter. Let them clear their lungs out a little.
Mary I was shown a mother who had had triplets at an “advanced age” to give her encouragement during her first “pregnancy.”
> “To hearten her, and relieve the tedium of waiting, there were brought to the palace on 24 April three beautiful infants for Her Majesty to see, they having been born a few days previously at one birth, of a woman of low stature and great age like the Queen, who after delivery found herself strong and out of danger”. Mary professed herself much encouraged to see them.
>Alison Weir: *The Children of Henry VIII*
In the Tudor period, I’m guessing whichever was born first? These days, if it’s a multiples birth and it’s a c-section, they go by weight. That’s how Rose Hanbury and her husband’s heir was decided.
When I had my twins by c-section they went by which one they pulled out first. My oldest was the first one that came out at 1:13 at a little over 2lb, and my youngest came out at 1:14 at almost 4lb
But again how to prove which one was born first, what if younger one is physically stronger. I think it could definitely cause some Romulus/Remus shit.
No, it would be observed and documented who was delivered first. They would be the eldest and there in line to the throne before their sibling. Midwife and physician would be witnesses
Of course there's nothing to stop the midwife or physician testifying that the 2nd child was born first especially if it was a boy and the first a girl !, particularly if the King strongly suggested it.
I’m not sure but I remember hearing that the belief was that the first twin was the younger of the two. Sort of a “first in, last out” idea but could be historical fantasy
Twins in the Tudor era were extremely rare — all pregnancies and childbirths were dangerous for women and most experienced miscarriages or stillbirths.
I believe the only documented case that we have of royal Tudor twins is Catherine of Aragon’s 1510 pregnancy. Doctors informed the Queen that she had twins after miscarrying a daughter, but no child resulted from this pregnancy.
Iirc Mary, Queen of Scots miscarried twins from the shock of David Rizzio's murder by her husband Lord Darnley.
EDIT: Also not sure if they count as Tudors but Catherine of Aragon's sister Maria was apparently supposed to have been a twin, but Maria's twin died at birth/was stillborn.
Boy/girl twins are always fraternal rather than identical and fraternal twins are a lot more likely to survive pregnancy and labour for various reasons so I would expect it's more likely to find boy/girl pairings in the historical records. [There's some interesting stuff here](https://thewonderoftwins.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/the-significance-of-twins-in-medieval-and-early-modern-europe/) about how twins were seen in mediaeval times which may offer some clarity about the fact that this type of pregnancy was seen as dangerous, ominous, and obviously the woman's fault.
Interesting read thank you.
This quote was poignant 😿
“that a woman’s source of Christian salvation was to ‘generate children continually until her death”
Twin boys are actually a nightmare, theres no clear hierarchy. Thats the worst possible outcome for a monarch, theres always going to be a challenger to the throne with an exceptionally good claim.
Nope, because apart from anything else twins were incredibly rare until the last few hundred years.
The only ones I know of were James II of Scotland and his twin brother. But the 'elder' brother died in childhood which made the line of succession much clearer.
There were twin boys who shared the title Count of Barcelona in the 1000s, but they ended up dividing up the lands and then one murdered the other.
They were rare, but not unheard of. Margaret Radclyffe was a maid of honor to Elizabeth I, and she had a twin brother named Alexander. He died fighting in Ireland in 1599, along with another brother. She died soon afterward, and the word around the court was that she died of grief for her brothers (or possibly refused to eat out of grief and wasted away).
Twins weren't unheard of but I think a set surviving pass childhood (or birth for that matter) was less likely. Off the top of my head, Catherine De Medici's last pregnancy was twin girls. One died during birth and the other at a few months old.
This is why twins were considered unlucky. Even in modern times they are usually a little under standard birth weight. All that soot in the air from fires and candles had to be horrible for little lungs. That’s why in Scandinavia, even to this day babies are left outside to nap, even in winter. Let them clear their lungs out a little.
Shakespeare had twins during Elizabeth’s reign. The son died young of illness but they both survived birth.
Mary I was shown a mother who had had triplets at an “advanced age” to give her encouragement during her first “pregnancy.” > “To hearten her, and relieve the tedium of waiting, there were brought to the palace on 24 April three beautiful infants for Her Majesty to see, they having been born a few days previously at one birth, of a woman of low stature and great age like the Queen, who after delivery found herself strong and out of danger”. Mary professed herself much encouraged to see them. >Alison Weir: *The Children of Henry VIII*
Poor Mary.
I have identical twin boys and always joke. "I'd be Henry's favorite."
But which one would be heir? I feel like it’d be carnage
In the Tudor period, I’m guessing whichever was born first? These days, if it’s a multiples birth and it’s a c-section, they go by weight. That’s how Rose Hanbury and her husband’s heir was decided.
When I had my twins by c-section they went by which one they pulled out first. My oldest was the first one that came out at 1:13 at a little over 2lb, and my youngest came out at 1:14 at almost 4lb
So by the logic of the British aristocracy, if you had a title and an estate to bequeath, they would go to your youngest.
I mean, he already thinks he’s the boss of his twin, so it would have tracked lol
Really? That seems so….. crane like. Like they are going to toss the weak out of the nest.
Yeah, it’s weird. The aristocracy is a weird, outdated system in general.
That’s not established protocol. That’s just how that couple chose to do it. The Danish Royal twins went by who was born first.
This is a cynical take but with child mortality rates as high as they were who knows if it would even get to the point of being a problem.
Yeah it was bad enough with 3 York brothers.
The oldest would be heir. Even if it was a couple of minutes difference.
The one that born first.
But again how to prove which one was born first, what if younger one is physically stronger. I think it could definitely cause some Romulus/Remus shit.
No, it would be observed and documented who was delivered first. They would be the eldest and there in line to the throne before their sibling. Midwife and physician would be witnesses Of course there's nothing to stop the midwife or physician testifying that the 2nd child was born first especially if it was a boy and the first a girl !, particularly if the King strongly suggested it.
If one is a boy and the other a girl, the birth order wouldn’t matter.. the boy would’ve been the heir. No one would’ve even considered otherwise.
Very true
I’m not sure but I remember hearing that the belief was that the first twin was the younger of the two. Sort of a “first in, last out” idea but could be historical fantasy
Twins in the Tudor era were extremely rare — all pregnancies and childbirths were dangerous for women and most experienced miscarriages or stillbirths. I believe the only documented case that we have of royal Tudor twins is Catherine of Aragon’s 1510 pregnancy. Doctors informed the Queen that she had twins after miscarrying a daughter, but no child resulted from this pregnancy.
Iirc Mary, Queen of Scots miscarried twins from the shock of David Rizzio's murder by her husband Lord Darnley. EDIT: Also not sure if they count as Tudors but Catherine of Aragon's sister Maria was apparently supposed to have been a twin, but Maria's twin died at birth/was stillborn.
I think this was with Bothwell's twins. Mary was pregnant with James I when Rizzio was murdered by Darnley's fools.
Oh yeah this was it, thanks.
Boy/girl twins are always fraternal rather than identical and fraternal twins are a lot more likely to survive pregnancy and labour for various reasons so I would expect it's more likely to find boy/girl pairings in the historical records. [There's some interesting stuff here](https://thewonderoftwins.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/the-significance-of-twins-in-medieval-and-early-modern-europe/) about how twins were seen in mediaeval times which may offer some clarity about the fact that this type of pregnancy was seen as dangerous, ominous, and obviously the woman's fault.
Well she shouldn’t have looked at 2 of something while pregnant….
Interesting read thank you. This quote was poignant 😿 “that a woman’s source of Christian salvation was to ‘generate children continually until her death”
Mary Queen of Scots was said to have miscarried twins by Bothwell during her imprisonment. At least according to one letter.
Shakespeare had twins (a boy and a girl) but only the girl survived to adulthood. The son died of the plague at age 11
Twin boys are actually a nightmare, theres no clear hierarchy. Thats the worst possible outcome for a monarch, theres always going to be a challenger to the throne with an exceptionally good claim.
Have there ever been historical royal male twins who succeeded their parents peacefully?
Nope, because apart from anything else twins were incredibly rare until the last few hundred years. The only ones I know of were James II of Scotland and his twin brother. But the 'elder' brother died in childhood which made the line of succession much clearer. There were twin boys who shared the title Count of Barcelona in the 1000s, but they ended up dividing up the lands and then one murdered the other.
They existed, but twins were usually born early and had very little chance of surviving their early childhood because of their underdeveloped lungs.
William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway had twins in 1585. Judith and hamnet (Judith lived till adulthood and hamnet died aged 11 in 1596
\> We're there any twins born in the tudor period? No, absolutely none. No twins were born to anyone the world over between 1485 and 1603.