Northern Skies - Janet! (Page 18 of 21)

Because it would make for a very short novel. If H is the one with the problem, nothing stands in Matthew and Catherine's way to get married. They'd meet, fall in love and marry. It also makes C one-dimensional. Her struggle is around loving children and thinking she can't have children. Then also falling for M and thinking she can't marry him (he needs a male heir).

And having H fertile and then magically sterile when he marries C is possible due to age, but I'm not sure readers will accept that so easily. Or would they? I like easy ...

The bad guy/guys are still around K

You're assuming that H's kids are his.  With a winner like that, would it surprise anyone if she had a hobby as well as a hubby?

ED is about not getting it up.

Parasympathetic pathways, 'P' ut it up
Sympathetic pathways, 'S' hoot it out.

DIfferent nerve endings are affected. ED can have so many different reasons. Something as simple as a monster prostate gland (which naturally gets bigger as a male ages) can interfere with fertility. It isn't just about the sperm. It can be about the plumbing, the nerves being affected by cancer or chronic disease (like diabetes), the function of the sperm, or the amount of sperm, the shape of the sperm and whether they are good swimmers, etc.

I think that the natural inclination of that time period was to blame the woman. Look at Henry the Eighth. He was the issue. Likely from either syphilis or being Kell (+) in his blood, he fathered only four children despite having multiple wives and mistresses. Yet it was Anne Boleyn who paid the price for not bearing a male heir. (Catherine Howard didn't count. I believe she got caught with her skirts up and went to the chopping block for fooling around with someone other than a king.)

He married C when he was 42-ish and his youngest child was 8 at the time (I can still play with these numbers).
He also started drinking heavily after his last wife died.

My research says:

Erectile dysfunction, or ED, is the inability to achieve or sustain an erection suitable for sexual intercourse. Causes include medications, chronic illnesses, poor blood flow to the penis, drinking too much alcohol, or being too tired. (WebMD/Wiki)

Inability, in my book, means nothing, as in, 100% nothing. And sustain, in my book, means something for a little bit/few minutes and then *pfffffffftttttt* (sound of a balloon deflating, in case you're wondering). So that's why I have it he could do something for a little bit at times and stopped abruptly, and other times couldn't do anything. So, if I understand you correctly, it's one or the other, not both? Then I definitely have to fix that.

Or what would you propose H has so that he had children by other wives, but not Catherine making everyone thinks Catherine has a problem. At this rate, I'll make her a bloody virgin, previous relationships/marriages just messes around. grrrr

And I owe you dinner with that bottle of wine! You're really invaluable because you also solve problems, you don't just create them. [just kidding njc/K!]

OK, graphic alert. Anybody who doesn't want to read the dirty details can skip this.

Sustain is the key word.  He could probably wake up with an erection, but can't sustain it long enough to ejaculate. Therefore, his attentions with C were rushed. He had to penetrate with little notice. She wasn't prepped or properly…lubricated. Therefore, sex was painful. Especially since she wasn't experienced.

Then he stops, knowing that the deed isn't done. However, he blames her for his inability to finish. Or (even worse) pretends that he is done to avoid embarrassment. At that point, she has been penetrated and thinks that there is a chance for a baby. I would guess that he wouldn't have the heart to tell her otherwise. Initially, C would be happy that she pleased him.

After multiple failures, she starts noticing that he isn't interested in her. Based on the lack of erections. I would imagine that a virile man with multiple children would be humiliated by this lack and C's presence would be a constant reminder of his deficiency.

NJC, sorry about the Kell (+) antigen. Here is a link. It explains it better than I can.

http://www.history.com/news/did-blood-c … ctive-woes

Great link Amy.

My SIL miscarried her second baby, but it had something to do with her blood group/type and her GP didn't give her the anti-viral shot that would've prevented this from happening after she had her first child. She had 2 healthy babies after that.

Another close friend had the same problem, and she was having twins - I think this is why it was picked up because she had been expecting twins. In any case, she had to have blood tranfusions every other week. She had one delivered and from memory, they kept the smaller of the two in the womb for another week (with tranfusions still ongoing) and a half before she was delivered too.

When I had my first, my GP checked and double checked my blood type. When I asked why it's important to know, she said it was to make sure whether I needed that shot or not. I didn't.

To me, this seems related somehow.

Ten years is a bit of a stretch.  Less than five seems improbable to the story; ditto more than eight.  And besides, she and M were childhood friends.  She was what, five years younger?  That will make M rather old to be unmarried, no?  And to undertake his various physical adventures?  (I mean with the steel, not in bed!)

Sister in law! And yes, this was it, Rhogam sounds familiar. But I'm talking like more than 10 years ago when everyone around my age was having babies.

Arrows! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Arrow shafts were made from light,weight, pourise woods like ash, beech, or hazel. All grew everywhere on the British Isles.

Arrow heads were iron and (in the 1500s/1600s) mostly bodkin shaped for war, so they would puncture most armor. (Knights and princes tended to wear plate armor that protected them from bodkins though, so if your aim is to kill an earl, you'll have to be a really good shot to hit him in a less protected area.)

Arrow fletching was made of any bird feather but by this time it might have mostly been goose. Geese were farmed and so there was a ready access of a lot of feathers.

Because of of a lot of standardization with war stuff because of all the wars with France and the War of the Roses, a lot of the individualism was lot. However, hunting arrows were still made region by region and often by the archerer himself, so those could still be individual and thus identifiable. Mostly it would be in choosing a particular bird feather (not goose) for the fletching or have the archer paint his arrow shafts a color. The rich certainly had time/money to have unique arrows even for war. But it would be in the choice of bird feather for the fletching and perhaps painting the shafts.

It is possible that they dyed the feathers too (they certainly dyed feathers for their helmets and other stuff) but I have never read anything that would suggest they did that.

Hope this helps!

Re feathers:

Janet, I have GOT to get you to an SCA event. What are you doing in August? Would you be open to a week at the Pennsic war?

You NEED to go shopping with me. You won't have these questions any longer.

Hand crafted arrows are absolutely identifiable by the maker. Enough that your assassin would have bought them from elsewhere rather than being traced back to him. (A bow is a woman's weapon, so I saw that with reservations) fletching, three or four fletching on arrows, the precision of the craftsmanship, how well the goose feathers were glued, etc. Remember that arrows are usually shot into targets and damaging the fletch? Or were they used new? (Unlikely)

Since arrows are used on practice targets, you want to identify your arrows from another so you can collect them after a practice shoot. And find them in the scruff if you miss at distance. (White feathers are much easier to see)

So I would have the person paint the arrows after purchase. Something personal that means something to only them. Key is, arrows are sold in bundles. You lose them during practice all the time. This person is missing one. And there are others out there WITH THE SAME MARK PATTERN. Find those arrows and you find the assassin.

Personally, I would go to where people practice archery and search the grass. You can shoot at a hay bale, but you will lose your arrows all the time. Bundled targets are where this person practices because he/she is good.