Dispensations, again

This subject came up on another history forum I read. I understand
Richard and Anne needed a dispensation because they were cousins.
Also, because Richard was related to her first husband. Did they also
need a dispensation because his brother was married to her sister?

This was brought up, quoting from Michael Hick's book on Anne, that a
dispensation was needed for a brother-in-law to marry a sister-in-law,
that at the time it was equated to incest. Was that the case?

T

--- In , "Terence"
<tandjules@...> wrote:
>
> This subject came up on another history forum I read. I understand
> Richard and Anne needed a dispensation because they were cousins.
> Also, because Richard was related to her first husband. Did they
also
> need a dispensation because his brother was married to her sister?
>
> This was brought up, quoting from Michael Hick's book on Anne, that a
> dispensation was needed for a brother-in-law to marry a sister-in-
law,
> that at the time it was equated to incest. Was that the case?
>
> T
>
Not according to my interpretation. There are other members who
understand this matter particularly well.

--- In , "Terence"
<tandjules@...> wrote:
>
> This subject came up on another history forum I read. I understand
> Richard and Anne needed a dispensation because they were cousins.
> Also, because Richard was related to her first husband. Did they
also
> need a dispensation because his brother was married to her sister?
>
> This was brought up, quoting from Michael Hick's book on Anne, that a
> dispensation was needed for a brother-in-law to marry a sister-in-
law,
> that at the time it was equated to incest. Was that the case?
>
> T
>

Hi, Stephen's just alerted me to this one, as it's more my field.
The answer to your question is: Emphatically not. Hicks was in error,
and this is something I think he now realises.
There is a background to this, which I will bore you with in case
further questions about it arise on the other forum.
Historians have tended to assume, at least since Scofield (c.1905),
that Richard and Anne had no dispensation because:-
a) there is none in the published volumes of English entries in the
Papal Registers;
b) the Act of 1474 splitting the Beauchamp inheritance between George
and Richard makes reference to the possibility that Richard and Anne
might be divorced and try to remarry each other - ie that their
existing marriage might be declared void. Hicks has always made great
capital out of the hypocrisy of Richard's dethroning Edward V on the
grounds that Edward IV's marriage was invalid, given that his own
marriage was also invalid and his heir therefore also a bastard.

This was still the situation regarding the evidence, so far as Hicks
was aware, when the Anne Neville book was due to go to press. He then
discovered that a dispensation for them had been found by another
historian in a recently opened section of the Vatican archives. So he
had to very quickly rewrite the section on the couple's marriage and
didn't have the time to study the subject in deptth. He correctly
worked out that the dispensation did not cover everything, but I'm not
sure from memory whether he ever worked out what it did cover. He fell
into the trap of countless English historians before him of assuming
that the impediment of affinity applied to the two sets of relatives of
a married couple, so that they could not marry each other. This is
quite incorrect. The impediment of affinity only prohibited someone
from marrying a relative of their own previous spouse or lover. In
fact, double marriages within families were hellish common in medieval
times. On of the Society members has in fact, recently found a
reference in Bede to this very question; someone had asked the
Venerable B. whether two brothers could marry two sisters, and Bede's
answer was 'absolutely, no problem' or words to that effect.
As it happens, the dispensation that has turned up for Richard and anne
is for affinity, the affinity created by Anne's marriage to Edward of
Lancaster (Prince Edward and Gloucester being cousins within the
prohibited degrees).
But, anyway, Hicks' misinterpretation gave him a motive for the
couple's failure to request a dispensation that covered everything -
according to him, Richard and Anne had such a shocking impediment on
account of their brother and sister having married that no pope would
grant them a dispensation from it, so Richard had to con Anne and the
Pope by asking for a dispensation for some mild spurious impediment.

We can't know for sure yet why this merely partial dispensation was
granted in 1472, or why the 1474 Act refers to a possible annulment of
the marriage, but plausible reasons have been suggested.
As far as the dispensation goes, we actually still have only a minority
of those that must have been issued at this time, including
dispensations specifically referred to in contemporary documents. The
Papal copy of Clarence's dispensation to marry Isabel has not turned up
in any of the public Vatican archives, although we do have a copy of
his own copy, as it were, so we know it was issued. Warwick had wanted
to marry Anne to Richard as well, so there is good reason to suppose he
got the dispensations for both marriages together. That would certainly
explain why in 1472 Richard and Anne felt they only needed absolution
from the effects of Anne's subsequent marriage to Prince Edward.
As for uncertainty over the validity of the marriage in 1474, there is
an interesting reference by the Milanese Ambassador in France at the
beginning of that year to claims by Clarence that Richard had married
Anne by force. In the context of the time that would have rung slightly
different alarm bells than it would today. Force, or rape, was an
infringement of the proper procedure with regard to marriage which may
or may not have involved real force or rape. Basically, the bride had
to be free to give consent, so should not marry from the groom's
custody. She shouldn't be forced by her own family either, but families
did consider that their consent was also necessary and there are many
cases in the records of the period of families claiming statutory rape
because they hadn't been consulted. This may well be about Clarence and
Isabel seeing themselves as Anne's natural guardians or next-of-kin,
and having opposed her marriage to Gloucester. A last-ditch attempt to
prevent the division of the Beauchamp inheritance with kid sister.

Sorry this is so long, but it should cover everything,

Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Terence"
> <tandjules@> wrote:
> >
> >

> > This was brought up, quoting from Michael Hick's book on Anne, that a
> > dispensation was needed for a brother-in-law to marry a sister-in-
> law,
> > that at the time it was equated to incest. Was that the case?
> >
> > T
> >
>
> Hi, Stephen's just alerted me to this one, as it's more my field.
> The answer to your question is: Emphatically not. Hicks was in error,

Annoyingly there may be many people who having read Hick's book, take what he has written as
gospel and thus another myth continues to linger on......
>

I would advise people to go as near Hicks as they would a cholera
epidemic!
Paul

On 18 Jan 2009, at 20:11, eileen wrote:

> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , "Terence"
>> <tandjules@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>> This was brought up, quoting from Michael Hick's book on Anne,
>>> that a
>>> dispensation was needed for a brother-in-law to marry a sister-in-
>> law,
>>> that at the time it was equated to incest. Was that the case?
>>>
>>> T
>>>
>>
>> Hi, Stephen's just alerted me to this one, as it's more my field.
>> The answer to your question is: Emphatically not. Hicks was in error,
>
> Annoyingly there may be many people who having read Hick's book,
> take what he has written as
> gospel and thus another myth continues to linger on......
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Thanks for the replies folks. I suspected Hicks was off on this, could have
sworn siblings marrying other siblings wasn't off limits. Appreciate the
details Marie, do you mind if I quote some of that elsewhere?

That darn Tudor propaganda!

Terry

--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote: Warwick had wanted
> to marry Anne to Richard as well, so there is good reason to suppose he
> got the dispensations for both marriages together. That would certainly
> explain why in 1472 Richard and Anne felt they only needed absolution
> from the effects of Anne's subsequent marriage to Prince Edward.


Thank you for a clear explanation of a confusing topic, Marie, but
don't you mean Anne's previous marriage to Prince Edward?

Katy

--- In , "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote: Warwick had wanted
> > to marry Anne to Richard as well, so there is good reason to
suppose he
> > got the dispensations for both marriages together. That would
certainly
> > explain why in 1472 Richard and Anne felt they only needed
absolution
> > from the effects of Anne's subsequent marriage to Prince Edward.
>
>
> Thank you for a clear explanation of a confusing topic, Marie, but
> don't you mean Anne's previous marriage to Prince Edward?
>
> Katy
>

Er, not very clear, was it? I meant subsequent to this hypothetical
lost first dispensation.

Marie wrote: He fell into the trap of countless English historians before him of assuming that the impediment of affinity applied to the two sets of relatives of a married couple, so that they could not marry each other. This is quite incorrect.

Hello Marie,

Apparently Hicks knew this when he wrote his biography of Warwick the Kingmaker. (published in 1998)

My notes from Hicks' biography say:

1 - Richard Nevill (future Warwick the Kingmaker) married Anne Beauchamp and his sister, Cecily Neville (not Richard's mother), married Henry Beauchamp around 1436. One dispensation seems to have covered all four children, who ranged from 7-13 years in age.

2 - This double marriage contract was arranged because Richard Neville's father, the earl of Salisbury, wanted to protect his children from royal wardship and marriages if Salisbury died while fighting for Henry VI in France. Salisbury paid 4,700 marks, one of the highest known marriage portions. The earl of Warwick needed money because Henry VI's government failed to pay Warwick for his service in France. So the double marriage benefitted both earls.

If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his book published in 1998, his harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne Neville book seem self-contradictory and downright unfair. It seems to me that Hicks could have remembered that there was no impediment to double marriages of brothers and sisters when he wrote his book about Anne Neville. The timing of the rediscovery of Richard and Anne's dispensation wouldn't have necessitated hasty changes to his manuscript if he had been fair to Richard and Anne in the first place.

Just my opinion,

Marion

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote: He fell into the trap of countless English historians
before him of assuming that the impediment of affinity applied to the
two sets of relatives of a married couple, so that they could not
marry each other. This is quite incorrect.
>
> Hello Marie,
>
> Apparently Hicks knew this when he wrote his biography of Warwick
the Kingmaker. (published in 1998)
>
> My notes from Hicks' biography say:
>
> 1 - Richard Nevill (future Warwick the Kingmaker) married Anne
Beauchamp and his sister, Cecily Neville (not Richard's mother),
married Henry Beauchamp around 1436. One dispensation seems to have
covered all four children, who ranged from 7-13 years in age.
>
> 2 - This double marriage contract was arranged because Richard
Neville's father, the earl of Salisbury, wanted to protect his
children from royal wardship and marriages if Salisbury died while
fighting for Henry VI in France. Salisbury paid 4,700 marks, one of
the highest known marriage portions. The earl of Warwick needed
money because Henry VI's government failed to pay Warwick for his
service in France. So the double marriage benefitted both earls.
>
> If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his book
published in 1998, his harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne
Neville book seem self-contradictory and downright unfair. It seems
to me that Hicks could have remembered that there was no impediment
to double marriages of brothers and sisters when he wrote his book
about Anne Neville. The timing of the rediscovery of Richard and
Anne's dispensation wouldn't have necessitated hasty changes to his
manuscript if he had been fair to Richard and Anne in the first
place.
>
> Just my opinion,
>
> Marion
>

I have to agree with that, Marion. The Beauchamp children were
married in a double ceremony, and I don't know if Hicks persuaded
himself that this would have circumvented the problem. I can't see
that it would, however (even had such a problem existed). In
a 'double marriage' the two couples marry separately, one after the
other; the only thing that is shared is the surrounding service.

Marie

--- In , "Terry Buckaloo"
<tandjules@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies folks. I suspected Hicks was off on this,
could have
> sworn siblings marrying other siblings wasn't off limits.
Appreciate the
> details Marie, do you mind if I quote some of that elsewhere?
>
> That darn Tudor propaganda!
>
> Terry
>
>
>
>

Sure. The background references would be Barnfield (article in
Ricardian, 2007 I think) - summarised in Annette Carson's new
book 'Richard III: The Maligned King'.
The quotation from Bede was in a letter by Mary O'Regan in a very
recent Ricardian Bulletin.

--- In , marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his book published in 1998, his
harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne Neville book seem self-contradictory and
downright unfair.
Marion

His attacks and derogatory statements about Richard and Anne border on the farcical. Example
condeming Richard in statements such as '......one must deplore the immorality of the match.
A custodial sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result today for a man
like Richard ........." but then goes on the say that in the 15th century such relationships ....were
normal..."! He implies Anne was suffering from 'sexual starvation following on from the abrupt
termination of her conjugal rights (i.e. Edwards death) and also had a cynical and calculating
personality!!??.....need I go on. How he knows what went on in Anne's head 500 years ago is
mind boggling. His book certainly had me spitting feathers which I dont think was his
intention.
After reading his book I concluded that Hick's hates and despises women. I was amazed when I
found out he was actually married .....:0) It comes as no surprise that Wearisome Weir thought
this book was great and that the BBC History Magazine describes it as "the most important
book by the greatest living expert on Richard ......" is extremely worrying. God help us.

Eileen

On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:46 AM, eileen wrote:

> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his book
>> published in 1998, his
> harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne Neville book seem self-
> contradictory and
> downright unfair.
> Marion
>
> His attacks and derogatory statements about Richard and Anne border
> on the farcical. Example
> condeming Richard in statements such as '......one must deplore
> the immorality of the match.
> A custodial sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be
> the result today for a man
> like Richard ........." but then goes on the say that in the 15th
> century such relationships ....were
> normal..."! He implies Anne was suffering from 'sexual starvation
> following on from the abrupt
> termination of her conjugal rights (i.e. Edwards death) and also
> had a cynical and calculating
> personality!!??.....need I go on. How he knows what went on in
> Anne's head 500 years ago is
> mind boggling. His book certainly had me spitting feathers which I
> dont think was his
> intention.
> After reading his book I concluded that Hick's hates and despises
> women. I was amazed when I
> found out he was actually married .....:0) It comes as no surprise
> that Wearisome Weir thought
> this book was great and that the BBC History Magazine describes it
> as "the most important
> book by the greatest living expert on Richard ......" is extremely
> worrying. God help us.
>
> Eileen

Well, he obviously hates and despises Richard...which is really odd
considering what a great living he's made off of him.

Gilda

--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2009, at 4:46 AM, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , marion davis
> > <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his
book
> >> published in 1998, his
> > harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne Neville book seem
self-
> > contradictory and
> > downright unfair.
> > Marion
> >
> > His attacks and derogatory statements about Richard and Anne
border
> > on the farcical. Example
> > condeming Richard in statements such as '......one must
deplore
> > the immorality of the match.
> > A custodial sentence & registration as a sexual offender would
be
> > the result today for a man
> > like Richard ........." but then goes on the say that in the
15th
> > century such relationships ....were
> > normal..."! He implies Anne was suffering from 'sexual
starvation
> > following on from the abrupt
> > termination of her conjugal rights (i.e. Edwards death) and
also
> > had a cynical and calculating
> > personality!!??.....need I go on. How he knows what went on in
> > Anne's head 500 years ago is
> > mind boggling. His book certainly had me spitting feathers
which I
> > dont think was his
> > intention.
> > After reading his book I concluded that Hick's hates and
despises
> > women. I was amazed when I
> > found out he was actually married .....:0) It comes as no
surprise
> > that Wearisome Weir thought
> > this book was great and that the BBC History Magazine describes
it
> > as "the most important
> > book by the greatest living expert on Richard ......" is
extremely
> > worrying. God help us.
> >
> > Eileen
>
> Well, he obviously hates and despises Richard...which is really
odd
> considering what a great living he's made off of him.
>
> Gilda
>

Hello Gilda, Eileen, Marie and everybody,

Does anyone know if Hicks has made much profit from his Anne Neville
book? Has it sold well?

I've asked myself several times how Hicks can keep his academic
reputation after publishing stuff like that. I saw that he's
published something in 2007, but I didn't make a note of it.

I hadn't heard her called "Wearisome Weir" before, Eileen. That's a
good one.

While I'm at it, I'll warn everyone not to spend their money on a
book called "Lancaster Against York," by Trevor Royle, published in
2008. It seems to be an uncorrected first draft, lacking footnotes
and illustrations. It's full of downright errors and
contradictions. Royle and his publisher seem to be contemptuous of
their readers--any old conglomeration of errors and opinions will do
to fill the pages. Very disappointing.

Marion

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his
book published in 1998, his
> harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne Neville book seem self-
contradictory and
> downright unfair.
> Marion
>
> His attacks and derogatory statements about Richard and Anne
border on the farcical. Example
> condeming Richard in statements such as '......one must deplore
the immorality of the match.
> A custodial sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be
the result today for a man
> like Richard ........." but then goes on the say that in the 15th
century such relationships ....were
> normal..."! He implies Anne was suffering from 'sexual starvation
following on from the abrupt
> termination of her conjugal rights (i.e. Edwards death) and also
had a cynical and calculating
> personality!!??.....need I go on. How he knows what went on in
Anne's head 500 years ago is
> mind boggling. His book certainly had me spitting feathers which
I dont think was his
> intention.
> After reading his book I concluded that Hick's hates and despises
women. I was amazed when I
> found out he was actually married .....:0) It comes as no
surprise that Wearisome Weir thought
> this book was great and that the BBC History Magazine describes it
as "the most important
> book by the greatest living expert on Richard ......" is extremely
worrying. God help us.
>
> Eileen
>

Hello Eileen, and everybody,

If you remove Richard's name from the following sentence and
substitute Edmund Tudor--who fathered Henry Tudor on his 12-13 year
old wife, Margaret Beaufort--wouldn't it be equally accurate?


'......one must deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result
today for a man like [fill in the blank]."


Can anyone else fill in the blank?

I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta
of Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
that.

Marion

--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> If you remove Richard's name from the following sentence and
> substitute Edmund Tudor--who fathered Henry Tudor on his 12-13 year
> old wife, Margaret Beaufort--wouldn't it be equally accurate?
>
>
> '......one must deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
> sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result
> today for a man like [fill in the blank]."
>
>
> Can anyone else fill in the blank?
>
> I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta
> of Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
> that.
>
> Marion
>
It went on all the time. A few examples are:
Edward l second wife Margaruite of France was 17 and he was 60...I think his lst wife Eleanor was
very young too
King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella of Valois was 6!

What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
Eileen

On 22 Jan 2009, at 15:30, phaecilia wrote:

> While I'm at it, I'll warn everyone not to spend their money on a
> book called "Lancaster Against York," by Trevor Royle, published in
> 2008. It seems to be an uncorrected first draft, lacking footnotes
> and illustrations. It's full of downright errors and
> contradictions.


Totally agree with you on this one Marion. He is clearly Lancastrian
in sympathy (how can anyone be I ask?) though that doesn't excuse all
the errors he makes. Mind you anyone calling More a historian needs a
reality check, though he calls himself a military historian. reading
his book makes me doubt this as he clearly has little understanding
of medieval combat. And trotting out the same old garbage about
Richard as Richard's detractors over the centuries, without looking
at both sides of the arguments is inexcusable.
Avoid!

As for Hicks making money from his disgraceful book on Anne Neville,
I sincerely hope not! I hope no Ricardian organisation ever asks him
to speak to them again. Who called him the "greatest living expert on
Richard" - TOSH!
Paul


Richard liveth yet

Wasn't King John's second wife 14?
Paul

On 22 Jan 2009, at 15:39, phaecilia wrote:

> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If Hicks could write this about Warwick the Kingmaker in his
> book published in 1998, his
>> harsh condemnations of Richard in the Anne Neville book seem self-
> contradictory and
>> downright unfair.
>> Marion
>>
>> His attacks and derogatory statements about Richard and Anne
> border on the farcical. Example
>> condeming Richard in statements such as '......one must deplore
> the immorality of the match.
>> A custodial sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be
> the result today for a man
>> like Richard ........." but then goes on the say that in the 15th
> century such relationships ....were
>> normal..."! He implies Anne was suffering from 'sexual starvation
> following on from the abrupt
>> termination of her conjugal rights (i.e. Edwards death) and also
> had a cynical and calculating
>> personality!!??.....need I go on. How he knows what went on in
> Anne's head 500 years ago is
>> mind boggling. His book certainly had me spitting feathers which
> I dont think was his
>> intention.
>> After reading his book I concluded that Hick's hates and despises
> women. I was amazed when I
>> found out he was actually married .....:0) It comes as no
> surprise that Wearisome Weir thought
>> this book was great and that the BBC History Magazine describes it
> as "the most important
>> book by the greatest living expert on Richard ......" is extremely
> worrying. God help us.
>>
>> Eileen
>>
>
> Hello Eileen, and everybody,
>
> If you remove Richard's name from the following sentence and
> substitute Edmund Tudor--who fathered Henry Tudor on his 12-13 year
> old wife, Margaret Beaufort--wouldn't it be equally accurate?
>
>
> '......one must deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
> sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result
> today for a man like [fill in the blank]."
>
>
> Can anyone else fill in the blank?
>
> I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta
> of Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
> that.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

On 22 Jan 2009, at 16:56, eileen wrote:

> King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
> Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella
> of Valois was 6!
>
I thought Isabelle a little older, not a lot, but...

> What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.

Oh go on, cheer me up and print it!!!! Bet I agree with every word!
Paul


Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Jan 2009, at 16:56, eileen wrote:
>
> > King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
> > Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella
> > of Valois was 6!
> >
> I thought Isabelle a little older, not a lot, but...
>
> > What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
>
> Oh go on, cheer me up and print it!!!! Bet I agree with every word!
> Paul
>
>
> Richard liveth yet

Oh OK then ......Hicksy is crap, crap, crap....

Im sorry people, Paul made me...
>

I was expecting better, or should I say worse! :-)
Paul

On 22 Jan 2009, at 20:05, eileen wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22 Jan 2009, at 16:56, eileen wrote:
>>
>>> King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
>>> Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella
>>> of Valois was 6!
>>>
>> I thought Isabelle a little older, not a lot, but...
>>
>>> What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
>>
>> Oh go on, cheer me up and print it!!!! Bet I agree with every word!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>
> Oh OK then ......Hicksy is crap, crap, crap....
>
> Im sorry people, Paul made me...
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I was expecting better, or should I say worse! :-)
> Paul

Yeah I know you were but I kind of got cold feet, I held back a little.....well quite a bit
actually. Just to think, this pathetic excuse of a historian, this insignificant little twat called
MY King Richard a 'serial incestor'!! Unbelievable.
What historian of any worth resorts to writing what is supposed to be a serious and factual
history on a character and then writes it in such a fashion as he knows exactly what was
going on in that persons head. Such as Richard 'waited in eager anticipation' Anne's
death. He actually believes he knows that at the onset of Anne's final illness he made a
'final attempt to impregnate' Anne. How does he know all this stuff....is he psychic? He
bangs on quite a bit about Anne and Richards sexual relationship. To be truthful I think
he's odd.
Eileen
>
> On 22 Jan 2009, at 20:05, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22 Jan 2009, at 16:56, eileen wrote:
> >>
> >>> King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
> >>> Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella
> >>> of Valois was 6!
> >>>
> >> I thought Isabelle a little older, not a lot, but...
> >>
> >>> What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
> >>
> >> Oh go on, cheer me up and print it!!!! Bet I agree with every word!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard liveth yet
> >
> > Oh OK then ......Hicksy is crap, crap, crap....
> >
> > Im sorry people, Paul made me...
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Wasn't King John's second wife 14?
> Paul
>


Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
Isabelle.

Katy

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't King John's second wife 14?
> > Paul
> >
>
>
> Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> Isabelle.
>
> Katy

Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9 depending on where you are
getting your info from...

Eileen
>

Edward I was 15 and Eleanor of Castile 13 at the time of their marriage.

However, I think a lot of marriages of these young girls were not consummated until some time later. I read a piece of research somewhere that involved something over 100 aristocratic girls, and, typically, the first child did not arrive until they were 17 or 18 (now, of course, this may mean that they weren't usually fertile until 16 or 17, but since the main reason for aristocratic marriages was to produce healthy sons, why sleep with your not-yet-fertile wife when there were mistresses and servant girls available?). Isabella of Angouleme was 12 when she married John in 1200, but did not produce her first child, Henry III, until 1208, when she was around 20. Margaret Beaufort was unusual in producing a child at 13 (and never had another, which suggests that something went wrong).

Ann



________________________________
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 January, 2009 4:56:45 PM
Subject: Re: Dispensations, again


--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "phaecilia" <phaecilia@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> If you remove Richard's name from the following sentence and
> substitute Edmund Tudor--who fathered Henry Tudor on his 12-13 year
> old wife, Margaret Beaufort--wouldn' t it be equally accurate?
>
>
> '......one must deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
> sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result
> today for a man like [fill in the blank]."
>
>
> Can anyone else fill in the blank?
>
> I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta
> of Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
> that.
>
> Marion
>
It went on all the time. A few examples are:
Edward l second wife Margaruite of France was 17 and he was 60...I think his lst wife Eleanor was
very young too
King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella of Valois was 6!

What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
Eileen

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Edward I was 15 and Eleanor of Castile 13 at the time of their marriage.
>
> However, I think a lot of marriages of these young girls were not consummated until
some time later.
Anne

Definitely. And there is uncertainty whether Anne's marriage to Edward was ever
consummated. How old was she at the time? about 14? However Hick's not only knows
for sure the marriage was consummated he also is privy to the fact that Anne was missing
her rights (i.e. gagging for it) which was one of the reasons the little trollop fell into
Richards arms so soon after her husband's death. How does he know all these facts...your
guess is as good as mine!
Eileen



I read a piece of research somewhere that involved something over 100 aristocratic girls,
and, typically, the first child did not arrive until they were 17 or 18 (now, of course, this
may mean that they weren't usually fertile until 16 or 17, but since the main reason for
aristocratic marriages was to produce healthy sons, why sleep with your not-yet-fertile
wife when there were mistresses and servant girls available?). Isabella of Angouleme was
12 when she married John in 1200, but did not produce her first child, Henry III, until
1208, when she was around 20. Margaret Beaufort was unusual in producing a child at
13 (and never had another, which suggests that something went wrong).
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 22 January, 2009 4:56:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "phaecilia" <phaecilia@ ..> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> >
> > If you remove Richard's name from the following sentence and
> > substitute Edmund Tudor--who fathered Henry Tudor on his 12-13 year
> > old wife, Margaret Beaufort--wouldn' t it be equally accurate?
> >
> >
> > '......one must deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
> > sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result
> > today for a man like [fill in the blank]."
> >
> >
> > Can anyone else fill in the blank?
> >
> > I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta
> > of Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
> > that.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> It went on all the time. A few examples are:
> Edward l second wife Margaruite of France was 17 and he was 60...I think his lst wife
Eleanor was
> very young too
> King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
> Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella of Valois was 6!
>
> What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> -
missing
> her rights (i.e. gagging for it) which was one of the reasons the little trollop fell into
> Richards arms so soon after her husband's death. How does he know all these
facts...your

That should have read conjugal rights



> Eileen
>
>
>
> I read a piece of research somewhere that involved something over 100 aristocratic
girls,
> and, typically, the first child did not arrive until they were 17 or 18 (now, of course, this
> may mean that they weren't usually fertile until 16 or 17, but since the main reason for
> aristocratic marriages was to produce healthy sons, why sleep with your not-yet-fertile
> wife when there were mistresses and servant girls available?). Isabella of Angouleme was
> 12 when she married John in 1200, but did not produce her first child, Henry III, until
> 1208, when she was around 20. Margaret Beaufort was unusual in producing a child at
> 13 (and never had another, which suggests that something went wrong).
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 January, 2009 4:56:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "phaecilia" <phaecilia@ ..> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > If you remove Richard's name from the following sentence and
> > > substitute Edmund Tudor--who fathered Henry Tudor on his 12-13 year
> > > old wife, Margaret Beaufort--wouldn' t it be equally accurate?
> > >
> > >
> > > '......one must deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
> > > sentence & registration as a sexual offender would be the result
> > > today for a man like [fill in the blank]."
> > >
> > >
> > > Can anyone else fill in the blank?
> > >
> > > I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta
> > > of Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Marion
> > >
> > It went on all the time. A few examples are:
> > Edward l second wife Margaruite of France was 17 and he was 60...I think his lst wife
> Eleanor was
> > very young too
> > King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
> > Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella of Valois was 6!
> >
> > What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

All that fiction to bolster his case, but no mention of Richard's
being banned from her bed during her final illness, showing that they
were used to sleeping together in the same bed, indicating the
closeness of their relationship, of Richard's agony at Anne's death,
how he shut himself up for three days to grieve, and what he must
have gone through on hearing the rumours of his wanting to marry his
niece, as if he ever considered it, and the humiliation of his public
denial of the tales.
Oh no, much rather make up stories of rape and child abuse to fit his
villain portrait, and ignore the truth! Stay away from Hicks, and buy
not his books! Low sales might make him alter his opinions!

On a more positive note there are a number of new books on Richard
coming soon. Let's hope for a more positive outlook in them.
Richard III: The Young King by Josephine Wilkinson.
Richard III by Ann Kettle. This is published by Routledge and is
offered at 54 UKP.
Richard III and the Death of Chivalry by David Hipshon.
There's also one about Eleanor Butler by John Ashdown-Hill that
positively states Richard was the legitimate king.
Could be a good year.
If I can just get my movie financed too!
Paul


On 22 Jan 2009, at 22:48, eileen wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> I was expecting better, or should I say worse! :-)
>> Paul
>
> Yeah I know you were but I kind of got cold feet, I held back a
> little.....well quite a bit
> actually. Just to think, this pathetic excuse of a historian, this
> insignificant little twat called
> MY King Richard a 'serial incestor'!! Unbelievable.
> What historian of any worth resorts to writing what is supposed to
> be a serious and factual
> history on a character and then writes it in such a fashion as he
> knows exactly what was
> going on in that persons head. Such as Richard 'waited in eager
> anticipation' Anne's
> death. He actually believes he knows that at the onset of Anne's
> final illness he made a
> 'final attempt to impregnate' Anne. How does he know all this
> stuff....is he psychic? He
> bangs on quite a bit about Anne and Richards sexual relationship.
> To be truthful I think
> he's odd.
> Eileen
>>
>> On 22 Jan 2009, at 20:05, eileen wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Jan 2009, at 16:56, eileen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
>>>>> Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella
>>>>> of Valois was 6!
>>>>>
>>>> I thought Isabelle a little older, not a lot, but...
>>>>
>>>>> What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
>>>>
>>>> Oh go on, cheer me up and print it!!!! Bet I agree with every word!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard liveth yet
>>>
>>> Oh OK then ......Hicksy is crap, crap, crap....
>>>
>>> Im sorry people, Paul made me...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> All that fiction to bolster his case, but no mention of Richard's
> being banned from her bed during her final illness, showing that they
> were used to sleeping together in the same bed, indicating the
> closeness of their relationship,

I will never be able to understand this one. Why Richard should be vilified over not
sharing Anne's bed during her final illness. Its all the time, the same old chestnut trotted
out again and again. For God's sake, she was probably suffering from consumption....in
any event it was a serious illness..she died. If someone was in hospital you don't expect
their spouses to hop into bed with them. As for the person who is very ill, they surely
would rather be able to sleep in a bed on their own. Suffer from a dose of the flu and you
just want to be left alone.

PS I have a copy of the Eleanor Butler book winging itself to me at this very moment (from
Amazon).

Best Eileen



of Richard's agony at Anne's death,
> how he shut himself up for three days to grieve, and what he must
> have gone through on hearing the rumours of his wanting to marry his
> niece, as if he ever considered it, and the humiliation of his public
> denial of the tales.
> Oh no, much rather make up stories of rape and child abuse to fit his
> villain portrait, and ignore the truth! Stay away from Hicks, and buy
> not his books! Low sales might make him alter his opinions!
>
> On a more positive note there are a number of new books on Richard
> coming soon. Let's hope for a more positive outlook in them.
> Richard III: The Young King by Josephine Wilkinson.
> Richard III by Ann Kettle. This is published by Routledge and is
> offered at 54 UKP.
> Richard III and the Death of Chivalry by David Hipshon.
> There's also one about Eleanor Butler by John Ashdown-Hill that
> positively states Richard was the legitimate king.
> Could be a good year.
> If I can just get my movie financed too!
> Paul
>
>
> On 22 Jan 2009, at 22:48, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I was expecting better, or should I say worse! :-)
> >> Paul
> >
> > Yeah I know you were but I kind of got cold feet, I held back a
> > little.....well quite a bit
> > actually. Just to think, this pathetic excuse of a historian, this
> > insignificant little twat called
> > MY King Richard a 'serial incestor'!! Unbelievable.
> > What historian of any worth resorts to writing what is supposed to
> > be a serious and factual
> > history on a character and then writes it in such a fashion as he
> > knows exactly what was
> > going on in that persons head. Such as Richard 'waited in eager
> > anticipation' Anne's
> > death. He actually believes he knows that at the onset of Anne's
> > final illness he made a
> > 'final attempt to impregnate' Anne. How does he know all this
> > stuff....is he psychic? He
> > bangs on quite a bit about Anne and Richards sexual relationship.
> > To be truthful I think
> > he's odd.
> > Eileen
> >>
> >> On 22 Jan 2009, at 20:05, eileen wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 22 Jan 2009, at 16:56, eileen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12
> >>>>> Richard ll 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella
> >>>>> of Valois was 6!
> >>>>>
> >>>> I thought Isabelle a little older, not a lot, but...
> >>>>
> >>>>> What I think about Hicks the historian is unprintable here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh go on, cheer me up and print it!!!! Bet I agree with every word!
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard liveth yet
> >>>
> >>> Oh OK then ......Hicksy is crap, crap, crap....
> >>>
> >>> Im sorry people, Paul made me...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard liveth yet
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

On 23 Jan 2009, at 11:35, eileen wrote:

> I will never be able to understand this one. Why Richard should be
> vilified over not
> sharing Anne's bed during her final illness. Its all the time, the
> same old chestnut trotted
> out again and again. For God's sake, she was probably suffering
> from consumption....in
> any event it was a serious illness..she died. If someone was in
> hospital you don't expect
> their spouses to hop into bed with them. As for the person who is
> very ill, they surely
> would rather be able to sleep in a bed on their own. Suffer from a
> dose of the flu and you
> just want to be left alone.

Quite. Even on Christmas Day ( I speak from personal experience!)
>
> PS I have a copy of the Eleanor Butler book winging itself to me at
> this very moment (from
> Amazon).

Me too, as well as the Wilkinson.
The Anne Kettle is so expensive, maybe the Society can organise a
discount for members?
Anybody?
Paul



Richard liveth yet

On Jan 22, 2009, at 10:30 AM, phaecilia wrote:

>>> It comes as no
> surprise
>>> that Wearisome Weir thought
>>> this book was great and that the BBC History Magazine describes
> it
>>> as "the most important
>>> book by the greatest living expert on Richard ......" is
> extremely
>>> worrying. God help us.
>>>
>>> Eileen
>>
>> Well, he obviously hates and despises Richard...which is really
> odd
>> considering what a great living he's made off of him.
>>
>> Gilda
>>
>
> Hello Gilda, Eileen, Marie and everybody,
>
> Does anyone know if Hicks has made much profit from his Anne Neville
> book? Has it sold well?
>
> I've asked myself several times how Hicks can keep his academic
> reputation after publishing stuff like that. I saw that he's
> published something in 2007, but I didn't make a note of it.
>
> Marion

I'm not sure how profitable Hicks' book about Anne Neville was, but
he must be making some money since he's written at least seven books
about Richard and/or his family.

Gilda

--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>

> >>

> I'm not sure how profitable Hicks' book about Anne Neville was, but
> he must be making some money since he's written at least seven books
> about Richard and/or his family.
>
> Gilda

I have only read the Anne Neville book. I will never read anything else written by this man. I
should think his book writing has proven to be lucrative, mores the pity.

However I do think that anyone who would want to read a book about Anne Neville, who I
would venture to say, unless you are really interested about Richard and that particular era, is
broadly speaking rather obscure, would surely have the wit to realise that this book is
basically a load of old baloney (as my dad would have said:0) and would not be interested in
anything else Hicks has to write.

Eileen


>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > Isabelle.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
depending on where you are
> getting your info from...
>
> Eileen
> >


Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
latter Richard II's second wife.

Katy

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Edward I was 15 and Eleanor of Castile 13 at the time of their
marriage.
>
> However, I think a lot of marriages of these young girls were not
consummated until some time later. I read a piece of research
somewhere that involved something over 100 aristocratic girls, and,
typically, the first child did not arrive until they were 17 or 18
(now, of course, this may mean that they weren't usually fertile until
16 or 17, but since the main reason for aristocratic marriages was to
produce healthy sons, why sleep with your not-yet-fertile wife when
there were mistresses and servant girls available?). Isabella of
Angouleme was 12 when she married John in 1200, but did not produce
her first child, Henry III, until 1208, when she was around
20. Margaret Beaufort was unusual in producing a child at 13 (and
never had another, which suggests that something went wrong).
>
> Ann


Good point. Someone more learned than I may be able to tell us if
there was some custom or unwritten rule regarding when a girl was old
enough for marital relations. I think I read that it was after her
second menstrual period.

The onset of puberty in girls has been growing steadily earlier for
more than a century, moving back from 15 or 16 in the 19th century to
as early as 11 now. There are some interesting theories about why,
ranging from better nutrition to hormones fed to livestock to the
electric light affecting the pituitary.

In our favorite era the nutrition of upper-class girls was probably
better than the average girl enjoyed in the 1800s, so puberty at 14 or
so might not be uncommon. But the onset of puberty -- the ability to
get pregnant -- is not the same thing as being able to carry and
deliver a child successfully. A man who wanted an heir rather than a
funeral would be prudent to wait a couple more years.

Margaret Beaufort gave birth to the future Henry VII three months
before her 14th birthday and, as Ann points out, never had another
child and as far as I know, never another pregnancy.

Mary de Bohun was married to Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) when
she was twelve years old. History says the two were put to sharing a
bed immediately to circumvent an annullment -- she was a great
heiress. Henry was only thirteen but he was obviously past puberty,
since Mary gave birth to a short-lived infant the next year. After
that the two were separated for a few years, and Mary's next child,
Henry of Monmouth (Henry V), was born in September 1386 when she was
16. There after she delivered a baby about as fast as human
physiology permits -- September 1388, June 1389, October 1390,
"spring" 1392, and June 1394, after which she died in childbirth at
age 26. Her two daughters didn't fare much better. Philippa gave
birth to a stillborn infant in 1405, when she would have been 15, and
died in childbirth in 1407. Isabelle died in January 1430, shortly
after delivering a stillborn boy.

Katy

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
>
> > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > Isabelle.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> depending on where you are
> > getting your info from...
> >
> > Eileen
> > >
>
>
> Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> latter Richard II's second wife.
>
> Katy

Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
Eileen
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > latter Richard II's second wife.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> Eileen
> >


The life of Isabelle of Valois ended sadly. From a child queen in
England, she was returned to France after the death of Richard II,
married to her cousin, the crazy Charles, Duke of Orleans, at age 16,
and she died in childbirth at age 19.

Katy

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

I think it was quite possible that Richard had grown to love Anne and vice versa. Several of these
arranged marriages were very successful at a time when to marry for love was frowned upon -
looked what happened to Edward lV when he married for love (or was it lust)!

Examples: Edward l who had the beautiful Eleanor Crosses built at every place that Eleanor of
Castile's funeral cortege spent the night.

Richard ll who was upset at Anne of Bohemia's death that he had the wing of Sheen Palace where
she had died demolished.

Both these Kings went on to remarry which was required of them. Nothing sinister there of signs
that they had looked forward to the deaths of their Queens.

Charles l was noted for his uxoriousness

And nearer to our own times Victoria was absolutely besotted with her Albert.

Eileen
>
> --- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > > Isabelle.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > >
> > > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> > depending on where you are
> > > getting your info from...
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > latter Richard II's second wife.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> Eileen
> >
>

Now we're all getting confused as I was talking about Isabelle of
Angouleme, John's second wife.
Paul

On 23 Jan 2009, at 17:06, eileen wrote:

>>
>> Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
>> Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
>> two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
>> latter Richard II's second wife.
>>
>> Katy
>
> Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> Eileen

Richard liveth yet

Marion
> Can anyone else fill in the blank?
>
> I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married Jacquetta of
> Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check that.
>
>

Ann:
He was born in 1389, his first wife Anne of Burgundy died in
1432 (married in 1423, when he'd have been thirty-four and she
nineteen). Jacquetta is said to have been seventeen in 1433, when John
would have been forty-four.

Eileen:
It went on all the time. A few examples are:
Edward l second wife Marguerite of France was 17 and he was 60...I think
his 1st wife Eleanor was very young too

Ann:
Eleanor was born in (probably) late 1241; married 1 November
1254, close to her thirteenth birthday. Wikipedia notes one stillborn
daughter in May 1255, her next child, Katherine, date of birth uncertain
but died in 1264, and third child, Joan, born January 1265. Eleanor is
famous for discouraging marriage for girls before they turned sixteen.


Eileen:
King John's second wife Isabella of Angouleme was 12

Her birth year is not known -- twelve seems to be the midpoint of the
possible age range. Not that it would surprise anyone if John had
pedophilic tendencies.

Eileen:
Richard II 1st wife Anne of Bohemia was 15 and his second Isabella of
Valois was 6!

Anne
Richard II was about nine months younger than Anne of Bohemia, FWIW. I
thought it was generally understood that Isabella's first marriage
wasn't consummated, Richard didn't live long enough for her to grow up.

L.P.H.,

Ann

--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Marion
> > Can anyone else fill in the blank?
> >
> > I have a fuzzy memory that John, duke of Bedford married
Jacquetta of
> > Luxembourg when he was about twice her age. But I need to check
that.
> >
> >
>
> Ann:
> He was born in 1389, his first wife Anne of Burgundy died in
> 1432 (married in 1423, when he'd have been thirty-four and she
> nineteen). Jacquetta is said to have been seventeen in 1433, when
John would have been forty-four.

****

Thanks, Ann. This raises more interesting questions. If Anne
Neville was a widow at age 16, why wasn't she free to marry whoever
she chose? At what age was a widow free to manage her affairs and
choose to remarry or stay single?

I thought widows were free to manage their own affairs. Jacquetta
chose to marry the duke of Bedford's servant Richard Woodville and
paid a big fine for marrying without getting the king's permission.
But I don't think Bedford's surviving brother, Humphrey, duke of
Gloucester tried to control Jacquetta the way Clarence tried to
control Anne Neville.

I realize that inheritance issues could have made a difference
between Gloucester's attitude to Jacquetta and Clarence's to Anne
Neville.

But it's interesting to consider why Anne Neville seems to have been
an exception to the relative independence of widows.

Marion

Another very happy royal arranged marriage of recent times was that between Tsar Alexander III (1881-94) and Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark, sister of Queen Alexandra), the parents of Nicholas II, despite their being in the unpropitious position that Marie had originally been betrothed to Alexander's elder brother, who died of TB at 21. They were also opposites in many ways; Marie loved parties and social life in St Petersburg, while Alexander far preferred life in the country, where he dressed in the clothes of a Russian peasant, made his own breakfast and built camp fires with his children. Plus Alexander was 6ft 4 and built to match (the uniform he wore at his coronation is currently on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum) and Marie was no more than 5ft and is usually described as 'tiny'.

George V and Queen Mary also seem to have settled down to happy marriage after she was originally engaged to his elder brother.

Ann




________________________________
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 January, 2009 5:54:46 PM
Subject: Re: Dispensations, again


--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen" <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:

I think it was quite possible that Richard had grown to love Anne and vice versa. Several of these
arranged marriages were very successful at a time when to marry for love was frowned upon -
looked what happened to Edward lV when he married for love (or was it lust)!

Examples: Edward l who had the beautiful Eleanor Crosses built at every place that Eleanor of
Castile's funeral cortege spent the night.

Richard ll who was upset at Anne of Bohemia's death that he had the wing of Sheen Palace where
she had died demolished.

Both these Kings went on to remarry which was required of them. Nothing sinister there of signs
that they had looked forward to the deaths of their Queens.

Charles l was noted for his uxoriousness

And nearer to our own times Victoria was absolutely besotted with her Albert.

Eileen
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@ > wrote:
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@ > wrote:
> >
> > > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > > Isabelle.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > >
> > > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> > depending on where you are
> > > getting your info from...
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > >
> >
> >
> > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > latter Richard II's second wife.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> Eileen
> >
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Another very happy royal arranged marriage of recent times was that between Tsar
Alexander III (1881-94) and Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark, sister of Queen
Alexandra), the parents of Nicholas II, despite their being in the unpropitious position that
Marie had originally been betrothed to Alexander's elder brother, who died of TB at 21.
They were also opposites in many ways; Marie loved parties and social life in St
Petersburg, while Alexander far preferred life in the country, where he dressed in the
clothes of a Russian peasant, made his own breakfast and built camp fires with his
children. Plus Alexander was 6ft 4 and built to match (the uniform he wore at his
coronation is currently on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum) and Marie was no
more than 5ft and is usually described as 'tiny'.
>
> George V and Queen Mary also seem to have settled down to happy marriage after she
was originally engaged to his elder brother.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 23 January, 2009 5:54:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen" <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:
>
> I think it was quite possible that Richard had grown to love Anne and vice versa. Several
of these
> arranged marriages were very successful at a time when to marry for love was frowned
upon -
> looked what happened to Edward lV when he married for love (or was it lust)!
>
> Examples: Edward l who had the beautiful Eleanor Crosses built at every place that
Eleanor of
> Castile's funeral cortege spent the night.
>
> Richard ll who was upset at Anne of Bohemia's death that he had the wing of Sheen
Palace where
> she had died demolished.
>
> Both these Kings went on to remarry which was required of them. Nothing sinister there
of signs
> that they had looked forward to the deaths of their Queens.
>
> Charles l was noted for his uxoriousness
>
> And nearer to our own times Victoria was absolutely besotted with her Albert.
>
> Eileen
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@ >
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> > > <ebatesparrot@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > > > Isabelle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > >
> > > > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> > > depending on where you are
> > > > getting your info from...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > > latter Richard II's second wife.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Another very happy royal arranged marriage of recent times was that between Tsar
Alexander III (1881-94) and Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark, sister of Queen
Alexandra), the parents of Nicholas II.
Anne

Their son Nicholas ll seemed to be happily married too.

Returning to earlier times, the 'lower ranks' also were capable of happy arranged
marriages. Catesby for example, who would I presume have had an arranged marriage,
made mention of his wife in his Will in a very touching way "......to be executed by my dere
and Welbelovid wiff to whom I have ever be trewe of my body....'

Its a blinkered attitude to look at royal arranged marriages as being loveless. It was not
always the case.

Eileen





despite their being in the unpropitious position that Marie had originally been betrothed
to Alexander's elder brother, who died of TB at 21. They were also opposites in many
ways; Marie loved parties and social life in St Petersburg, while Alexander far preferred life
in the country, where he dressed in the clothes of a Russian peasant, made his own
breakfast and built camp fires with his children. Plus Alexander was 6ft 4 and built to
match (the uniform he wore at his coronation is currently on display at the Victoria and
Albert Museum) and Marie was no more than 5ft and is usually described as 'tiny'.
>
> George V and Queen Mary also seem to have settled down to happy marriage after she
was originally engaged to his elder brother.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 23 January, 2009 5:54:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen" <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:
>
> I think it was quite possible that Richard had grown to love Anne and vice versa. Several
of these
> arranged marriages were very successful at a time when to marry for love was frowned
upon -
> looked what happened to Edward lV when he married for love (or was it lust)!
>
> Examples: Edward l who had the beautiful Eleanor Crosses built at every place that
Eleanor of
> Castile's funeral cortege spent the night.
>
> Richard ll who was upset at Anne of Bohemia's death that he had the wing of Sheen
Palace where
> she had died demolished.
>
> Both these Kings went on to remarry which was required of them. Nothing sinister there
of signs
> that they had looked forward to the deaths of their Queens.
>
> Charles l was noted for his uxoriousness
>
> And nearer to our own times Victoria was absolutely besotted with her Albert.
>
> Eileen
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@ >
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> > > <ebatesparrot@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > > > Isabelle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > >
> > > > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> > > depending on where you are
> > > > getting your info from...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > > latter Richard II's second wife.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I take your point that Nicholas and Alexandra were happily married, but their marriage was not arranged. In fact, his parents were against it until Alexander gave them his blessing just before his death. Interesting to speculate whether the parental opposition stemmed from the strong possibility that Alexandra was a haemophilia carrier. When she and Nicholas fell in love in 1894, one of her two brothers had already died from haemophilia at the age of three, and a sister had a haemophiliac son (another sister remained childless and the third had two daughters and a healthy son - he was Lord Mountbatten's elder brother, and one daughter was the Duke of Edinburgh's mother).

Regards

Ann




________________________________
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 January, 2009 6:17:02 PM
Subject: Re: Dispensations, again


--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, A LYON <A.Lyon1@... > wrote:
>
> Another very happy royal arranged marriage of recent times was that between Tsar
Alexander III (1881-94) and Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark, sister of Queen
Alexandra), the parents of Nicholas II.
Anne

Their son Nicholas ll seemed to be happily married too.

Returning to earlier times, the 'lower ranks' also were capable of happy arranged
marriages. Catesby for example, who would I presume have had an arranged marriage,
made mention of his wife in his Will in a very touching way "......to be executed by my dere
and Welbelovid wiff to whom I have ever be trewe of my body....'

Its a blinkered attitude to look at royal arranged marriages as being loveless. It was not
always the case.

Eileen

despite their being in the unpropitious position that Marie had originally been betrothed
to Alexander's elder brother, who died of TB at 21. They were also opposites in many
ways; Marie loved parties and social life in St Petersburg, while Alexander far preferred life
in the country, where he dressed in the clothes of a Russian peasant, made his own
breakfast and built camp fires with his children. Plus Alexander was 6ft 4 and built to
match (the uniform he wore at his coronation is currently on display at the Victoria and
Albert Museum) and Marie was no more than 5ft and is usually described as 'tiny'.
>
> George V and Queen Mary also seem to have settled down to happy marriage after she
was originally engaged to his elder brother.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: eileen <ebatesparrot@ ...>
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, 23 January, 2009 5:54:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen" <ebatesparrot@ ...> wrote:
>
> I think it was quite possible that Richard had grown to love Anne and vice versa. Several
of these
> arranged marriages were very successful at a time when to marry for love was frowned
upon -
> looked what happened to Edward lV when he married for love (or was it lust)!
>
> Examples: Edward l who had the beautiful Eleanor Crosses built at every place that
Eleanor of
> Castile's funeral cortege spent the night.
>
> Richard ll who was upset at Anne of Bohemia's death that he had the wing of Sheen
Palace where
> she had died demolished.
>
> Both these Kings went on to remarry which was required of them. Nothing sinister there
of signs
> that they had looked forward to the deaths of their Queens.
>
> Charles l was noted for his uxoriousness
>
> And nearer to our own times Victoria was absolutely besotted with her Albert.
>
> Eileen
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@ >
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> > > <ebatesparrot@ > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > > > Isabelle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Katy
> > > >
> > > > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> > > depending on where you are
> > > > getting your info from...
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > > latter Richard II's second wife.
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> I take your point that Nicholas and Alexandra were happily married, but their marriage
was not arranged. In fact, his parents were against it until Alexander gave them his
blessing just before his death. Interesting to speculate whether the parental opposition
stemmed from the strong possibility that Alexandra was a haemophilia carrier. When she
and Nicholas fell in love in 1894, one of her two brothers had already died from
haemophilia at the age of three, and a sister had a haemophiliac son (another sister
remained childless and the third had two daughters and a healthy son - he was Lord
Mountbatten's elder brother, and one daughter was the Duke of Edinburgh's mother).
>
> Regards
>
> Ann
>

Oh right Anne, I wondered why you had not mentioned Nicholas' marriage at the time.......
Eileen

>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 25 January, 2009 6:17:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, A LYON <A.Lyon1@ > wrote:
> >
> > Another very happy royal arranged marriage of recent times was that between Tsar
> Alexander III (1881-94) and Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark, sister of Queen
> Alexandra), the parents of Nicholas II.
> Anne
>
> Their son Nicholas ll seemed to be happily married too.
>
> Returning to earlier times, the 'lower ranks' also were capable of happy arranged
> marriages. Catesby for example, who would I presume have had an arranged marriage,
> made mention of his wife in his Will in a very touching way "......to be executed by my
dere
> and Welbelovid wiff to whom I have ever be trewe of my body....'
>
> Its a blinkered attitude to look at royal arranged marriages as being loveless. It was not
> always the case.
>
> Eileen
>
> despite their being in the unpropitious position that Marie had originally been betrothed
> to Alexander's elder brother, who died of TB at 21. They were also opposites in many
> ways; Marie loved parties and social life in St Petersburg, while Alexander far preferred
life
> in the country, where he dressed in the clothes of a Russian peasant, made his own
> breakfast and built camp fires with his children. Plus Alexander was 6ft 4 and built to
> match (the uniform he wore at his coronation is currently on display at the Victoria and
> Albert Museum) and Marie was no more than 5ft and is usually described as 'tiny'.
> >
> > George V and Queen Mary also seem to have settled down to happy marriage after she
> was originally engaged to his elder brother.
> >
> > Ann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: eileen <ebatesparrot@ ...>
> > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Friday, 23 January, 2009 5:54:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Dispensations, again
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen" <ebatesparrot@ ...>
wrote:
> >
> > I think it was quite possible that Richard had grown to love Anne and vice versa.
Several
> of these
> > arranged marriages were very successful at a time when to marry for love was
frowned
> upon -
> > looked what happened to Edward lV when he married for love (or was it lust)!
> >
> > Examples: Edward l who had the beautiful Eleanor Crosses built at every place that
> Eleanor of
> > Castile's funeral cortege spent the night.
> >
> > Richard ll who was upset at Anne of Bohemia's death that he had the wing of Sheen
> Palace where
> > she had died demolished.
> >
> > Both these Kings went on to remarry which was required of them. Nothing sinister
there
> of signs
> > that they had looked forward to the deaths of their Queens.
> >
> > Charles l was noted for his uxoriousness
> >
> > And nearer to our own times Victoria was absolutely besotted with her Albert.
> >
> > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@ >
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "eileen"
> > > > <ebatesparrot@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Isabelle of Angouleme was 12 years old when John married her. And he
> > > > > > had been smitten by her evidently precocious good looks and other
> > > > > > charms a year earlier (when she was already betrothed to Hugh de
> > > > > > Lusignan...it took John that long to shed his first wife, also named
> > > > > > Isabelle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Katy
> > > > >
> > > > > Isabelle of Valois's age when she got married varies from 6 to 9
> > > > depending on where you are
> > > > > getting your info from...
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just to avoid confusing anyone, since you replied to my remark about
> > > > Isabelle of Angouleme with info about Isabelle of Valois -- these are
> > > > two different Isabelles, The former was King John's second wife; the
> > > > latter Richard II's second wife.
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > >
> > > Sorry Katy, I was actually replying to Paul re Isabella of Valois.....
> > > Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>