Why did parliament of 1475 limit Richard's possession of Neville lan

Can anyone help me understand why the parliamentary act of Feb. 23, 1475 limited Richard's possession of the Neville lands to a life interest if George Neville died?

After taking possession of Anne Neville's share of the Neville inheritance "as if [Anne's mother] were dead," Richard seems unlikely to have agreed to a life interest limit on his possession of the Neville lands listed in the act of 1475. It's a long list.

Three sources I've found claim that George Neville's death cut Richard's possession of these Neville properties back to a life interest. This supposedly explains why Richard displaced his nephews. But none of these sources answer my questions:


Why did parliament impose this life interest limit?
Why did Edward IV and Richard accept this limit?
Why make Richard's ability to pass the Neville lands to his male heirs dependent on George Neville's survival?
Were any of the properties listed in the 1475 act part of Anne Neville's inheritance? Was there any overlap?

Can anyone explain why this limit was made and why Richard accepted it, or refer me to readable explanations? I don't have any legal training, and I can't understand legalese, so the sources need to be written for laypeople.


Many thanks,

Marion

good questions phaecilia.
the one that sticks out in my mind is..
Why did Edward IV and Richard accept this limit?

did edward accept, or impose this limit. land = money..money=military power. was the power behind the throne..aka woodville behind this limitation. if richard had free rein over warwick's lands would he be richard by wealthier than e4?
 
e4 had a lot to worry about..i.e. his secret marriage to elizabeth talbot, and the rumoured illegitimacy. one had to worry about royal brothers and other relatives trying to take the throne in this era.
 
the spider king of france was threatened by his younger half brother and charles the bold of burgundy. george had already revealed his turncoat abilities. the woodville's were nervous holders of power.
 
so, i'd be looking at exactly what role did e4 play in limiting r3 in holding warwick/neville lands.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, phaecilia <phaecilia@...> wrote:


From: phaecilia <phaecilia@...>
Subject: Why did parliament of 1475 limit Richard's possession of Neville lands?
To:
Received: Monday, July 6, 2009, 7:36 PM








Can anyone help me understand why the parliamentary act of Feb. 23, 1475 limited Richard's possession of the Neville lands to a life interest if George Neville died?

After taking possession of Anne Neville's share of the Neville inheritance "as if [Anne's mother] were dead," Richard seems unlikely to have agreed to a life interest limit on his possession of the Neville lands listed in the act of 1475. It's a long list.

Three sources I've found claim that George Neville's death cut Richard's possession of these Neville properties back to a life interest. This supposedly explains why Richard displaced his nephews. But none of these sources answer my questions:

Why did parliament impose this life interest limit?
Why did Edward IV and Richard accept this limit?
Why make Richard's ability to pass the Neville lands to his male heirs dependent on George Neville's survival?
Were any of the properties listed in the 1475 act part of Anne Neville's inheritance? Was there any overlap?

Can anyone explain why this limit was made and why Richard accepted it, or refer me to readable explanations? I don't have any legal training, and I can't understand legalese, so the sources need to be written for laypeople.

Many thanks,

Marion

Hi Phaecilia - We need someone really expert in inheritance law to explain this. I can tell you what happened as I understand it, and answer one or two questions, which I hope will take us nearer to the basis of the parliamentary settlement, but I can't address the underlying reason for the specific legal provision you're asking about.

First of all, after Warwick the Kingmaker's fall from grace, Edward IV had pursued a deliberate policy of placing Richard of Gloucester in the position of becoming 'heir' to the Kingmaker's offices, estates and influence.

When Clarence and Gloucester went head-to-head over their wives' inheritances, they were arguing about a different inheritance - that of the sisters' mother Countess Anne, who inherited the Beauchamp/Despenser estates through her side of the family. The girls' (and their husbands') inheritance of these lands was unaffected by the Kingmaker's treason, and the king had no real reason to get involved except for the inability of the brothers to reach an amicable settlement. When the position became impossible the king was forced to make a judgement partitioning them according to his lights.

However, Clarence and Gloucester were reluctant to hold any estates by royal grant, because royal grants could be reversed. Instead they pressed for Edward to confirm their rights as rights of inheritance by Acts of Parliament. This is why the resultant Acts had to assert that they were dealing with the disposition of Countess Anne's holdings 'as if she were dead'.

In Gloucester's case, he had already been given Middleham, Sheriff Hutton et al (Neville/Montagu holdings) as a royal grant before his marriage to Anne, as a result of the Kingmaker's treason and that of his brother, John Neville, Marquess Montagu. But these were factored into the equation when Edward weighed up the settlement between the brothers; so to achieve parity these also needed to be held by right of inheritance established by Act of Parliament.

There was no problem of any heir other than Isabel and Anne claiming Countess Anne's holdings, so that was fine. However, the Neville/Montagu holdings were entailed to heirs male, and young George Neville, previously Duke of Bedford, son of Marquess Montagu, was the Kingmaker's heir male.

Thus, although Edward IV could confiscate the Neville/Montagu holdings (for treason) and confer them on anyone he liked, unfortunately to give Richard and his heirs the right to them by inheritance required a different legal procedure because the existing heir (George) had to be set aside.

The result was that the Act disinherited ONLY George and the heirs of his body. The estates went to Richard for his lifetime, but they went to Richard's heirs only for as long as the disinherited line of inheritance was vested in disinherited George and his disinherited direct heirs. Once disinherited George died without disinherited heirs, apparently no other heirs male had been disinherited.

Thus when George died, the inheritance became a life interest for Richard, thereafter bypassing his heirs and going to George's next heir male, Richard Lord Latimer.

Maybe whoever was acting on behalf of Lord Latimer made a persuasive case to Parliament not to disinherit him as well as George, but I don't really see why this argument should have prevailed, especially as the estates were actually forfeit to the crown anyway. So we are still left with a query at the heart of this matter: and I have to assume there must have been some legal formula that dictated such an arrangement. I hope someone can enlighten us!
Regards, Annette


--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone help me understand why the parliamentary act of Feb. 23, 1475 limited Richard's possession of the Neville lands to a life interest if George Neville died?
>
> After taking possession of Anne Neville's share of the Neville inheritance "as if [Anne's mother] were dead," Richard seems unlikely to have agreed to a life interest limit on his possession of the Neville lands listed in the act of 1475. It's a long list.
>
> Three sources I've found claim that George Neville's death cut Richard's possession of these Neville properties back to a life interest. This supposedly explains why Richard displaced his nephews. But none of these sources answer my questions:
>
>
> Why did parliament impose this life interest limit?
> Why did Edward IV and Richard accept this limit?
> Why make Richard's ability to pass the Neville lands to his male heirs dependent on George Neville's survival?
> Were any of the properties listed in the 1475 act part of Anne Neville's inheritance? Was there any overlap?
>
> Can anyone explain why this limit was made and why Richard accepted it, or refer me to readable explanations? I don't have any legal training, and I can't understand legalese, so the sources need to be written for laypeople.
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Marion
>

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote: <snipped>
>
>> Thus when George died, the inheritance became a life interest for Richard, thereafter bypassing his heirs and going to George's next heir male, Richard Lord Latimer.
>
> Maybe whoever was acting on behalf of Lord Latimer made a persuasive case to Parliament not to disinherit him as well as George, but I don't really see why this argument should have prevailed, especially as the estates were actually forfeit to the crown anyway. So we are still left with a query at the heart of this matter: and I have to assume there must have been some legal formula that dictated such an arrangement. I hope someone can enlighten us!
>

Annette's explanation is much clearer and fuller than anything I could have suggested. However I would point out that the law on attainder was still evolving at this time. At the start of the 15th C the expectation was that entailed lands, at least, would eventually revert to the family. This position gradually hardened - to some extent it became a matter of the King's grace - and eventually got very hard under the Tudors.

We are by definition talking about entailed lands here, that is lands that would not have passed to the heiresses if everyone had died quietly in their beds. My best guess is that Lord Latimer and any other potential Neville heirs pressed hard for the best settlement they could get, and this was it. Richard actually got a very good deal, holding the lands by something better than a mere grant that could be reversed any time the King felt like it. His wife would certainly not have inherited the lands in the normal course of events.

Brian W

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Phaecilia - We need someone really expert in inheritance law to explain this. I can tell you what happened as I understand it,



That's the clearest explanation I've ever read. Thank you for it, especially for the clarification of what was meant, legally, by the "as if she were dead" regarding the Countess of Warwick -- many times that seems to be taken as evidence of callousness or cruelty on the part of Richard.

Katy

It was highly illegal in land law, since Warwick was never attainted. The estates were her rightful inheritance, and would have gone to her husband (for life) if she'd been allowed to remarry.

Another complication related to this is that she was only co-heiress to the Despencer lands, as her mother had a daughter Elizabeth by the last Beauchamp Earl of Worcester. Elizabeth had married Edward Neville, Lord Bergavenney, who should have shared the Despencer estates, of which Glamorgan was the main part. But Warwick seems to have occupied the entire inheritance, even forcibly ejecting Bergavenney from Abergavenney castle, to which Warwick had no legal claim. Edmund Beaufort Duke of Somerset was Bergavenney's guardian, and this dispute may have triggered the feud between Somerset and Warwick.

--- In , "oregonkaty" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

>
> That's the clearest explanation I've ever read. Thank you for it, especially for the clarification of what was meant, legally, by the "as if she were dead" regarding the Countess of Warwick -- many times that seems to be taken as evidence of callousness or cruelty on the part of Richard.
>
> Katy
>

Hello everyone,

Thanks for your answers. I feel more confident of my opinion now. I didn't believe the authors who claimed that Richard was motivated to displace his nephews because he wanted to pass the Nevilles' entailed lands to his own son. But now I understand better why I didn't believe it.

It seems to me that in May/June 1483, Richard's highests priorities would have been staying alive, staying free, protecting English ships from French attacks, and keeping peace within England.

I can believe that he delegated members of his ducal legal team to find a way to pass the Nevilles' entailed lands for his son. But I doubt that anyone discussed displacing Richard's nephews as a solution to the problem.

Thanks again,

Marion