hello everyone
hello everyone
2009-07-09 03:21:13
Hello everyone..I am so glad I found this group,,,I have always been a
keen admirer of Richard III and think he has gotten a bad rap by
Shakespeare and company..(the Tudor hacks)..I read anything that I can
find about him and that time period...
Robbielynne
keen admirer of Richard III and think he has gotten a bad rap by
Shakespeare and company..(the Tudor hacks)..I read anything that I can
find about him and that time period...
Robbielynne
Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 10:16:42
Hi Robbielynne, it's great to have more Ricardians joining us! I'm fairly new myself, and have been made very welcome here. I like these forums best when they discuss meaty stuff like difficult questions, as I have learned a lot of new insights that way.
Right now we're discussing a technical matter of inheritance that we haven't managed to crack yet. I wrote a summary of the position in response to a question about why Richard's holdings of estates like Middleham and Sheriff Hutton were reduced to a life interest upon the death of his cousin, George Neville (formerly Duke of Bedford).
My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
Now, not being an expert, I can't respond authoritatively to the points about Warwick's wife, Countess Anne, and the forfeit of lands for treason. However, I can give you my broad understanding of the position, which is as follows.
All land nominally belonged to the king, who licensed his subjects to acquire or inherit it. [By the 15th century the customs and laws of inheritance had rendered this, in the main, a titular right, although there were still fines payable for taking or transferring lands without the king's permission, however innocently done.] When a subject committed treason, the king had the right to deprive that person of all his lands, honours and titles, and to prevent their transfer to his heirs. This was usually done by parliamentary Acts of Attainder. In the case of Warwick and Montagu, they were indicted for treason but no Act of Attainder was passed, at the request of Gloucester and Clarence. This was because ....
Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
In this case, Clarence had married Isabel, and Gloucester was in the process of gaining his dispensation to marry Anne, the two co-heirs of the estates of Countess Anne. If she had remarried, I suspect Edward IV would have permitted her new husband only a life interest, don't you? Clearly the king was determined that he was going to use the fortune of Warwick and his wife to endow his younger brothers, and Countess Anne's pleas counted for nothing in the matter. The best one can say is that materially she continued living in some degree of luxury at Middleham and didn't end up, as some others did, in a religious house. Edward would go on to act in similar ways with various people's inheritances after his Woodville marriage, and I can only assume that this was because it was a mediaeval king's prerogative to secure his position as monarch in whatever way he saw fit, because on his security depended the security of the realm.
Regards, Annette
--- In , "robbielynne77" <robbielynne77@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone..I am so glad I found this group,,,I have always been a
> keen admirer of Richard III and think he has gotten a bad rap by
> Shakespeare and company..(the Tudor hacks)..I read anything that I can
> find about him and that time period...
>
> Robbielynne
>
>
>
>
>
Right now we're discussing a technical matter of inheritance that we haven't managed to crack yet. I wrote a summary of the position in response to a question about why Richard's holdings of estates like Middleham and Sheriff Hutton were reduced to a life interest upon the death of his cousin, George Neville (formerly Duke of Bedford).
My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
Now, not being an expert, I can't respond authoritatively to the points about Warwick's wife, Countess Anne, and the forfeit of lands for treason. However, I can give you my broad understanding of the position, which is as follows.
All land nominally belonged to the king, who licensed his subjects to acquire or inherit it. [By the 15th century the customs and laws of inheritance had rendered this, in the main, a titular right, although there were still fines payable for taking or transferring lands without the king's permission, however innocently done.] When a subject committed treason, the king had the right to deprive that person of all his lands, honours and titles, and to prevent their transfer to his heirs. This was usually done by parliamentary Acts of Attainder. In the case of Warwick and Montagu, they were indicted for treason but no Act of Attainder was passed, at the request of Gloucester and Clarence. This was because ....
Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
In this case, Clarence had married Isabel, and Gloucester was in the process of gaining his dispensation to marry Anne, the two co-heirs of the estates of Countess Anne. If she had remarried, I suspect Edward IV would have permitted her new husband only a life interest, don't you? Clearly the king was determined that he was going to use the fortune of Warwick and his wife to endow his younger brothers, and Countess Anne's pleas counted for nothing in the matter. The best one can say is that materially she continued living in some degree of luxury at Middleham and didn't end up, as some others did, in a religious house. Edward would go on to act in similar ways with various people's inheritances after his Woodville marriage, and I can only assume that this was because it was a mediaeval king's prerogative to secure his position as monarch in whatever way he saw fit, because on his security depended the security of the realm.
Regards, Annette
--- In , "robbielynne77" <robbielynne77@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello everyone..I am so glad I found this group,,,I have always been a
> keen admirer of Richard III and think he has gotten a bad rap by
> Shakespeare and company..(the Tudor hacks)..I read anything that I can
> find about him and that time period...
>
> Robbielynne
>
>
>
>
>
Despenser inheritance (was: Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 11:27:10
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote: <snipped>
>
> My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
I am going to have a bash at explaining the descent of the Despenser inheritance to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is complex, and there is some danger of dying of boredom:-
Isabelle Despenser Countess of Warwick, the last Despenser, had two daughters (by different husbands, both called Richard Beauchamp) but also one son, Henry Duke of Warwick, who outlived her. As her son he naturally inherited all her lands, and these passed in turn to his daughter, the short-lived Anne Beauchamp.
When 'little' Anne Beauchamp died the whole of the Beauchamp inheritance passed to her aunt, also Anne Beauchamp, wife of the Kingmaker. The logic of this was that she was the full-blood sister of Henry Duke of Warwick, the other Beauchamp daughters being children of Richard Beauchamp's first marriage to Elizabeth Berkeley. I believe there is (or was) a legal doctrine in common law which prefers full-blood heirs. (Naturally the elder sisters and their husbands were somewhat cheesed off by this!)
What seems to have happened is that 'big' Anne Beauchamp also inherited at this point the whole of the Despenser lands. Now, this is where someone with more knowledge of inheritance law than me is needed because it seems to me that potentially there should have been a share for her half sister on her *mother's* side, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Abergavenny, or rather for Elizabeth's son, Elizabeth herself being dead by this time. This was what the dispute over Glamorgan was about.
As to Abergavenny itself, the Beauchamps of Abergavenny were a recent cadet branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick. The first Lord Abergavenny, William Beauchamp, was full brother to Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick (d1401) the two Richard Beauchamps above mentioned being their respective sons.
I am pretty sure (but please don't take my word on it) that most if not all of the Abergavenny lands were entailed back to the male Beauchamp (Warwick) line when the Abergaveny line failed in the male line (which it did in 1422.) This probably explains why the Kingmaker thought he was entitled to that bit too.
Brian W
>
> My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
I am going to have a bash at explaining the descent of the Despenser inheritance to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is complex, and there is some danger of dying of boredom:-
Isabelle Despenser Countess of Warwick, the last Despenser, had two daughters (by different husbands, both called Richard Beauchamp) but also one son, Henry Duke of Warwick, who outlived her. As her son he naturally inherited all her lands, and these passed in turn to his daughter, the short-lived Anne Beauchamp.
When 'little' Anne Beauchamp died the whole of the Beauchamp inheritance passed to her aunt, also Anne Beauchamp, wife of the Kingmaker. The logic of this was that she was the full-blood sister of Henry Duke of Warwick, the other Beauchamp daughters being children of Richard Beauchamp's first marriage to Elizabeth Berkeley. I believe there is (or was) a legal doctrine in common law which prefers full-blood heirs. (Naturally the elder sisters and their husbands were somewhat cheesed off by this!)
What seems to have happened is that 'big' Anne Beauchamp also inherited at this point the whole of the Despenser lands. Now, this is where someone with more knowledge of inheritance law than me is needed because it seems to me that potentially there should have been a share for her half sister on her *mother's* side, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Abergavenny, or rather for Elizabeth's son, Elizabeth herself being dead by this time. This was what the dispute over Glamorgan was about.
As to Abergavenny itself, the Beauchamps of Abergavenny were a recent cadet branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick. The first Lord Abergavenny, William Beauchamp, was full brother to Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick (d1401) the two Richard Beauchamps above mentioned being their respective sons.
I am pretty sure (but please don't take my word on it) that most if not all of the Abergavenny lands were entailed back to the male Beauchamp (Warwick) line when the Abergaveny line failed in the male line (which it did in 1422.) This probably explains why the Kingmaker thought he was entitled to that bit too.
Brian W
Despenser inheritance (was: Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 11:27:22
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote: <snipped>
>
> My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
I am going to have a bash at explaining the descent of the Despenser inheritance to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is complex, and there is some danger of dying of boredom:-
Isabelle Despenser Countess of Warwick, the last Despenser, had two daughters (by different husbands, both called Richard Beauchamp) but also one son, Henry Duke of Warwick, who outlived her. As her son he naturally inherited all her lands, and these passed in turn to his daughter, the short-lived Anne Beauchamp.
When 'little' Anne Beauchamp died the whole of the Beauchamp inheritance passed to her aunt, also Anne Beauchamp, wife of the Kingmaker. The logic of this was that she was the full-blood sister of Henry Duke of Warwick, the other Beauchamp daughters being children of Richard Beauchamp's first marriage to Elizabeth Berkeley. I believe there is (or was) a legal doctrine in common law which prefers full-blood heirs. (Naturally the elder sisters and their husbands were somewhat cheesed off by this!)
What seems to have happened is that 'big' Anne Beauchamp also inherited at this point the whole of the Despenser lands. Now, this is where someone with more knowledge of inheritance law than me is needed because it seems to me that potentially there should have been a share for her half sister on her *mother's* side, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Abergavenny, or rather for Elizabeth's son, Elizabeth herself being dead by this time. This was what the dispute over Glamorgan was about.
As to Abergavenny itself, the Beauchamps of Abergavenny were a recent cadet branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick. The first Lord Abergavenny, William Beauchamp, was full brother to Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick (d1401) the two Richard Beauchamps above mentioned being their respective sons.
I am pretty sure (but please don't take my word on it) that most if not all of the Abergavenny lands were entailed back to the male Beauchamp (Warwick) line when the Abergaveny line failed in the male line (which it did in 1422.) This probably explains why the Kingmaker thought he was entitled to that bit too.
Brian W
>
> My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
I am going to have a bash at explaining the descent of the Despenser inheritance to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is complex, and there is some danger of dying of boredom:-
Isabelle Despenser Countess of Warwick, the last Despenser, had two daughters (by different husbands, both called Richard Beauchamp) but also one son, Henry Duke of Warwick, who outlived her. As her son he naturally inherited all her lands, and these passed in turn to his daughter, the short-lived Anne Beauchamp.
When 'little' Anne Beauchamp died the whole of the Beauchamp inheritance passed to her aunt, also Anne Beauchamp, wife of the Kingmaker. The logic of this was that she was the full-blood sister of Henry Duke of Warwick, the other Beauchamp daughters being children of Richard Beauchamp's first marriage to Elizabeth Berkeley. I believe there is (or was) a legal doctrine in common law which prefers full-blood heirs. (Naturally the elder sisters and their husbands were somewhat cheesed off by this!)
What seems to have happened is that 'big' Anne Beauchamp also inherited at this point the whole of the Despenser lands. Now, this is where someone with more knowledge of inheritance law than me is needed because it seems to me that potentially there should have been a share for her half sister on her *mother's* side, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Abergavenny, or rather for Elizabeth's son, Elizabeth herself being dead by this time. This was what the dispute over Glamorgan was about.
As to Abergavenny itself, the Beauchamps of Abergavenny were a recent cadet branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick. The first Lord Abergavenny, William Beauchamp, was full brother to Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick (d1401) the two Richard Beauchamps above mentioned being their respective sons.
I am pretty sure (but please don't take my word on it) that most if not all of the Abergavenny lands were entailed back to the male Beauchamp (Warwick) line when the Abergaveny line failed in the male line (which it did in 1422.) This probably explains why the Kingmaker thought he was entitled to that bit too.
Brian W
Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 17:01:36
Hello Annette,
How did "jointure" affect Countess Anne's right to properties after Warwick's death? I thought women were entitled to keep some portion of properties they brought to their marriage after they were widowed. But I can use help understanding this concept as it worked in individual cases.
Many thanks,
phaecilia
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> [Big Snip]
> Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
How did "jointure" affect Countess Anne's right to properties after Warwick's death? I thought women were entitled to keep some portion of properties they brought to their marriage after they were widowed. But I can use help understanding this concept as it worked in individual cases.
Many thanks,
phaecilia
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> [Big Snip]
> Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 19:09:01
Well, since you address the question to me, I feel I can't dodge it (!) but once again I can only comment in a general sense since I don't know whether there actually was a jointure. My feeling is that there probably wasn't, as both Warwick and Anne were obscenely rich so she didn't really need to be provided for in the event of his earlier death. Even if one speculates that he thought of it as a last-minute protection for her when he rebelled around 1469-70, I doubt even he would have foreseen that the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance would be in any way confiscated by the king, because that just doesn't seem to have been usual at all. Warwick would have expected an attainder to confiscate what had devolved to him alone (compare Clarence's attainder which left Isabel's inheritance on the Warwick side available for her son - despite the arrangement we discussed earlier that actually conferred it on him as his inheritance).
If a jointure was arranged providing a life interest during the wife's widowhood, any such arrangement (as I understand it) existed only if specific contracts were drawn up at the time of marriage or thereafter. I honestly don't know to what extent the king could interfere with them in cases of treason, but I guess that if he desperately wanted to confiscate whatever was contained in a jointure, then noblesse obliged him either to permit the lady (if innocent) enjoyment of the income during her widowhood, or to provide her with a grant of similar value. On reflection I imagine a jointure could also be open to challenge if some other heir held the opinion that the property held in jointure was actually his. I'd really rather someone like Brian got his teeth into this!
Regards, Annette
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Annette,
>
> How did "jointure" affect Countess Anne's right to properties after Warwick's death? I thought women were entitled to keep some portion of properties they brought to their marriage after they were widowed. But I can use help understanding this concept as it worked in individual cases.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> phaecilia
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > [Big Snip]
>
> > Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
>
If a jointure was arranged providing a life interest during the wife's widowhood, any such arrangement (as I understand it) existed only if specific contracts were drawn up at the time of marriage or thereafter. I honestly don't know to what extent the king could interfere with them in cases of treason, but I guess that if he desperately wanted to confiscate whatever was contained in a jointure, then noblesse obliged him either to permit the lady (if innocent) enjoyment of the income during her widowhood, or to provide her with a grant of similar value. On reflection I imagine a jointure could also be open to challenge if some other heir held the opinion that the property held in jointure was actually his. I'd really rather someone like Brian got his teeth into this!
Regards, Annette
--- In , "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Annette,
>
> How did "jointure" affect Countess Anne's right to properties after Warwick's death? I thought women were entitled to keep some portion of properties they brought to their marriage after they were widowed. But I can use help understanding this concept as it worked in individual cases.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> phaecilia
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote:
> >
> > [Big Snip]
>
> > Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
>
Despenser inheritance (was: Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 19:52:45
Thanks, I'd forgotten about the Abergavenney entail, though I still don't quite understand who was the true heir at law.
This is Hick's take on it:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8KNIyQqj_NUC&pg=PA31&dq=warwick+inheritance+update+at+the+time+of+the+two
Good luck to anyone who can understand it...
--- In , "Brian Wainwright" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote: <snipped>
> >
> > My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
>
> I am going to have a bash at explaining the descent of the Despenser inheritance to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is complex, and there is some danger of dying of boredom:-
>
> Isabelle Despenser Countess of Warwick, the last Despenser, had two daughters (by different husbands, both called Richard Beauchamp) but also one son, Henry Duke of Warwick, who outlived her. As her son he naturally inherited all her lands, and these passed in turn to his daughter, the short-lived Anne Beauchamp.
>
> When 'little' Anne Beauchamp died the whole of the Beauchamp inheritance passed to her aunt, also Anne Beauchamp, wife of the Kingmaker. The logic of this was that she was the full-blood sister of Henry Duke of Warwick, the other Beauchamp daughters being children of Richard Beauchamp's first marriage to Elizabeth Berkeley. I believe there is (or was) a legal doctrine in common law which prefers full-blood heirs. (Naturally the elder sisters and their husbands were somewhat cheesed off by this!)
>
> What seems to have happened is that 'big' Anne Beauchamp also inherited at this point the whole of the Despenser lands. Now, this is where someone with more knowledge of inheritance law than me is needed because it seems to me that potentially there should have been a share for her half sister on her *mother's* side, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Abergavenny, or rather for Elizabeth's son, Elizabeth herself being dead by this time. This was what the dispute over Glamorgan was about.
>
> As to Abergavenny itself, the Beauchamps of Abergavenny were a recent cadet branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick. The first Lord Abergavenny, William Beauchamp, was full brother to Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick (d1401) the two Richard Beauchamps above mentioned being their respective sons.
>
> I am pretty sure (but please don't take my word on it) that most if not all of the Abergavenny lands were entailed back to the male Beauchamp (Warwick) line when the Abergaveny line failed in the male line (which it did in 1422.) This probably explains why the Kingmaker thought he was entitled to that bit too.
>
> Brian W
>
This is Hick's take on it:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8KNIyQqj_NUC&pg=PA31&dq=warwick+inheritance+update+at+the+time+of+the+two
Good luck to anyone who can understand it...
--- In , "Brian Wainwright" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@> wrote: <snipped>
> >
> > My book about Richard concentrated only on the events of his reign, so I never researched his dealings in land, which call for more technical knowledge of land law than I possess. The Black Prussian (sorry I don't know your name) is quite right about the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance being disputed - it was a knotty problem for decades owing to the many marriages and multiple heirs involved, and led to settling of scores at the 1st battle of St Albans. Robin Storey wrote a good summary in "The Fall of the House of Lancaster", but even he couldn't trace evidence for some of the transactions that took place, particularly when Henry VI and Edward IV started making arbitrary dispositions in favour of important supporters of theirs. Warwick (the Kingmaker) in particular ended up with holdings simply by grabbing them and not being forced to give them back.
>
> I am going to have a bash at explaining the descent of the Despenser inheritance to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is complex, and there is some danger of dying of boredom:-
>
> Isabelle Despenser Countess of Warwick, the last Despenser, had two daughters (by different husbands, both called Richard Beauchamp) but also one son, Henry Duke of Warwick, who outlived her. As her son he naturally inherited all her lands, and these passed in turn to his daughter, the short-lived Anne Beauchamp.
>
> When 'little' Anne Beauchamp died the whole of the Beauchamp inheritance passed to her aunt, also Anne Beauchamp, wife of the Kingmaker. The logic of this was that she was the full-blood sister of Henry Duke of Warwick, the other Beauchamp daughters being children of Richard Beauchamp's first marriage to Elizabeth Berkeley. I believe there is (or was) a legal doctrine in common law which prefers full-blood heirs. (Naturally the elder sisters and their husbands were somewhat cheesed off by this!)
>
> What seems to have happened is that 'big' Anne Beauchamp also inherited at this point the whole of the Despenser lands. Now, this is where someone with more knowledge of inheritance law than me is needed because it seems to me that potentially there should have been a share for her half sister on her *mother's* side, Elizabeth Beauchamp of Abergavenny, or rather for Elizabeth's son, Elizabeth herself being dead by this time. This was what the dispute over Glamorgan was about.
>
> As to Abergavenny itself, the Beauchamps of Abergavenny were a recent cadet branch of the Beauchamps of Warwick. The first Lord Abergavenny, William Beauchamp, was full brother to Thomas Beauchamp Earl of Warwick (d1401) the two Richard Beauchamps above mentioned being their respective sons.
>
> I am pretty sure (but please don't take my word on it) that most if not all of the Abergavenny lands were entailed back to the male Beauchamp (Warwick) line when the Abergaveny line failed in the male line (which it did in 1422.) This probably explains why the Kingmaker thought he was entitled to that bit too.
>
> Brian W
>
Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-09 19:56:58
--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:
>
> > If a jointure was arranged providing a life interest during the wife's widowhood, any such arrangement (as I understand it) existed only if specific contracts were drawn up at the time of marriage or thereafter. I honestly don't know to what extent the king could interfere with them in cases of treason, but I guess that if he desperately wanted to confiscate whatever was contained in a jointure, then noblesse obliged him either to permit the lady (if innocent) enjoyment of the income during her widowhood, or to provide her with a grant of similar value. On reflection I imagine a jointure could also be open to challenge if some other heir held the opinion that the property held in jointure was actually his. I'd really rather someone like Brian got his teeth into this!
> Regards, Annette
Well, I will have a try, but I'd not like to be examined by a true proficient, as Anne Elliot said.
Dower was a common law provision for a widow, usually 1/3 of the estates. However it was definitely not something the widow of an attainted man could claim. For example, in the case I am most familar with, Constance of York (1400), (which I researched for _Within the Fetterlock_) had to rely on the King's grants. Luckily for her she was the King's cousin and he was relatively generous. In fact to broaden matters out a bit, I'm not sure the Despensers (or rather their heirs) ultimately lost anything much as a result of Thomas Despenser's attainder.
In 1404 Constance applied to Parliament for a grant of dower and this was granted, although she had to wait to Henry V's reign before it was actually allotted. Point is this was by special statutory provision, not right.
Other women in her exact same circumstances at the time did much worse. (They were not all the King's cousin.) They got *something* but nothing like their dower.
Jointure was literally the joint ownership of property - exactly the arrangement most married couples still have for their houses. If one dies, it immediately reverts to the survivor without any process. I am really not clear as to how it was dealt with under attainder, but I suspect a) the arrangements varied, and grew less generous over time and b) much depended on the King's good will, or lack of it. IMHO women *ought* to have been allowed their jointure, but it wouldn't surprise me much if they often weren't.
In the particular case of Anne Beauchamp, she had substantial lands in her own right, not in jointure. While she was married to Warwick she was under the legal status of 'coverture'. In simple terms this means she was a perpetual minor without a separate legal status and could neither sue nor be sued. The minute Warwick died she regained her independence and *theoretically* I believe her land were hers. That I suggest is why Edward had to have an Act to declare her legally dead, to legalise what was - in modern terms anyway - theft.
Note Anne as an individual was never attainted. Whereas her mother-in-law, Alice Lady Salisbury was by the Lancastrian Parliament of 1459 (?). While it's possible that Alice did some scheming of her own, I think it's more likely that the Crown simply wanted to seize the lands she owned in her own right. In her case she was still under coverture and her lands *were* effectively controlled by her husband.
It's all very complex and I think the key matter is the King's wishes in a particular case. Generally the treatment of widows got less generous over time. Richard III is sometimes said to have been generous to Buckingham's widow - he was certainly a lot less generous than Henry IV had been to Constance. Henry VII when he granted £20 a year to the wife or widow of Francis Lovel (one of the richest men in England) was even less generous. Richard was more generous to Lady Hastings, but of course Hastings was never attainted, and legally speaking had simply died without any penalties attaching to him.
Brian W
>
> > If a jointure was arranged providing a life interest during the wife's widowhood, any such arrangement (as I understand it) existed only if specific contracts were drawn up at the time of marriage or thereafter. I honestly don't know to what extent the king could interfere with them in cases of treason, but I guess that if he desperately wanted to confiscate whatever was contained in a jointure, then noblesse obliged him either to permit the lady (if innocent) enjoyment of the income during her widowhood, or to provide her with a grant of similar value. On reflection I imagine a jointure could also be open to challenge if some other heir held the opinion that the property held in jointure was actually his. I'd really rather someone like Brian got his teeth into this!
> Regards, Annette
Well, I will have a try, but I'd not like to be examined by a true proficient, as Anne Elliot said.
Dower was a common law provision for a widow, usually 1/3 of the estates. However it was definitely not something the widow of an attainted man could claim. For example, in the case I am most familar with, Constance of York (1400), (which I researched for _Within the Fetterlock_) had to rely on the King's grants. Luckily for her she was the King's cousin and he was relatively generous. In fact to broaden matters out a bit, I'm not sure the Despensers (or rather their heirs) ultimately lost anything much as a result of Thomas Despenser's attainder.
In 1404 Constance applied to Parliament for a grant of dower and this was granted, although she had to wait to Henry V's reign before it was actually allotted. Point is this was by special statutory provision, not right.
Other women in her exact same circumstances at the time did much worse. (They were not all the King's cousin.) They got *something* but nothing like their dower.
Jointure was literally the joint ownership of property - exactly the arrangement most married couples still have for their houses. If one dies, it immediately reverts to the survivor without any process. I am really not clear as to how it was dealt with under attainder, but I suspect a) the arrangements varied, and grew less generous over time and b) much depended on the King's good will, or lack of it. IMHO women *ought* to have been allowed their jointure, but it wouldn't surprise me much if they often weren't.
In the particular case of Anne Beauchamp, she had substantial lands in her own right, not in jointure. While she was married to Warwick she was under the legal status of 'coverture'. In simple terms this means she was a perpetual minor without a separate legal status and could neither sue nor be sued. The minute Warwick died she regained her independence and *theoretically* I believe her land were hers. That I suggest is why Edward had to have an Act to declare her legally dead, to legalise what was - in modern terms anyway - theft.
Note Anne as an individual was never attainted. Whereas her mother-in-law, Alice Lady Salisbury was by the Lancastrian Parliament of 1459 (?). While it's possible that Alice did some scheming of her own, I think it's more likely that the Crown simply wanted to seize the lands she owned in her own right. In her case she was still under coverture and her lands *were* effectively controlled by her husband.
It's all very complex and I think the key matter is the King's wishes in a particular case. Generally the treatment of widows got less generous over time. Richard III is sometimes said to have been generous to Buckingham's widow - he was certainly a lot less generous than Henry IV had been to Constance. Henry VII when he granted £20 a year to the wife or widow of Francis Lovel (one of the richest men in England) was even less generous. Richard was more generous to Lady Hastings, but of course Hastings was never attainted, and legally speaking had simply died without any penalties attaching to him.
Brian W
Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-10 00:14:30
The Countess of Warwick indeed had a jointure interest in her husband's lands. In her letter to Parliament written while she was still at Beaulieu Abbey, she (referring to herself in the third person) asked it "to ponder and weigh in your consciences her right and true title of her inheritance, as the earldom of Warwick and Spencer's lands, to which she is rightfully born by lineal succession, and also her jointure and dower of the earldom of Salisbury aforesaid." (The letter can be found on page 100 of Mary Anne Everett Green's Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, online at Google Books.)
A widow's jointure was legally supposed to be unaffected when a husband was attainted, but this was not always honored.
J. R. Lander's chapter on "Attainder and Forfeiture" in his book Crown and Nobility is helpful on this subject,
Susan Higginbotham
A widow's jointure was legally supposed to be unaffected when a husband was attainted, but this was not always honored.
J. R. Lander's chapter on "Attainder and Forfeiture" in his book Crown and Nobility is helpful on this subject,
Susan Higginbotham
Re: Hello (and musings on Countess Anne)
2009-07-10 10:21:36
Hi, Susan - Well, then, evidently the unfortunate countess's jointure was also set aside as (from memory) the earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury went to Clarence initially, didn't they? And then upon Clarence's attainder I believe his son received Warwick and Richard's son received Salisbury.
Regards, Annette
--- In , "boswellbaxter@..." <boswellbaxter@...> wrote:
>
>
> The Countess of Warwick indeed had a jointure interest in her husband's lands. In her letter to Parliament written while she was still at Beaulieu Abbey, she (referring to herself in the third person) asked it "to ponder and weigh in your consciences her right and true title of her inheritance, as the earldom of Warwick and Spencer's lands, to which she is rightfully born by lineal succession, and also her jointure and dower of the earldom of Salisbury aforesaid." (The letter can be found on page 100 of Mary Anne Everett Green's Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, online at Google Books.)
>
> A widow's jointure was legally supposed to be unaffected when a husband was attainted, but this was not always honored.
>
> J. R. Lander's chapter on "Attainder and Forfeiture" in his book Crown and Nobility is helpful on this subject,
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
Regards, Annette
--- In , "boswellbaxter@..." <boswellbaxter@...> wrote:
>
>
> The Countess of Warwick indeed had a jointure interest in her husband's lands. In her letter to Parliament written while she was still at Beaulieu Abbey, she (referring to herself in the third person) asked it "to ponder and weigh in your consciences her right and true title of her inheritance, as the earldom of Warwick and Spencer's lands, to which she is rightfully born by lineal succession, and also her jointure and dower of the earldom of Salisbury aforesaid." (The letter can be found on page 100 of Mary Anne Everett Green's Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies of Great Britain, online at Google Books.)
>
> A widow's jointure was legally supposed to be unaffected when a husband was attainted, but this was not always honored.
>
> J. R. Lander's chapter on "Attainder and Forfeiture" in his book Crown and Nobility is helpful on this subject,
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.