OT: For Marie Walsh

Hi, Marie! I got your e-mail about jointure and tried to reply but my answer bounced back to me twice.

Susan Higginbotham

--- In , "boswellbaxter@..." <boswellbaxter@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marie! I got your e-mail about jointure and tried to reply but my answer bounced back to me twice.
>
> Susan Higginbotham
>

Sorry Susan, my fault. I haven't used the forum for so long I didn't realise my account was set up with an out-of-date email address - hence the message relayed to you personally rather than the forum, and hence you couldn't reply to it!

I thought afterwards that I probably hadn't explained everything that well - particularly about Clarence's son.

Could I possibly ask you to post the message up for me by doing a cut and paste, then we can start again, can't we?

Best wishes,
Marie

Here's Marie's message:

> 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
>

Sorry, I've only come in on this a month late! I think references to jointure and dower are somewhat muddying the waters - this was not what the Countess was claiming. Dower is a portion of the husband's lands to which a widow is entitled to a life inrerest after his death - assuming he owns them at his death and has not been attainted. Jointure refers to lands settled by the families on the couple jointly at their marriage.
As Brian said, Anne Beauchamp was a substantial heiress in her own right, and so with her husband dead she comes out from under the covers and regains her legal independence. It's less confusing to think of the husband controlling his wife's lands for life rather than owning them.
The lands she refers to in that petition were her own lineal inheritance - just as she says - not jointure or dower from her husband.

Clarence's son also benefited from the crown's inability to confiscate lands a traitor held in right of his unattainted wife. On his attainder Clarence forfeited the lands and titles that had been settled on him by the king (including the earldom of Salisbury, which King Edward then bestowed on Gloucester's son), but his son was still able to inherit the lands that Clarence had held in right of his wife Isabel Neville. As many many contemporary documents testify, Clarence's son was Earl of Warwick as the heir of his mother, not by the gift of the King.

I hope that tidies things up.

I agree the whole Warwick inheritance is very messy and complicated, and I've never been able to sort it out properl. I stand to be corrected, but I don't seem to recall Hicks ever making reference to the 'exclusion of the half blood' rule in his essays on this subject, and I think failure to take this into account rather biases his conclusions.

And here's my reply:

This is what the countess's petition says:

"the said Anne and Countess humbly beseecheth your great wisdom 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 . . ."

Why would the countess use the words "and also jointure and dower of the earldom of Salisbury aforesaid" if that wasn't precisely what she was claiming (in part)? I'm aware that the Despenser/Beauchamp inheritance was hers in her own right, but the lands of the earldom of Salisbury were, I believe, Neville lands, in which she surely would have had a jointure and dower interest set aside at the time of her marriage to Warwick. (After all, when she and Warwick married as children, she wasn't an heiress, since her brother was still alive, so it was natural that during the marriage negotiations, her family would ensure that arrangements for jointure and dower were made.) So as I read her petition, she was claiming not only her own Despenser/Beauchamp inheritance, but her right to her jointure and dower in her husband's lands. And, of course, she was deprived of both.

Susan H.


> Marie:

> Sorry, I've only come in on this a month late! I think references to jointure and dower are somewhat muddying the waters - this was not what the Countess was claiming. Dower is a portion of the husband's lands to which a widow is entitled to a life inrerest after his death - assuming he owns them at his death and has not been attainted. Jointure refers to lands settled by the families on the couple jointly at their marriage.
> As Brian said, Anne Beauchamp was a substantial heiress in her own right, and so with her husband dead she comes out from under the covers and regains her legal independence. It's less confusing to think of the husband controlling his wife's lands for life rather than owning them.
> The lands she refers to in that petition were her own lineal inheritance - just as she says - not jointure or dower from her husband.
>
> Clarence's son also benefited from the crown's inability to confiscate lands a traitor held in right of his unattainted wife. On his attainder Clarence forfeited the lands and titles that had been settled on him by the king (including the earldom of Salisbury, which King Edward then bestowed on Gloucester's son), but his son was still able to inherit the lands that Clarence had held in right of his wife Isabel Neville. As many many contemporary documents testify, Clarence's son was Earl of Warwick as the heir of his mother, not by the gift of the King.
>
> I hope that tidies things up.
>
> I agree the whole Warwick inheritance is very messy and complicated, and I've never been able to sort it out properl. I stand to be corrected, but I don't seem to recall Hicks ever making reference to the 'exclusion of the half blood' rule in his essays on this subject, and I think failure to take this into account rather biases his conclusions.
>

Yes Susan, you're right; sorry, I'd forgotten she threw in her jointure and dower rights as well. That will teach me to post without checking the facts. But my point was really that the Countess's own inheritance, and her entitlements as a widow out of her husband's patrimony, were two - or indeed three - separate issues:-
1) The countess's own inheritance was hers and should not have been included amongst estates forfeited by her husband;
2) Lands settled in jointure were, as I understand it, also safe from forfeiture (provided the wife was not also accused of treason);
3) Dower rights would be lost if the husband had suffered forfeiture.

The countess evidently felt that, since neither she nor her husband had been attainted of treason, she had a right to all three. But the situation was perhaps not quite as simple as all that. The couple's estates had all been seized after they fled to France in 1470. She should not have forfeited her own lands, she claimed, because she could not be held accountable for what she had done whilst married to, and covered by, the Kingmaker, and since his death she had done nothing against Edward IV. The trouble is, that was tantamout to admitting the obvious - ie that her husband had been a traitor to Edward IV. Okay, he hadn't been attainted, but he could very easily be at any time Edward decided. Her right to dower, therefore, was questionable.
One might also argue that her right to the return of her own property and her jointure was not terribly clearcut either as she had been at her husband's side both at the Calais wedding and whilst he was in France negotiating the Re-adeption. There was probably good evidence that she had supported his political position, and indeed in 1485 she petitioned Henry VII for return of her lands "in consideration of the true and faithful service and allegiance that the said countess had and owed to the said most excellent prince King Henry the VI". Certainly, the 1459 parliament had felt they had the right to attaint the Countess of Salisbury as well as her husband.

I'm not sure how legal or illegal Edward IV's stance was. Warwick had been a self-proclaimed traitor, and the lands of himself and his countess had been regarded as forfeit and seized after they fled to the "enemy" in France. At any rate, before that Act rendering the countess legally dead Edward was treating the Neville and Beauchamp lands as his to dispose of, and the beneficiaries, Clarence and Gloucester, seemed happy with the arrangement (at least, until Edward took all Clarence's lands back again by an Act of Resumption), and they dissuaded Edward from attanting Warwick and Montagu. I imagine they must have taken legal advice.

Clarence's son, of course, was given the title Earl of Warwick during his father's lifetime, but he inherited all the Beauchamp and Despenser estates from his mother after his father's execution (Clarence would have held them for life, courtesy of England, because he was the father of Isabel's children).

This is the full text of the Countess's petition to Edward IV's parliament straight from the source (British Library MS Julius BXII, f. 314):-

"To the right worshipfull & discrete comyns of this present parlement:
. Shewith vnto your wisdomes and discrecions the kynges true liege woman Anne Countesse of Warrewyk, whiche neuer offended his most redoghted Highnes for she immediately after the dethe of hir lord and husbond (on whos soule God haue mercy) - for noon' offence by her doon' but dredyng only trouble - beyng that tyme within this realme, entred into the Seintuare of Beaulieu for suertie of hir persone, to dispose for the weel and helthe of the soule of hir seid lord and husbond as right and conscience required her so to doo: makyng within .v. dayes or ner' ther' abowtes after her entre into the seid seyntuare her labores, suytes and meanes to the Kynges Highnes for her safe garde to be had, as diligently and effectuelly as her power wold extend; she not saisyng, but after her power contynuyng in such labores, suytes and meanes in so moche that, in absence of clerkes, she hathe wretyn lettres in that behalfe to the kynges highnes with her owne hand. And not only makyng suche labores, suytes and meanes to the Kynges Highnes, sothely also to the Quenes good grace, to my ryght redoghted lady the kynges moder, to my lady the kynges eldest doughter, to my lordes the kynges brethren, to my ladyes the kynges Susters, to my lady of Bedford moder to the Quene, and to other ladyes noble of this realme. In whiche labores suytes and meanes she hathe contynued hyderto and so wyll contynue. as she owes to doo. tyl it may please the kynge of his most good and noble grace to haue consideracion that duryng the lyfe of her seid lord and husbond she was couert Baron' (whiche poynt she remyttes to your grete wisdomes) and that after his deceasse all the tyme of her beyng in the seid seyntuare she hath duly kept her fidelite and ligeaunce and obeied the kynges commaundementz, how be it hit hath pleased the Kynges Highnes (by some synester informacion to his seid Highness made) to directe his most drad letters to the Abbot of the monastere of Beaulieu, with right sharpe commaundement, that suche persones as his highnes sent to the seid monastere shuld haue garde and strayte kepyng of her persone, whiche was and is to her grete hertys grevaunce, she specially feryng that the priuileges & libertees of the churche by suche kepyng of her persone moght be interrupt and violate, where the priuileges of the seid seyntuare were neuer so largly attempted in to this tyme as is seid. Yet the seid Anne & Countesse, vnder protestacion by her made, hath suffred strayte kepyng of her persone - and yet doth - that her fidelite and ligeaunce to the Kynges Highnes the better moght be vnderstand, hopyng she myght the rather haue had larges to make suytes to the Kynges Highnes in her owne persone for her lyuelode and suche full inheritaunce (whiche lyuelode and inheritaunc,e with all revenous and prouentus therto perteynyng, with her Joyntour also and dower of the Erldome of Salesbury, fully and holy hath be restrayned fro her from the tyme of the dethe of her seid lord and husbond in to this day). And, for as moche as our souerayn lord the Kynge of his grete grace hath sette and assembled his high Court of parlement for reformacions, right and equite to all his subjettys and liege people duly to be mynystred, the said Anne and Countesse humbly besechith your grete wisdomes to pondre and waye in your consciences her right and true title of her inheritaunce, as the Erldom of Warrewyk and Spencers londes to whiche she is rightfully born' by lyneal succession, and also her iointour and dower of the Erldom of Salesbury forseid, and to shewe her youre benyvolence, that by the kyngis good grace and auctorite of this his noble parlement she may to her forsaid lyuelode and rightfull inheritaunce duly be restored and it enioye as the lawes of allmyghty God and of this noble realme, right also and conscience doth require. Besechyng hertely your grete goodnesses, in the reuerence of allmyghty God and of his most blessed moder, well of grace, to consider the pore estate she standes in (how in her owne persone she may not sollicite the premissez as she wold and she moght, ner is of power any sufficient sollicitour in this byhalf to make. and - thogh she moght as may not - ther is noon that dar take it vpon hym), to haue also this pore bylle in your tendre remembraunce, that your parfyte charite and good will may sollicite theffecte of the same, whiche to doo her power at this tyme may not extend. And shal pray and do pray to God for you."




--- In , "boswellbaxter@..." <boswellbaxter@...> wrote:
>
> And here's my reply:
>
> This is what the countess's petition says:
>
> "the said Anne and Countess humbly beseecheth your great wisdom 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 . . ."
>
> Why would the countess use the words "and also jointure and dower of the earldom of Salisbury aforesaid" if that wasn't precisely what she was claiming (in part)? I'm aware that the Despenser/Beauchamp inheritance was hers in her own right, but the lands of the earldom of Salisbury were, I believe, Neville lands, in which she surely would have had a jointure and dower interest set aside at the time of her marriage to Warwick. (After all, when she and Warwick married as children, she wasn't an heiress, since her brother was still alive, so it was natural that during the marriage negotiations, her family would ensure that arrangements for jointure and dower were made.) So as I read her petition, she was claiming not only her own Despenser/Beauchamp inheritance, but her right to her jointure and dower in her husband's lands. And, of course, she was deprived of both.
>
> Susan H.
>
>
> > Marie:
>
> > Sorry, I've only come in on this a month late! I think references to jointure and dower are somewhat muddying the waters - this was not what the Countess was claiming. Dower is a portion of the husband's lands to which a widow is entitled to a life inrerest after his death - assuming he owns them at his death and has not been attainted. Jointure refers to lands settled by the families on the couple jointly at their marriage.
> > As Brian said, Anne Beauchamp was a substantial heiress in her own right, and so with her husband dead she comes out from under the covers and regains her legal independence. It's less confusing to think of the husband controlling his wife's lands for life rather than owning them.
> > The lands she refers to in that petition were her own lineal inheritance - just as she says - not jointure or dower from her husband.
> >
> > Clarence's son also benefited from the crown's inability to confiscate lands a traitor held in right of his unattainted wife. On his attainder Clarence forfeited the lands and titles that had been settled on him by the king (including the earldom of Salisbury, which King Edward then bestowed on Gloucester's son), but his son was still able to inherit the lands that Clarence had held in right of his wife Isabel Neville. As many many contemporary documents testify, Clarence's son was Earl of Warwick as the heir of his mother, not by the gift of the King.
> >
> > I hope that tidies things up.
> >
> > I agree the whole Warwick inheritance is very messy and complicated, and I've never been able to sort it out properl. I stand to be corrected, but I don't seem to recall Hicks ever making reference to the 'exclusion of the half blood' rule in his essays on this subject, and I think failure to take this into account rather biases his conclusions.
> >
>