Beaufort tears...

I seem to be missing something here.

Karen wrote:

snip//
The Warwicks weren't attainted because that would have made it impossible
for either Anne or Isobel to inherit their property and titles.//snip

What does Anne and Isobel inheriting their property and titles have to do with anything? Edward certainly hadn't worried about that with either of his, er, marriages!
If Edward IV had both Warwick and his wife attainted for treason; if I understand it correctly, then Edward, as king, would have received all their properties in forteiture. Which he could then have passed out however he wished. The titles would have gone into abeyance, I presume? There would have been nothing to prevent Edward from recreating those titles and giving them to his brothers and their descentants if he, or George or Richard, felt that was necessary.
So my question is: Why didn't Edward IV just scoop the whole lot into his own hands and dole out what he wanted to Clarence and Gloucester? Certainly that would have been much simpler all around. Not to mention the the odds and ends Edward IV could have kept for himself...

Doug

The point is that Gloucester and Clarence would have *preferred* their wives to inherit. Royal grants could be resumed by Parliamentary Act. This was not a remote possibility, but something that had already happened to Clarence. Inherited land was much more secure.

On the matter of the Countess of Warwick, it is of course true that her father was Henry VI's guardian in the king's early years. He and Anne grew up in the same household. I wouldn't want to exaggerate the degree of connection this would have given them, but she probably saw as much of him as she did her own brother, Henry, later Duke of Warwick and Henry's prime favourite until his death at age 21.

The preservation of the dagger that allegedly killed Henry VI in the chapel located on the bridge at Caversham is a very singular co-incidence, if that's all it is. It was a favourite manor of the family, used as a residence by the Beauchamps and the Despensers before them, and it would be surprising if that dagger was lodged there against the will of the lady of the manor. Of course, the really interesting question would be how it got to be there, and was it genuine.

Brian W.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> I seem to be missing something here.
>
> Karen wrote:
>
> snip//
> The Warwicks weren't attainted because that would have made it impossible
> for either Anne or Isobel to inherit their property and titles.//snip
>
> What does Anne and Isobel inheriting their property and titles have to do with anything? Edward certainly hadn't worried about that with either of his, er, marriages!
> If Edward IV had both Warwick and his wife attainted for treason; if I understand it correctly, then Edward, as king, would have received all their properties in forteiture. Which he could then have passed out however he wished. The titles would have gone into abeyance, I presume? There would have been nothing to prevent Edward from recreating those titles and giving them to his brothers and their descentants if he, or George or Richard, felt that was necessary.
> So my question is: Why didn't Edward IV just scoop the whole lot into his own hands and dole out what he wanted to Clarence and Gloucester? Certainly that would have been much simpler all around. Not to mention the the odds and ends Edward IV could have kept for himself...
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>

I think the clue lies in what actually happened, Doug. The relevant Acts of
Parliament do four things. 1. The Countess of Warwick is declared dead; 2.
Her daughters are identified as her heirs; 3. Their husbands are identified
as their heirs; 4. Richard is given control of Anne's share in case of
divorce and on condition that they remarry.

If Warwick had been attainted, only his property and titles (not the
countess's, and hers was the larger share) would have gone to the crown, not
Edward personally. The biggest difficulty here would have been attainting
the countess of Warwick. Despite the dark hints in her letter to parliament,
there seems to have been no hard evidence of treason on her part. If there
was, she might have found herself on trial. When the countess of Salisbury
was attainted in 1459, there would seem to have been evidence of her actions
(probably raising troops for her husband, as it was connected solidly with
the battle of Blore Heath). While the act of attainder doesn't mention
specifically what she did (beyond stirring her husband and others to
rebellion), there is a date associated with it and a list of others
involved. She wasn't tried, as she left the country, so what evidence there
was wasn't made public.

Edward may not have wanted to risk going down that path anyway, as giving
the Northumberland earldom to John Nevill had ended so badly. It wasn't a
popular decision, and the earldom was eventually given back to Henry Percy.
It seems it was easier to assume that Warwick's property went to his widow,
then declare her dead and allow her daughters to 'inherit'.

Karen

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:37:17 -0500
To: <>
Subject: Beaufort tears...







I seem to be missing something here.

Karen wrote:

snip//
The Warwicks weren't attainted because that would have made it impossible
for either Anne or Isobel to inherit their property and titles.//snip

What does Anne and Isobel inheriting their property and titles have to do
with anything? Edward certainly hadn't worried about that with either of
his, er, marriages!
If Edward IV had both Warwick and his wife attainted for treason; if I
understand it correctly, then Edward, as king, would have received all their
properties in forteiture. Which he could then have passed out however he
wished. The titles would have gone into abeyance, I presume? There would
have been nothing to prevent Edward from recreating those titles and giving
them to his brothers and their descentants if he, or George or Richard, felt
that was necessary.
So my question is: Why didn't Edward IV just scoop the whole lot into his
own hands and dole out what he wanted to Clarence and Gloucester? Certainly
that would have been much simpler all around. Not to mention the the odds
and ends Edward IV could have kept for himself...

Doug