Definition of "Precontract" (Was: Documentary)
Definition of "Precontract" (Was: Documentary)
2013-01-27 18:48:09
Eileen wrote:
>
> Sorry...that did not work. Please go the the Richard ll Society website. On the left you will find a list...click on the one at the top "Richard"...this will take you to another list. Click on "The Controversy"...and then click on "The Pre-Contract"...This is a very helpful article. I was looking for one by Marie...but I must have read that in The Bulletin...Eileen
Carol responds:
Oh, dear. Even Anne Sutton depicts the precontract as a betrothal. We need that article by Marie! (I couldn't find it, either.) I did find her comments here, which are worth reading though they don't relate specifically to the definition of "precontract": http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/richard-iii-week-the-shadows-in-historys-eye-by-dr-gillian-polack/
Meanwhile, here's John Ashdown-Hill on the matter:
"It may also be as well to state very clearly at this point that the relationship which was alleged between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot in the fifteenth century was neither more nor less than marriage. The Act of Parliament of 1484 is quite explicit on this point (see Appendix 1). The widespread use of the term precontract in relation to this union is not particularly helpful, since its meaning is very frequently misunderstood. It is often taken to mean something like `betrothal', but this is emphatically not what precontract means. It is, in fact, a legal term which can only be applied retrospectively, the contract to which it refers being precisely a contract of marriage. Such a contract could, of course, only become pre- with hindsight, when viewed in relation to a subsequent, second (and necessarily bigamous) contract of marriage with a third party.
"In the case of Edward IV the second and bigamous contract of marriage was with Elizabeth Woodville. It was not possible to actually enter into an agreement called a precontract. Thus at the time when it was made, any contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot would simply have been a contract of marriage. To refer to it from its inception as a precontract is, therefore, both misleading and inaccurate."
Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 1797-1799). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
To me, it seems very important to define this term correctly and to stop thinking of the precontract as a betrothal. Or maybe we should just stop using the term altogether and speak of it as a marriage (without, of course, regarding the marriage as proven beyond all doubt).
Carol
>
> Sorry...that did not work. Please go the the Richard ll Society website. On the left you will find a list...click on the one at the top "Richard"...this will take you to another list. Click on "The Controversy"...and then click on "The Pre-Contract"...This is a very helpful article. I was looking for one by Marie...but I must have read that in The Bulletin...Eileen
Carol responds:
Oh, dear. Even Anne Sutton depicts the precontract as a betrothal. We need that article by Marie! (I couldn't find it, either.) I did find her comments here, which are worth reading though they don't relate specifically to the definition of "precontract": http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/richard-iii-week-the-shadows-in-historys-eye-by-dr-gillian-polack/
Meanwhile, here's John Ashdown-Hill on the matter:
"It may also be as well to state very clearly at this point that the relationship which was alleged between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot in the fifteenth century was neither more nor less than marriage. The Act of Parliament of 1484 is quite explicit on this point (see Appendix 1). The widespread use of the term precontract in relation to this union is not particularly helpful, since its meaning is very frequently misunderstood. It is often taken to mean something like `betrothal', but this is emphatically not what precontract means. It is, in fact, a legal term which can only be applied retrospectively, the contract to which it refers being precisely a contract of marriage. Such a contract could, of course, only become pre- with hindsight, when viewed in relation to a subsequent, second (and necessarily bigamous) contract of marriage with a third party.
"In the case of Edward IV the second and bigamous contract of marriage was with Elizabeth Woodville. It was not possible to actually enter into an agreement called a precontract. Thus at the time when it was made, any contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot would simply have been a contract of marriage. To refer to it from its inception as a precontract is, therefore, both misleading and inaccurate."
Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 1797-1799). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
To me, it seems very important to define this term correctly and to stop thinking of the precontract as a betrothal. Or maybe we should just stop using the term altogether and speak of it as a marriage (without, of course, regarding the marriage as proven beyond all doubt).
Carol
Re: Definition of "Precontract" (Was: Documentary)
2013-01-27 19:00:20
Thanks Carol. I beginning to think that the article by Marie is in the Bulletin....???? Well if its not on the website it should be...
Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Sorry...that did not work. Please go the the Richard ll Society website. On the left you will find a list...click on the one at the top "Richard"...this will take you to another list. Click on "The Controversy"...and then click on "The Pre-Contract"...This is a very helpful article. I was looking for one by Marie...but I must have read that in The Bulletin...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oh, dear. Even Anne Sutton depicts the precontract as a betrothal. We need that article by Marie! (I couldn't find it, either.) I did find her comments here, which are worth reading though they don't relate specifically to the definition of "precontract": http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/richard-iii-week-the-shadows-in-historys-eye-by-dr-gillian-polack/
>
> Meanwhile, here's John Ashdown-Hill on the matter:
>
> "It may also be as well to state very clearly at this point that the relationship which was alleged between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot in the fifteenth century was neither more nor less than marriage. The Act of Parliament of 1484 is quite explicit on this point (see Appendix 1). The widespread use of the term precontract in relation to this union is not particularly helpful, since its meaning is very frequently misunderstood. It is often taken to mean something like `betrothal', but this is emphatically not what precontract means. It is, in fact, a legal term which can only be applied retrospectively, the contract to which it refers being precisely a contract of marriage. Such a contract could, of course, only become pre- with hindsight, when viewed in relation to a subsequent, second (and necessarily bigamous) contract of marriage with a third party.
>
> "In the case of Edward IV the second and bigamous contract of marriage was with Elizabeth Woodville. It was not possible to actually enter into an agreement called a precontract. Thus at the time when it was made, any contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot would simply have been a contract of marriage. To refer to it from its inception as a precontract is, therefore, both misleading and inaccurate."
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 1797-1799). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>
> To me, it seems very important to define this term correctly and to stop thinking of the precontract as a betrothal. Or maybe we should just stop using the term altogether and speak of it as a marriage (without, of course, regarding the marriage as proven beyond all doubt).
>
> Carol
>
Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Sorry...that did not work. Please go the the Richard ll Society website. On the left you will find a list...click on the one at the top "Richard"...this will take you to another list. Click on "The Controversy"...and then click on "The Pre-Contract"...This is a very helpful article. I was looking for one by Marie...but I must have read that in The Bulletin...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oh, dear. Even Anne Sutton depicts the precontract as a betrothal. We need that article by Marie! (I couldn't find it, either.) I did find her comments here, which are worth reading though they don't relate specifically to the definition of "precontract": http://vulpeslibris.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/richard-iii-week-the-shadows-in-historys-eye-by-dr-gillian-polack/
>
> Meanwhile, here's John Ashdown-Hill on the matter:
>
> "It may also be as well to state very clearly at this point that the relationship which was alleged between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot in the fifteenth century was neither more nor less than marriage. The Act of Parliament of 1484 is quite explicit on this point (see Appendix 1). The widespread use of the term precontract in relation to this union is not particularly helpful, since its meaning is very frequently misunderstood. It is often taken to mean something like `betrothal', but this is emphatically not what precontract means. It is, in fact, a legal term which can only be applied retrospectively, the contract to which it refers being precisely a contract of marriage. Such a contract could, of course, only become pre- with hindsight, when viewed in relation to a subsequent, second (and necessarily bigamous) contract of marriage with a third party.
>
> "In the case of Edward IV the second and bigamous contract of marriage was with Elizabeth Woodville. It was not possible to actually enter into an agreement called a precontract. Thus at the time when it was made, any contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot would simply have been a contract of marriage. To refer to it from its inception as a precontract is, therefore, both misleading and inaccurate."
>
> Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (Kindle Locations 1797-1799). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.
>
> To me, it seems very important to define this term correctly and to stop thinking of the precontract as a betrothal. Or maybe we should just stop using the term altogether and speak of it as a marriage (without, of course, regarding the marriage as proven beyond all doubt).
>
> Carol
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.