consanguinity

I've heard it said many times that Richard and Ann's marriage was dubiously legit. because of their close relationship, and it's true that although they were only second cousins they were cousins so many times over that genetically they were virtually brother and sister. It's claimed that they deliberately concealed their degree of consanguinity from the papal authorities, in order to get a dispensation to marry.

But, two undisputedly full brothers married two undisputedly full sisters. If Richard and Ann's consanguinity meant that if they'd been honest about it they wouldn't have got a dispensation, how did George and Isobel manage it?

Warwick applied for a dispensation in the late 1460s, probably for both. It was certainly through when George married Isabel. H



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 12:29
Subject: consanguinity

 

I've heard it said many times that Richard and Ann's marriage was dubiously legit. because of their close relationship, and it's true that although they were only second cousins they were cousins so many times over that genetically they were virtually brother and sister. It's claimed that they deliberately concealed their degree of consanguinity from the papal authorities, in order to get a dispensation to marry.

But, two undisputedly full brothers married two undisputedly full sisters. If Richard and Ann's consanguinity meant that if they'd been honest about it they wouldn't have got a dispensation, how did George and Isobel manage it?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Warwick applied for a dispensation in the late 1460s, probably for both.
> It was certainly through when George married Isabel. H

Right. So even though the church's decision was probably unwise, R and A
did have good reason to think that their unuion was acceptable to the
church.

Yes. Michael Hicks claims they didn't have such a dispensation but I think one has come to light since. Others on here more knowledgeable than me will tell you where, probably in the Vatican archives. Certainly George and Isabel did.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 13:45
Subject: Re: consanguinity

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> Warwick applied for a dispensation in the late 1460s, probably for both.
> It was certainly through when George married Isabel. H

Right. So even though the church's decision was probably unwise, R and A
did have good reason to think that their unuion was acceptable to the
church.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Yes. Michael Hicks claims they didn't have such a dispensation but I think
> one has come to light since. Others on here more knowledgeable than me
> will tell you where, probably in the Vatican archives. Certainly George
> and Isabel did.

I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a dispensation, so
long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the relationship between the
two couples was identical, they could reasonably assume that anything which
applied to their elder sibs applied to them too and that getting it
confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really understand about
inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who was practically
your sister, they only went by whether the church said it was OK or not.

Well they were second cousins and that and even cousins has been permitted for years. From my research it was not at all unusual for two brothers to marry two sisters in the days when you met or were matched through the family.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: consanguinity

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> Yes. Michael Hicks claims they didn't have such a dispensation but I think
> one has come to light since. Others on here more knowledgeable than me
> will tell you where, probably in the Vatican archives. Certainly George
> and Isabel did.

I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a dispensation, so
long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the relationship between the
two couples was identical, they could reasonably assume that anything which
applied to their elder sibs applied to them too and that getting it
confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really understand about
inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who was practically
your sister, they only went by whether the church said it was OK or not.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Well they were second cousins

I know I said second cousins too, but actually I think they were first
cousins once removed. Richard was first cousin to Anne's father.

> and that and even cousins has been permitted for years.

Yes, but they were cousins several times over, on multiple lines of descent.
Siblings on average share 50% of their genetic material. As first cousins
once removed, if they were only that, I think Richard and Anne should have
shared just over 6% of their genetic material but I know I once plotted
their family line back about four or five generations, and worked out that
they had so many recent ancestors in common that they actually shared about
40%.

Yes that's right. Warwick's father and Cecily, Richard's mother were brother and sister so Richard and Warwick were cousins. Second cousin is the only term I can come up with   H.  



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 14:33
Subject: Re: consanguinity

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> Well they were second cousins

I know I said second cousins too, but actually I think they were first
cousins once removed. Richard was first cousin to Anne's father.

> and that and even cousins has been permitted for years.

Yes, but they were cousins several times over, on multiple lines of descent.
Siblings on average share 50% of their genetic material. As first cousins
once removed, if they were only that, I think Richard and Anne should have
shared just over 6% of their genetic material but I know I once plotted
their family line back about four or five generations, and worked out that
they had so many recent ancestors in common that they actually shared about
40%.

Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not unusual at all!!!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 7:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: consanguinity



Well they were second cousins and that and even cousins has been permitted for years. From my research it was not at all unusual for two brothers to marry two sisters in the days when you met or were matched through the family.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 13:58
Subject: Re: consanguinity



From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> Yes. Michael Hicks claims they didn't have such a dispensation but I think
> one has come to light since. Others on here more knowledgeable than me
> will tell you where, probably in the Vatican archives. Certainly George
> and Isabel did.

I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a dispensation, so
long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the relationship between the
two couples was identical, they could reasonably assume that anything which
applied to their elder sibs applied to them too and that getting it
confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really understand about
inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who was practically
your sister, they only went by whether the church said it was OK or not.

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: consanguinity


> Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> unusual at all!!!


That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
*to each other*.

No, I understand completely. My goodness almost all the Royal families in Europe are or were related to Queen Victoria's many offspring. In a limited gene pool, it was probably not unusual.

Pamela Bain | President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:59 AM
To:
Subject: Re: consanguinity



From: Pamela Bain
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: consanguinity

> Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> unusual at all!!!

That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
*to each other*.

But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small pool to go fishing in.

Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's son. And that's just off the top of my head.

The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have thought.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
>
> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > unusual at all!!!
>
>
> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
> *to each other*.
>

Like crazy as a bed bug????


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Katherine
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: consanguinity



But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small pool to go fishing in.

Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's son. And that's just off the top of my head.

The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have thought.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
>
> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > unusual at all!!!
>
>
> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
> *to each other*.
>

Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As did many of the Pharaohs] 
While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect occur.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.



>________________________________
> From: Katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:01
>Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> 
>But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small pool to go fishing in.
>
>Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's son. And that's just off the top of my head.
>
>The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have thought.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: Pamela Bain
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
>> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>>
>>
>> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
>> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
>> > unusual at all!!!
>>
>>
>> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
>> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
>> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
>> *to each other*.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Clarence's great-granddaughters, Catherine and Winifred Pole, married Lord Francis and Sir Thomas Hastings. Of course, Winifred's descendants are all by her second (Barrington) husband.

----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity



From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: consanguinity

> Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> unusual at all!!!

That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
*to each other*.

And actually it was the same problem (if you want to call it that)for the middle classes. Local gentry married local gentry. There was a small pool. And so it went through the ages until well into the 19th century when people moved in wider circles.


________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:12
Subject: Re: consanguinity

 

Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As did many of the Pharaohs] 
While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect occur.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.

>________________________________
> From: Katherine katherine.michaud@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:01
>Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> 
>But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small pool to go fishing in.
>
>Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's son. And that's just off the top of my head.
>
>The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have thought.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: Pamela Bain
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
>> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>>
>>
>> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
>> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
>> > unusual at all!!!
>>
>>
>> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
>> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
>> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
>> *to each other*.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I know that the Russian Aristocracy was reported to suffer from Hemophilia,
and several of the other lines had "problems"

Perhaps the gene pool needed chlorine?

George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM
To:
Subject: RE: consanguinity





Like crazy as a bed bug????

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Katherine
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:02 AM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: consanguinity

But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small
pool to go fishing in.

Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a
Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's
son. And that's just off the top of my head.

The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have
thought.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
>
> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > unusual at all!!!
>
>
> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over,
with
> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were
siblings
> *to each other*.
>

And a life guard!!!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:47 AM
To:
Subject: RE: consanguinity



I know that the Russian Aristocracy was reported to suffer from Hemophilia,
and several of the other lines had "problems"

Perhaps the gene pool needed chlorine?

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: consanguinity

Like crazy as a bed bug????

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of Katherine
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:02 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: consanguinity

But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small
pool to go fishing in.

Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a
Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's
son. And that's just off the top of my head.

The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have
thought.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
>
> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > unusual at all!!!
>
>
> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over,
with
> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were
siblings
> *to each other*.
>

I keep typing replies only for them to disappear. I'll try again.

It wasn't only Russian Imperial family, it was also Spanish royal family and the duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt that were affected by the haemophilia which apparently originated with Queen Victoria and, as Pamela said, Victoria's children and grandchildren married into almost every royal house in Europe.

And she married her cousin...

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I know that the Russian Aristocracy was reported to suffer from Hemophilia,
> and several of the other lines had "problems"
>
> Perhaps the gene pool needed chlorine?
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
>
>
>
>
> Like crazy as a bed bug????
>
> From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Katherine
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:02 AM
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
> But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small
> pool to go fishing in.
>
> Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a
> Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's
> son. And that's just off the top of my head.
>
> The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have
> thought.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> > Subject: RE: consanguinity
> >
> >
> > > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > > unusual at all!!!
> >
> >
> > That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> > that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over,
> with
> > the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were
> siblings
> > *to each other*.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I missed responding to this earlier because Yahoo was being annoying again.

It never occurred to me that the it was the same situation for the gentry but, of course, you're right.

As to it being a 'problem', maybe it is only that in my 21st century perception.



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And actually it was the same problem (if you want to call it that)for the middle classes. Local gentry married local gentry. There was a small pool. And so it went through the ages until well into the 19th century when people moved in wider circles.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:12
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>  
>
> Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As did many of the Pharaohs] 
> While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect occur.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur W.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Katherine katherine.michaud@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:01
> >Subject: Re: consanguinity
> >
> >
> > 
> >But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small pool to go fishing in.
> >
> >Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's son. And that's just off the top of my head.
> >
> >The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have thought.
> >
> >--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Pamela Bain
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> >> Subject: RE: consanguinity
> >>
> >>
> >> > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> >> > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> >> > unusual at all!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> >> that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over, with
> >> the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were siblings
> >> *to each other*.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> I've heard it said many times that Richard and Ann's marriage was dubiously legit. because of their close relationship, and it's true that although they were only second cousins they were cousins so many times over that genetically they were virtually brother and sister. It's claimed that they deliberately concealed their degree of consanguinity from the papal authorities, in order to get a dispensation to marry.
>
> But, two undisputedly full brothers married two undisputedly full sisters. If Richard and Ann's consanguinity meant that if they'd been honest about it they wouldn't have got a dispensation, how did George and Isobel manage it?

Carol responds:

Actually, they were first cousins once removed (his mother and her grandfather were brother and sister). That relationship (and other connections, even her having been married to his third or fourth cousin--whatever Edward of Lancaster was) required dispensations, but none was within a forbidden degree of affinity. They did receive a papal dispensation for the Edward of Lancaster connection, and, as Marie has said on this list, it seems probable that Warwick had already obtained a dispensation for them at the same time that he obtained the one for George and Isabel since he was trying to cement his alliances with Edward's brothers.

Michael Hicks's objection that he marrying his "sister-in-law" was "incest" is nonsense. Anne was George's sister-in-law, not Richard's. The problem was once again missing records. It's slightly more complicated than that: http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php#anne (Scroll down to "The Marriage Dispute.")

I know that Marie has written an article disproving Hicks's malicious and nonsensical charges, but I don't have a link to it. I thought that it was on the same website.

Eileen, do you have that link?

Carol

Claire wrote:
> I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them too and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it was OK or not.


Carol responds:

You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage was invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all this up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!

Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister. In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more difficult matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in Rome.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Well they were second cousins and that and even cousins has been permitted for years. From my research it was not at all unusual for two brothers to marry two sisters in the days when you met or were matched through the family.

Carol responds:

Second cousins would mean that their grandparents were brother and sister (or "siblings" of some sort; I hate that word). As I said earlier, Richard's mother, Cecily Neville, and Anne's grandfather, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, were sister and brother (which made Anne's father, Warwick, Cecily's nephew). The different generations result in a "once removed" instead of a full first or second cousin relationship. (It's easier to see in a genealogical chart.)

If you want to think about it in terms of your own relationships, your father's or mother's first cousins would be your first cousins once removed (i.e., one generation removed). Your first cousin's children would be your children's second cousins (same generation, shared grandparent).

Clear? No? Sorry. I did my best.

Carol

EW was the chlorine and see what happened! The entire line dried up!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Feb 19, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> And a life guard!!!
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:47 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
> I know that the Russian Aristocracy was reported to suffer from Hemophilia,
> and several of the other lines had "problems"
>
> Perhaps the gene pool needed chlorine?
>
> George
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
> Like crazy as a bed bug????
>
> From:
>
> [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Katherine
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:02 AM
> To:
>
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
> But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small
> pool to go fishing in.
>
> Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a
> Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's
> son. And that's just off the top of my head.
>
> The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have
> thought.
>
> --- In
> , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To:
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> > Subject: RE: consanguinity
> >
> >
> > > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > > unusual at all!!!
> >
> >
> > That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> > that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over,
> with
> > the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were
> siblings
> > *to each other*.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As
> did many of the Pharaohs]

And their lines tended to die out in genetic disease.

> While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said
> defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect
> occur.

But nearly everybody carries at least some genetic diseases (and my degree
in Biological Science was mainly in genetics!) - and we see that Richard and
Anne's only child died very young, one of George and Isabel's sons died in
early infancy and the other had some kind of mental health issue.

I've got a theory about that, btw. George's erratic behaviour suggests he
might have been either a paranoid schozophrenic or bipoloar, both of which
can run in families and both of which tend not to be obvious in young
children. Rather than being of low IQ - which would sit oddly with somebody
addressing a letter to him as a serving member of the local council, or
whatever it was - I suspect Edward of Warwick appeared perfectly normal when
Richard appointed him as his heir, and then a few months later disturbing
news reached Richard which suggested the boy was showing the first signs of
the same mental illness his father had, and he had to do a fast rethink. He
was probably alive to the symptoms, having had to live with George a lot
when he was a boy.

That is fascinating&..and would certainly explain a great deal!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: consanguinity



From: Arthurian
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As
> did many of the Pharaohs]

And their lines tended to die out in genetic disease.

> While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said
> defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect
> occur.

But nearly everybody carries at least some genetic diseases (and my degree
in Biological Science was mainly in genetics!) - and we see that Richard and
Anne's only child died very young, one of George and Isabel's sons died in
early infancy and the other had some kind of mental health issue.

I've got a theory about that, btw. George's erratic behaviour suggests he
might have been either a paranoid schozophrenic or bipoloar, both of which
can run in families and both of which tend not to be obvious in young
children. Rather than being of low IQ - which would sit oddly with somebody
addressing a letter to him as a serving member of the local council, or
whatever it was - I suspect Edward of Warwick appeared perfectly normal when
Richard appointed him as his heir, and then a few months later disturbing
news reached Richard which suggested the boy was showing the first signs of
the same mental illness his father had, and he had to do a fast rethink. He
was probably alive to the symptoms, having had to live with George a lot
when he was a boy.

Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
time. Isabel and Fernando were cousins: her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
who became King of Aragon. His grandson was Fernando. One very telling
detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II). Nothing daunted, the
fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate." "Sure thing,
Pop."). They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through. With
that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.

(It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
She was born October 2, 1470. It must be said that, from the PoV of the
Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
House of Avis twice - she was widowed once. She died in childbirth. Her
son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them too
> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> was OK or not.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage was
> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all this
> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
>
> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more difficult
> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> Rome.
>
> Carol
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.

It's not that. I see I shall have to dig out the family trees (I think I
used ones in Paul Murray Kendall) and re-do the work, since I can't remember
the details after 30-odd years, but it was something to the general effect
that they only had nine great-grandparents between them instead of sixteen,
because they were multiply descended from the same people.

Which resulted in a hereditary trait for a jutting lower jaw known as the "Habsburg Lip"  

http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/images/Habsburg_family_tree_09.jpg




________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: consanguinity

Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
time.  Isabel and Fernando were cousins:  her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
who became King of Aragon.  His grandson was Fernando.  One very telling
detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II).  Nothing daunted, the
fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate."  "Sure thing,
Pop.").  They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through.  With
that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.

(It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
She was born October 2, 1470.  It must be said that, from the PoV of the
Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
House of Avis twice - she was widowed once.  She died in childbirth.  Her
son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them too
> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> was OK or not.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage was
> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all this
> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
>
> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more difficult
> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> Rome.
>
> Carol
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Full page on the Habsburg malady:

http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/index.php/genetic-inheritance/dominant



________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: consanguinity

Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
time.  Isabel and Fernando were cousins:  her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
who became King of Aragon.  His grandson was Fernando.  One very telling
detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II).  Nothing daunted, the
fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate."  "Sure thing,
Pop.").  They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through.  With
that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.

(It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
She was born October 2, 1470.  It must be said that, from the PoV of the
Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
House of Avis twice - she was widowed once.  She died in childbirth.  Her
son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them too
> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> was OK or not.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage was
> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all this
> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
>
> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more difficult
> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> Rome.
>
> Carol
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Claire M Jordan wrote:
[snip]
> But nearly everybody carries at least some genetic diseases (and my degree in Biological Science was mainly in genetics!) - and we see that Richard and Anne's only child died very young, one of George and Isabel's sons died in early infancy and the other had some kind of mental health issue.
>
>[snip] I suspect Edward of Warwick appeared perfectly normal when > Richard appointed him as his heir, and then a few months later disturbing news reached Richard which suggested the boy was showing the first signs of the same mental illness his father had, and he had to do a fast rethink. [snip]

Carol responds:

Leaving out George for now (he's an enigma and I'm no psychologist}. I'll just talk about poor Edward of Warwick (whose sister Margaret, BTW, was quite normal and executed by Henry VIII in her sixties. There was also a stillborn son before Margaret's birth.)

Edward of Warwick has the reputation of being mentally deficient, but that stems from Tudor times when he ostensibly couldn't tell a goose from a capon (neutered male chicken). But think about his circumstances. His father died when he was about three (I don't have time to check dates). His uncle Edward IV gave him into the custody of his stepson, Thomas Grey, the Marquis of Dorset, who would have profited greatly from such a lucrative wardship. How Dorset raised him, I don't know, but bearing in mind that his family had no love for George of Clarence, he probably didn't treat the boy as an adopted son or share a home with him. He must have had some education, however, since when Richard came to the throne, one of his first acts was to place the boy with Queen Anne, his aunt by both blood and marriage, and later he seems to have ended up, perhaps with his sister, Margaret, in that mysterious "nursery" at Sheriff Hutton under the care and guidance of his older cousin, John, Earl of Lincoln (son of Richard's sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk). Richard gave Edward, at least nominally, a position on the Council of the North and seems to have hoped to make him a loyal and useful subject very much as he had been to Edward (and John was to him).

The story that Richard intended to make Edward of Warwick his heir (which would be contrary to his interests since Warwick had been barred from the succession by his father's attainder as outlined in Titulus Regius) was put out by Rous, who apparently thought that little Warwick had been slighted in favor of John of Lincoln. It's true that Richard made John Lieutenant of Ireland, a position often given to the heir to the throne, but he never officially appointed anyone as his heir after Edward of Middleham died. Instead, after Anne also died, he made marriage plans (a dynastic necessity).

The two years of Richard's reign were perhaps the only normal part of Edward's life other than his few years of infancy. On Richard's death, he and his sister were placed in Margaret's custody. During the Lambert Simnel rebellion he was briefly displayed to prove that he was in Henry's hands, after which he was placed in the Tower in what must have been the type of custody that Richard was rumored to have provided for his other nephews--strictly controlled and inaccessible. There is, to my knowledge, no record of any tutor or any form of education provided to him. Later, Henry placed him with the newly captured Perkin Warbeck, probably to trap the poor, innocent, gullible young man into plotting, or appearing to plot, with the "pretender." That, of course, gave him an excuse to execute a genuine Yorkist heir whose claim was far superior to Henry's own.

I may have made a few errors because I'm typing from memory here and don't have dates readily available, but I certainly don't think the case of the poor abused Earl of Warwick provides any evidence for a strain of mental illness in the House of York.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Edward of Warwick has the reputation of being mentally deficient, but that
> stems from Tudor times when he ostensibly couldn't tell a goose from a
> capon (neutered male chicken).

Which could mean a lot of things, including a euphemistic way of saying that
he was gay or transexual.

> I may have made a few errors because I'm typing from memory here and don't
> have dates readily available, but I certainly don't think the case of the
> poor abused Earl of Warwick provides any evidence for a strain of mental
> illness in the House of York.

Well, it depends on whether Rous was right about him being named as heir and
then de-selected. If he was, then it suggests he seemed OK and then Richard
found out something which made him less of a good choice. If not, then we
only have the fact that he was being trained as a functioning noble and then
later was in whatever state is intended by the goose and capon comment,
which might be due to being institutionalised.

That is wonderful, and I love the One Two (Juan II)!!!

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:32 PM, "david rayner" <theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian@...>> wrote:



Which resulted in a hereditary trait for a jutting lower jaw known as the "Habsburg Lip"

http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/images/Habsburg_family_tree_09.jpg

________________________________
From: Maria Torres ejbronte@...<mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: consanguinity

Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
time. Isabel and Fernando were cousins: her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
who became King of Aragon. His grandson was Fernando. One very telling
detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II). Nothing daunted, the
fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate." "Sure thing,
Pop."). They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through. With
that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.

(It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
She was born October 2, 1470. It must be said that, from the PoV of the
Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
House of Avis twice - she was widowed once. She died in childbirth. Her
son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).

Maria
ejbronte@...<mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them too
> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> was OK or not.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage was
> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all this
> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
>
> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more difficult
> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> Rome.
>
> Carol
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

That is amazing, awful, and wow......watch out if you fall in love with your uncle (ehw....I adored my mother's baby brother, but he was always just a wonderful, handsome, prince, who married the most beautiful lady, and made HER a princess)!

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:34 PM, "david rayner" <theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian@...>> wrote:



Full page on the Habsburg malady:

http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/index.php/genetic-inheritance/dominant

________________________________
From: Maria Torres ejbronte@...<mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: consanguinity

Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
time. Isabel and Fernando were cousins: her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
who became King of Aragon. His grandson was Fernando. One very telling
detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II). Nothing daunted, the
fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate." "Sure thing,
Pop."). They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through. With
that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.

(It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
She was born October 2, 1470. It must be said that, from the PoV of the
Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
House of Avis twice - she was widowed once. She died in childbirth. Her
son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).

Maria
ejbronte@...<mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them too
> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> was OK or not.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage was
> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all this
> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
>
> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more difficult
> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> Rome.
>
> Carol
>
>
>



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Carol earlier:
> > Edward of Warwick has the reputation of being mentally deficient, but that stems from Tudor times when he ostensibly couldn't tell a goose from a capon (neutered male chicken).

Claire responded:
> Which could mean a lot of things, including a euphemistic way of saying that he was gay or transexual.

Carol responds:

Since he never got out of the Tower (except once to be put on display), he never had the chance for any sex life at all--which may have been the point of the comment. I've been criticized for thinking that it had sexual connotations, but a fifteenth- or early sixteenth-century commentator would have known that a goose was female and a capon a neutered male (unlike modern usage, which normally doesn't distinguish "goose" from "gander"). Given the part of the quotation that I left out ("in the dark") I don't think that it related to food. It may have meant "would not have known a woman )goose) from a castrated man (capon) in the dark," meaning that he had no sexual experience--which under the circumstances is probably true.

The statement has generally been taken to mean that he was mentally defective, but I think that anyone who has studied Chaucer (fourteenth century) or Shakespeare (sixteenth century) will allow for the possibility that it meant something altogether different. But he probably was not quite normal mentally and emotionally, either, after his long confinement and so much abuse and neglect in his short lifetime. Another victim of Bosworth though he was only about ten at the time.

I believe that Annette discusses the point about his never having been Richard's heir in "The Maligned King" if anyone wants to check.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Arthurian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> > Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As
> > did many of the Pharaohs]
>
> And their lines tended to die out in genetic disease.
>
> > While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said
> > defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect
> > occur.
>
> But nearly everybody carries at least some genetic diseases (and my degree
> in Biological Science was mainly in genetics!) - and we see that Richard and
> Anne's only child died very young, one of George and Isabel's sons died in
> early infancy and the other had some kind of mental health issue.
>


Inspired by this discussion, I entered Edward of Middleham's pedigree (7 generations) into an inbreeding coefficient calculator meant for dogs' pedigrees. (Yes, folks, I typed in every single name by hand. Yes, I'm a nerd with no life whatsoever. Yes, this was a rather pointless exercise. You're welcome!)

Inbreeding coefficient percentage was 4.8%. This is not bad - for an individual (dog) it shouldn't go over 6.25%, which is a typical first-cousin mating; though in a healthy population it should ideally be under 3%. 10% has been stated as the max. for rare dog breeds. (In other words, no marrying nieces! Ahem.)

More worrying was the ancestor loss coefficient, which was 72%. It shouldn't go under 85%. The ideal is obviously 100% which means that 100% of the ancestors in the pedigree are separate individuals. The lower the number, the more ancestors in common on all sides.

In other words, judging by this, Richard and Anne weren't too close a match in themselves, but they came from a genetically homogeneous population. From a canine point of view, not inbreeding, but a pretty typical example of line-breeding taken a bit too far - disastrous for the population in the long term, but the closeness of this one match probably wasn't enough in itself to explain any specific health or fertility problems.

Nothing we didn't already know, but it was still interesting to see that pedigree as a whole with my own eyes. Looking at it from this point of view made me realise just how impressively illustrious a match it was!

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Since he never got out of the Tower (except once to be put on display), he
> never had the chance for any sex life at all--which may have been the
> point of the comment.

Well - unless he and Warbeck were lovers. And do we know in what conditions
they were kept? They must have been closely guarded but that doesn't rule
out diversions such as chess, and perhaps even the occasional prostitute.

> I've been criticized for thinking that it had sexual connotations, but a
> fifteenth- or early sixteenth-century commentator would have known that a
> goose was female and a capon a neutered male

And as such, "capon" could very well be slang for an effeminate homosexual
man.

> (unlike modern usage, which normally doesn't distinguish "goose" from
> "gander"). Given the part of the quotation that I left out ("in the dark")
> I don't think that it related to food.

Well - it could do. It could mean "He can't distinguish them by taste
alone." But goose and capon are fairly similar, except that goose is more
greasy, so if they were talking about an inability to distinguish types of
meat I would have thought they'd say e.g. "Can't tell goose from beef."

> But he probably was not quite normal mentally and emotionally, either,
> after his long confinement and so much abuse and neglect in his short
> lifetime. Another victim of Bosworth though he was only about ten at the
> time.

Most of them seem to have had pretty stressful lives, one way and another.
Richard and George had their father and brother killed and then were sent
into exile as children, much of the time not knowing whether their other
brother was alive or dead, but knowing that their father's head had been cut
off and stuck on a pike. Henry Tudor was ripped from his family when he was
just a toddler and sent abroad to be raised as a French pawn. Henry's
mother was raped and made pregnant when she was eleven or twelve. Anne was
married to Edward of Lancaster who sounds like a right little thug, and then
given over into George's unreliable care.

It could.  Equally it could be a medieval way of saying "he doesn't know his arse from his elbow" which I have said of my own brother on occasion.   (There's nothing mentally deficient about my brother though!)


From: Claire M Jordan
 Which could mean a lot of things, including a euphemistic way of saying that  he was gay or transexual.

>

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 1:02
Subject: Re: consanguinity

 
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> Since he never got out of the Tower (except once to be put on display), he
> never had the chance for any sex life at all--which may have been the
> point of the comment.

Well - unless he and Warbeck were lovers.
 
Liz replied:  all I'll say is that you are the first person I've heard suggest THAT!  Personally I'd imagine it was highly unlikely

Though there's evidence that the lovely Habsburg jaw came from Philip's
side of the family:
http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-jaw.htm


Maria
ejbronte@...








On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, david rayner
<theblackprussian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Which resulted in a hereditary trait for a jutting lower jaw known as the
> "Habsburg Lip"
>
> http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/images/Habsburg_family_tree_09.jpg
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maria Torres ejbronte@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
>
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
> Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
> time. Isabel and Fernando were cousins: her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
> we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
> who became King of Aragon. His grandson was Fernando. One very telling
> detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
> dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II). Nothing daunted, the
> fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
> Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate." "Sure thing,
> Pop."). They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
> their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through. With
> that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
> where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
> of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.
>
> (It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
> She was born October 2, 1470. It must be said that, from the PoV of the
> Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
> House of Avis twice - she was widowed once. She died in childbirth. Her
> son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
> next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
> Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Claire wrote:
> > > I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> > dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> > relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> > assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them
> too
> > and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> > understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> > was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> > was OK or not.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> > having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage
> was
> > invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> > someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all
> this
> > up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
> >
> > Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> > In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> > sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> > that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> > his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more
> difficult
> > matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> > Rome.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

  I 'Bow' to your superior knowledge, however the desire to retain property 'In the family' seems to have over-ridden the known risk. Though I understood to a degree even in the late fifteenth century 
'Papal Dispensations' were quite common for the nobility.      


  In our 'Modern age' [Even in Britain.] some ethnic minority groups mainly from Pakistan, knowingly run the dangers of this occurring by cousin marriage, indeed several 'High profile' murder cases have occurred when promised 'Cousin Marriages' have not gone through, marriages which ostensibly are intended to retain property and/or to gain the right of residence in Britain for the bridegroom.  

  The law does NOT forbid cousin marriage in Britain, though perhaps it should. 

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 0:36
>Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> 
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: Arthurian
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>>
>>
>> > Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As
>> > did many of the Pharaohs]
>>
>> And their lines tended to die out in genetic disease.
>>
>> > While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said
>> > defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect
>> > occur.
>>
>> But nearly everybody carries at least some genetic diseases (and my degree
>> in Biological Science was mainly in genetics!) - and we see that Richard and
>> Anne's only child died very young, one of George and Isabel's sons died in
>> early infancy and the other had some kind of mental health issue.
>>
>
>Inspired by this discussion, I entered Edward of Middleham's pedigree (7 generations) into an inbreeding coefficient calculator meant for dogs' pedigrees. (Yes, folks, I typed in every single name by hand. Yes, I'm a nerd with no life whatsoever. Yes, this was a rather pointless exercise. You're welcome!)
>
>Inbreeding coefficient percentage was 4.8%. This is not bad - for an individual (dog) it shouldn't go over 6.25%, which is a typical first-cousin mating; though in a healthy population it should ideally be under 3%. 10% has been stated as the max. for rare dog breeds. (In other words, no marrying nieces! Ahem.)
>
>More worrying was the ancestor loss coefficient, which was 72%. It shouldn't go under 85%. The ideal is obviously 100% which means that 100% of the ancestors in the pedigree are separate individuals. The lower the number, the more ancestors in common on all sides.
>
>In other words, judging by this, Richard and Anne weren't too close a match in themselves, but they came from a genetically homogeneous population. From a canine point of view, not inbreeding, but a pretty typical example of line-breeding taken a bit too far - disastrous for the population in the long term, but the closeness of this one match probably wasn't enough in itself to explain any specific health or fertility problems.
>
>Nothing we didn't already know, but it was still interesting to see that pedigree as a whole with my own eyes. Looking at it from this point of view made me realise just how impressively illustrious a match it was!
>
>
>
>
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> > Which could mean a lot of things, including a euphemistic way of saying
that he was gay or transexual.

> It could. Equally it could be a medieval way of saying "he doesn't know
> his arse from his elbow" which I have said of my own brother on occasion.
> (There's nothing mentally deficient about my brother though!)

Good point. And the inclusion of "in the dark" could be along the same
lines as "...can't find his own arse without an atlas". But then you have
the same problem as with it being about food, i.e. that goose and capon
probably aren't all that strikingly different and you'd expect that two
things which were being used to mean "He's so confused he can't tell two
obviously different things apart" would be more obviously different.

It could, of course, be an established sexual euphemism along the lines of
"He can't tell Arthur from Martha" which is here being used in a non-sexual
context to mean "He's so confused he can't tell two obviously different
things apart".

Incidentally - hands up who noticed that a hog is a *castrated* boar and
that the "...Ruleth all England under a hog" tag is mocking Richard's
failure to father another legitimate heir? [Which was presumably Ann's
problem, not his, since he had two or three bastards.]

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> > Well - unless he and Warbeck were lovers.

> Liz replied: all I'll say is that you are the first person I've heard
> suggest THAT! Personally I'd imagine it was highly unlikely

Two young men shut in together without any other outlet - and from the
Lionheart all the way down to Mountbatten, a significant proportion of
British Royals have traditionally been gay or bi. It would be statistically
surprising if there wasn't at least one gay member of the York family.

Wow, certainly not "lookers" are they? How sad.....

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:44 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:

> Though there's evidence that the lovely Habsburg jaw came from Philip's
> side of the family:
> http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-jaw.htm
>
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, david rayner
> <theblackprussian@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Which resulted in a hereditary trait for a jutting lower jaw known as the
>> "Habsburg Lip"
>>
>> http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/images/Habsburg_family_tree_09.jpg
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Maria Torres ejbronte@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
>>
>> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>>
>> Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
>> time. Isabel and Fernando were cousins: her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
>> we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
>> who became King of Aragon. His grandson was Fernando. One very telling
>> detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
>> dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II). Nothing daunted, the
>> fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
>> Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate." "Sure thing,
>> Pop."). They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
>> their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through. With
>> that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
>> where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
>> of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.
>>
>> (It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
>> She was born October 2, 1470. It must be said that, from the PoV of the
>> Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
>> House of Avis twice - she was widowed once. She died in childbirth. Her
>> son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
>> next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
>> Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).
>>
>> Maria
>> ejbronte@...
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Claire wrote:
>>>> I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
>>> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
>>> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
>>> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them
>> too
>>> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
>>> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
>>> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
>>> was OK or not.
>>>
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
>>> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage
>> was
>>> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
>>> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all
>> this
>>> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
>>>
>>> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
>>> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
>>> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
>>> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
>>> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more
>> difficult
>>> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
>>> Rome.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

And why was HE blamed. Other kings, including our Tudor friends, put the blame entirely on the woman!

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:30 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: liz williams
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> > Which could mean a lot of things, including a euphemistic way of saying
that he was gay or transexual.

> It could. Equally it could be a medieval way of saying "he doesn't know
> his arse from his elbow" which I have said of my own brother on occasion.
> (There's nothing mentally deficient about my brother though!)

Good point. And the inclusion of "in the dark" could be along the same
lines as "...can't find his own arse without an atlas". But then you have
the same problem as with it being about food, i.e. that goose and capon
probably aren't all that strikingly different and you'd expect that two
things which were being used to mean "He's so confused he can't tell two
obviously different things apart" would be more obviously different.

It could, of course, be an established sexual euphemism along the lines of
"He can't tell Arthur from Martha" which is here being used in a non-sexual
context to mean "He's so confused he can't tell two obviously different
things apart".

Incidentally - hands up who noticed that a hog is a *castrated* boar and
that the "...Ruleth all England under a hog" tag is mocking Richard's
failure to father another legitimate heir? [Which was presumably Ann's
problem, not his, since he had two or three bastards.]

That's a good point Pamela. It's only quite recently that failure to conceive a child included considering men.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 12:39
Subject: Re: consanguinity

And why was HE blamed. Other kings, including our Tudor friends, put the blame entirely on the woman!

On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:30 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: liz williams
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> > Which could mean a lot of things, including a euphemistic way of saying
that he was gay or transexual.

> It could. Equally it could be a medieval way of saying "he doesn't know
> his arse from his elbow" which I have said of my own brother on occasion.
> (There's nothing mentally deficient about my brother though!)

Good point. And the inclusion of "in the dark" could be along the same
lines as "...can't find his own arse without an atlas". But then you have
the same problem as with it being about food, i.e. that goose and capon
probably aren't all that strikingly different and you'd expect that two
things which were being used to mean "He's so confused he can't tell two
obviously different things apart" would be more obviously different.

It could, of course, be an established sexual euphemism along the lines of
"He can't tell Arthur from Martha" which is here being used in a non-sexual
context to mean "He's so confused he can't tell two obviously different
things apart".

Incidentally - hands up who noticed that a hog is a *castrated* boar and
that the "...Ruleth all England under a hog" tag is mocking Richard's
failure to father another legitimate heir? [Which was presumably Ann's
problem, not his, since he had two or three bastards.]









------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> And why was HE blamed. Other kings, including our Tudor friends, put the
> blame entirely on the woman!

Because he was the one the rhyme was intended to bait.

Also, of course, if the "can't tell a goose from a capon in the dark" comment is the sexual reference it certainly sounds as though it could be, the person who made it would have to have had a reason to think young Warwick was gay. That could mean that he was overtly effeminate, or it could mean that he was known to have a male lover. If the latter, Warbeck is really the only known candidate.


----- Original Message -----
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity



From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: consanguinity

> > Well - unless he and Warbeck were lovers.

> Liz replied: all I'll say is that you are the first person I've heard
> suggest THAT! Personally I'd imagine it was highly unlikely

Two young men shut in together without any other outlet - and from the
Lionheart all the way down to Mountbatten, a significant proportion of
British Royals have traditionally been gay or bi. It would be statistically
surprising if there wasn't at least one gay member of the York family.

With regard to Lionheart being gay, Sharon K Penman, who has done a fantastic amount of research into Richard I, believes that he wasn't gay. I think if I remember rightly she believes that he had a certain cameraderie with his troops because he spent a lot of time with them. Also in her book "Lionheart" Berengaria is with him in the Holy Land for quite a considerable time. My impression before I read it was that he and Berengaria were hardly ever in the same country let alone one anothers company. Unlike Alison Weir Sharon researches her books extremely well.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:40 AM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> > > Well - unless he and Warbeck were lovers.
>
> > Liz replied: all I'll say is that you are the first person I've heard
> > suggest THAT! Personally I'd imagine it was highly unlikely
>
> Two young men shut in together without any other outlet - and from the
> Lionheart all the way down to Mountbatten, a significant proportion of
> British Royals have traditionally been gay or bi. It would be statistically
> surprising if there wasn't at least one gay member of the York family.
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Well - unless he and Warbeck were lovers. And do we know in what conditions they were kept? They must have been closely guarded but that doesn't rule out diversions such as chess, and perhaps even the occasional prostitute. [snip]

Carol responds:

The only evidence that we have is to the contrary, an apparently happy marriage between Perkin Warbeck and Katherine Gordon. I seriously doubt that Henry brought in prostitutes to serve his prisoners' sexual needs. Can we agree to disagree on this as there's no way to prove it either way?

Carol

liz williams wrote:
>
> It could.  Equally it could be a medieval way of saying "he doesn't know his arse from his elbow" which I have said of my own brother on occasion.   (There's nothing mentally deficient about my brother though!)

Carol responds:

That's how it's usually read, as in "He doesn't know a goose from a chicken," which could indicate mental deficiency or simply limited experience of the outside world. (He would not have seen any living fowl since he was ten.) I still think that "capon" and perhaps "goose" had connotations to the late medieval/early Renaissance mind that they don't have for us, but I'm not going to pursue the point. I'm not even sure by whom or in what context the remark was made.

Carol

Claire wrote:
> Incidentally - hands up who noticed that a hog is a *castrated* boar and that the "...Ruleth all England under a hog" tag is mocking Richard's failure to father another legitimate heir? [Which was presumably Ann's problem, not his, since he had two or three bastards.]
>
Carol responds:

Possibly. Personally, I think he used "hog" because it rhymed (and fit nicely into his domestic menagerie). "Under a boar" not only would not have rhymed but has no ring to it.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity



> The only evidence that we have is to the contrary, an apparently happy
> marriage between Perkin Warbeck and Katherine Gordon.

OK.

> I seriously doubt that Henry brought in prostitutes to serve his
> prisoners' sexual needs.

Indeed - but the guards at the Tower seem to have been willing to provide
perks if a prisoner's family paid enough for their upkeep, and that might
easily be one of them. At any rate, you were arguing in favour of the
goose/capon thing being a sexual comment, and if it was, there was
presumably some reason for it.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> Also, of course, if the "can't tell a goose from a capon in the dark" comment is the sexual reference it certainly sounds as though it could be, the person who made it would have to have had a reason to think young Warwick was gay. That could mean that he was overtly effeminate, or it could mean that he was known to have a male lover. If the latter, Warbeck is really the only known candidate.

Carol responds:

Can you find any evidence that Edward of Warwick was ever seen outside the Tower after Henry had paraded him publicly to prove that Lambert Simnel was an imposter? I'm afraid that you are taking your own interpretation of the rhyme as fact. He was hidden from public view from the time he was twelve to the time of his death at twenty-four. BTW, the comment comes from Hall, the unreliable chronicler who depicted the seventeen-year-old Edmund of Rutland as a "maidenly" boy of twelve, who came up with the goose-capon comment. It is highly unlikely that Hall ever saw the young earl.

More important, I had forgotten the first part of the quotation: "He had been out of sight of men and beasts so long that. . ." In other words, whether or not there is a sexual connotation, he was isolated and naive.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Can you find any evidence that Edward of Warwick was ever seen outside the
> Tower after Henry had paraded him publicly to prove that Lambert Simnel
> was an imposter? I'm afraid that you are taking your own interpretation of
> the rhyme as fact.

Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm looking at what the implications would be if the
interpretation which *you yourself supported*, and which you commented that
you had previously been criticised for suggesting, was correct. *If* it's a
sexual reference, which you thought it almost certanly was because of the
"in the dark" thing, and I thought it possibly might be - although I pointed
out that that could still refer to food, although you thought it couldn't -
then there must have been a reason for it. *If* it's a reference to sexual
ambivalance, then either he was overtly effeminate/androgynous or he must
have been observed to behave in a sexual way towards males, and he was a
priosner since before he hit puberty, so any such sexual activity would have
to have occurred while he was a prisoner. But - as I already pointed out
when you said it didn't sound as if it referred to food - the "in the dark"
bit could mean "not by taste alone".

Ooh, ooh, look up a good pic of the bust of Archduke Charles of Teschen. I was quite taken with him as a wee thing.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Wow, certainly not "lookers" are they? How sad.....
>
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:44 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> > Though there's evidence that the lovely Habsburg jaw came from Philip's
> > side of the family:
> > http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-jaw.htm
> >
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:30 PM, david rayner
> > <theblackprussian@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Which resulted in a hereditary trait for a jutting lower jaw known as the
> >> "Habsburg Lip"
> >>
> >> http://powerofthegene.com/joomla/images/Habsburg_family_tree_09.jpg
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Maria Torres ejbronte@...>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 20:45
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: consanguinity
> >>
> >> Although, on the Iberian Penninsula, this sort of thing went on all the
> >> time. Isabel and Fernando were cousins: her father, Juan II ("One-Two",
> >> we call him in our family) had a younger brother, Fernando de Antequera,
> >> who became King of Aragon. His grandson was Fernando. One very telling
> >> detail of this very eventful courtship was that the Pope refused to grant a
> >> dispensation to Fernando's father (another Juan II). Nothing daunted, the
> >> fox from whom Fernando was descended forged a dispensation and gave it to
> >> Fernando ("Just don't tell Izzy till after you consummate." "Sure thing,
> >> Pop."). They did get the dispensation; I forget, at the moment, whether
> >> their eldest daughter, Isabel, was already born when it came through. With
> >> that kind of attitude toward Papal dispensations, incidentally, you can see
> >> where Fernando was coming from when it came time to re-negotiate Catherine
> >> of Aragon's position after Arthur's death.
> >>
> >> (It was probably Isabel the younger Richard would have been considering.
> >> She was born October 2, 1470. It must be said that, from the PoV of the
> >> Catholic Kings, she was meant for Portugal, and, in fact, married into the
> >> House of Avis twice - she was widowed once. She died in childbirth. Her
> >> son Miguel died before the age of 3 - you can see his coffin in Granada,
> >> next to his grandparents and Juana la Loca with Philip the Handsome.
> >> Isabel's widower went on to marry Isabel's younger sister, Maria).
> >>
> >> Maria
> >> ejbronte@...
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM, justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> **
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Claire wrote:
> >>>> I don't think it even matters whether Richard and Ann had a
> >>> dispensation, so long as they knew George and Isabel did. Since the
> >>> relationship between the two couples was identical, they could reasonably
> >>> assume that anything which applied to their elder sibs applied to them
> >> too
> >>> and that getting it confirmed was just paperwork. And they didn't really
> >>> understand about inbreeding or why it was a bad idea to marry someone who
> >>> was practically your sister, they only went by whether the church said it
> >>> was OK or not.
> >>>
> >>> Carol responds:
> >>>
> >>> You're right that they had no idea of the dangers of inbreeding, but
> >>> having the proper dispensations did matter; without them, the marriage
> >> was
> >>> invalid and could be annulled at any time. Which is why I'm hoping that
> >>> someone will provide the link to Marie's article, which will clear all
> >> this
> >>> up. Or Marie herself will catch up on posts and provide the answer!
> >>>
> >>> Also, I wouldn't call a first cousin once removed practically his sister.
> >>> In any case, he would have had no choice but to marry a cousin of some
> >>> sort. Both Joanna of Portugal and the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella
> >>> that he considered as a back-up choice were his distant cousins. Marrying
> >>> his niece, had he actually considered it, would have been a more
> >> difficult
> >>> matter, but even that was possible if you could pull the right strings in
> >>> Rome.
> >>>
> >>> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi,
Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.

These are the facts:-

1) The fact that George and Isabel had already married made no difference to Richard's ability to marry Anne; it created NO further impediment whatsoever. This was not what the impediment of affinity was about.

2) It seems that Warwick wanted both the King's brothers for his daughters, so would almost ceertainly have tried toget dispensations for both marriages from the Vatican.

3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too.

4) We know about George and Isabel's dispensation because Dugdale found a copy - the couple's own, presumably - and copied the details into a book; the original is now lost. And during the Re-adeption the Pope boasted about having provided the dispensation for the marriage. He would not at that time have mentioned any dispensation granted for Gloucester (now a Yorkist traitor) to marry Anne, who was now the Lancastrian princess of Wales.

5) Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster created a new, though rather weak, impediment to their marriage, ie affinity in the 3rd and 4th degrees, because of Prince Edward's relationship to Richard. A dispensation from this was granted in April 1472, and was discovered in the archives of the Papal Penitentiary in 2005. This is the dispensation Michael Hicks claimed was a con, because sadly Michael Hicks didn't understand the impediment of affinity, missed the problem caused by the marriage to Prince Edward altogether and substituted a spurious one based on George's marriage to Isabel.

Affinity had to do with becoming one flesh with one's spouse - you became related by affinity to your partner's relations in the same degrees as said partner was related to them by consanguinity (blood). But your family DIDN'T become related by affinity to their family.

I hope that clears thing up.

Marie







--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes that's right. Warwick's father and Cecily, Richard's mother were brother and sister so Richard and Warwick were cousins. Second cousin is the only term I can come up with   H.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 14:33
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
> > Well they were second cousins
>
> I know I said second cousins too, but actually I think they were first
> cousins once removed. Richard was first cousin to Anne's father.
>
> > and that and even cousins has been permitted for years.
>
> Yes, but they were cousins several times over, on multiple lines of descent.
> Siblings on average share 50% of their genetic material. As first cousins
> once removed, if they were only that, I think Richard and Anne should have
> shared just over 6% of their genetic material but I know I once plotted
> their family line back about four or five generations, and worked out that
> they had so many recent ancestors in common that they actually shared about
> 40%.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Of course, the 'two shall become one flesh' thing - excellent post Marie

Regards

Aidan


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


 
Hi,
Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.

These are the facts:-

1) The fact that George and Isabel had already married made no difference to Richard's ability to marry Anne; it created NO further impediment whatsoever. This was not what the impediment of affinity was about.

2) It seems that Warwick wanted both the King's brothers for his daughters, so would almost ceertainly have tried toget dispensations for both marriages from the Vatican.

3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too.

4) We know about George and Isabel's dispensation because Dugdale found a copy - the couple's own, presumably - and copied the details into a book; the original is now lost. And during the Re-adeption the Pope boasted about having provided the dispensation for the marriage. He would not at that time have mentioned any dispensation granted for Gloucester (now a Yorkist traitor) to marry Anne, who was now the Lancastrian princess of Wales.

5) Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster created a new, though rather weak, impediment to their marriage, ie affinity in the 3rd and 4th degrees, because of Prince Edward's relationship to Richard. A dispensation from this was granted in April 1472, and was discovered in the archives of the Papal Penitentiary in 2005. This is the dispensation Michael Hicks claimed was a con, because sadly Michael Hicks didn't understand the impediment of affinity, missed the problem caused by the marriage to Prince Edward altogether and substituted a spurious one based on George's marriage to Isabel.

Affinity had to do with becoming one flesh with one's spouse - you became related by affinity to your partner's relations in the same degrees as said partner was related to them by consanguinity (blood). But your family DIDN'T become related by affinity to their family.

I hope that clears thing up.

Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Yes that's right. Warwick's father and Cecily, Richard's mother were brother and sister so Richard and Warwick were cousins. Second cousin is the only term I can come up with   H.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 14:33
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>  
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
> > Well they were second cousins
>
> I know I said second cousins too, but actually I think they were first
> cousins once removed. Richard was first cousin to Anne's father.
>
> > and that and even cousins has been permitted for years.
>
> Yes, but they were cousins several times over, on multiple lines of descent.
> Siblings on average share 50% of their genetic material. As first cousins
> once removed, if they were only that, I think Richard and Anne should have
> shared just over 6% of their genetic material but I know I once plotted
> their family line back about four or five generations, and worked out that
> they had so many recent ancestors in common that they actually shared about
> 40%.
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> 1) The fact that George and Isabel had already married made no difference
> to Richard's ability to marry Anne; it created NO further impediment
> whatsoever. This was not what the impediment of affinity was about.

Ung, I think you've missed the point about what we were discussing. I was
saying that since George was related to Isabel to exactly the same extent
and in the same way that Richard was related to Ann, then the fact that a
dispensation is known to have been granted to George and Isabel (whether
that was a sensible decision in genetic terms or not) means that there is no
reason why one wouldn't be granted to Richard and Ann, so their marriage was
legitimate (even if genetically unwise) - and even if it could be shown that
they married in haste without a dispensation, it would still be perfectly
reasonable for them to assume that their marriage was acceptable to the
church, because the marriage of their siblings had been acceptable to the
church.

Marie wrote:

> Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
>
> These are the facts:-
[Snip}
> 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}

Carol responds:

Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).

Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.

Carol

The haemophilia was brought into the russian royal family by Queen Victoria's granddaugher, and the last I heard Queen Victoria is supposed to have carried the gene, which she passed on to two of her daughters, as the result of a new mutation - ie it was not carried by her ancestors.
Marie



--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I know that the Russian Aristocracy was reported to suffer from Hemophilia,
> and several of the other lines had "problems"
>
> Perhaps the gene pool needed chlorine?
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Bain
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:04 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: consanguinity
>
>
>
>
>
> Like crazy as a bed bug????
>
> From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Katherine
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:02 AM
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
> But this was a problem for all the English nobility. It was such a small
> pool to go fishing in.
>
> Look at Percy/Neville marriages, for example. Ralph Neville's mother was a
> Percy, Hotspur's mother was a Neville and Ralph's daughter married Hotspur's
> son. And that's just off the top of my head.
>
> The situation must have given rise to certain genetic problems, I would have
> thought.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:36 PM
> > Subject: RE: consanguinity
> >
> >
> > > Heck, our neighbors in New Orleans, the Caballeros, two brother married
> > > two sisters, each had six children and they all looked the same! Not
> > > unusual at all!!!
> >
> >
> > That's not the issue - the issue is that their family tree was so tangled
> > that Richard was related to Ann (and George to Isabel) many times over,
> with
> > the result that they were nearly as closely related as if they were
> siblings
> > *to each other*.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Like porphyria in George III's line, and hemophilia in Victoria's. You never know which generation or which child it'll affect.


~Weds


--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As did many of the Pharaohs] 
> While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect occur.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur W.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Arthurian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> > Cousins can 'Happily' marry Cousins, Indeed Siblings can also marry, [As
> > did many of the Pharaohs]
>
> And their lines tended to die out in genetic disease.
>
> > While NOT Recommended ONLY IF a 'Genetic Defect Exists' And ONLY IF said
> > defect is matched in the cases in question, WILL a 'Palpable' defect
> > occur.
>
> But nearly everybody carries at least some genetic diseases (and my degree
> in Biological Science was mainly in genetics!) - and we see that Richard and
> Anne's only child died very young, one of George and Isabel's sons died in
> early infancy and the other had some kind of mental health issue.
>
> I've got a theory about that, btw. George's erratic behaviour suggests he
> might have been either a paranoid schozophrenic or bipoloar, both of which
> can run in families and both of which tend not to be obvious in young
> children. Rather than being of low IQ - which would sit oddly with somebody
> addressing a letter to him as a serving member of the local council, or
> whatever it was - I suspect Edward of Warwick appeared perfectly normal when
> Richard appointed him as his heir, and then a few months later disturbing
> news reached Richard which suggested the boy was showing the first signs of
> the same mental illness his father had, and he had to do a fast rethink. He
> was probably alive to the symptoms, having had to live with George a lot
> when he was a boy.
>


All the indications are that Edward of Warwick was of perfectly normal intelligence until after several years of confinement in the Tower.
Maqrie

Christine,
Only the dispensation for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster has turned up. The earlier one, for consanguinity, has not been found in the Vatican archives - nor has Clarence's although we know he had one.
Marie


--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
> The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
> Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>

Marie, but we are reasonably sure that they had one? It's Hick's proposition and apparently the larger public that Richard married Anne without dispensation so he could grab her lands( even though I don't know how that has anything to do with lands). Also so he can have a way out of the marriage! Why would he want to? I am in a bunch of history forums and this question pops up every so often! I wish to have an informed answer to this question .......Thank you in advance:)

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:50 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Christine,
> Only the dispensation for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster has turned up. The earlier one, for consanguinity, has not been found in the Vatican archives - nor has Clarence's although we know he had one.
> Marie
>
> --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> > Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
> > The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
> > Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
>
>

So has the "Human Shredder" been at work again and was he Robert Morton?

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity




Christine,
Only the dispensation for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster has turned up. The earlier one, for consanguinity, has not been found in the Vatican archives - nor has Clarence's although we know he had one.
Marie

--- In , C HOLMES wrote:
>
> Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
> The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
> Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
>
>

I suggest a compromise. This is Hall talking, isn't it, so it is not good evidence anyway. It does sound as though Hall was saying that, because Warwick had been locked away since childhood, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a female prostitute (goose) from a male eunuch (capon). But I don't think this means Hall was saying Warwick was gay, just totally ignorant about adult life. When we say today that a person doesn't know his arse from his elbow we don't literally mean he doesn't know the basics of anatomy, do we?
Marie



--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> > Can you find any evidence that Edward of Warwick was ever seen outside the
> > Tower after Henry had paraded him publicly to prove that Lambert Simnel
> > was an imposter? I'm afraid that you are taking your own interpretation of
> > the rhyme as fact.
>
> Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm looking at what the implications would be if the
> interpretation which *you yourself supported*, and which you commented that
> you had previously been criticised for suggesting, was correct. *If* it's a
> sexual reference, which you thought it almost certanly was because of the
> "in the dark" thing, and I thought it possibly might be - although I pointed
> out that that could still refer to food, although you thought it couldn't -
> then there must have been a reason for it. *If* it's a reference to sexual
> ambivalance, then either he was overtly effeminate/androgynous or he must
> have been observed to behave in a sexual way towards males, and he was a
> priosner since before he hit puberty, so any such sexual activity would have
> to have occurred while he was a prisoner. But - as I already pointed out
> when you said it didn't sound as if it referred to food - the "in the dark"
> bit could mean "not by taste alone".
>

To add to this, anyone in medieaval times who showed tendencies to be gay was soon earmarked and outlawed at this level in society - think Edward II and Gaveston. I'm sure some of the anti-York chroniclers would have had a field day.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:26
Subject: Re: consanguinity

 

I suggest a compromise. This is Hall talking, isn't it, so it is not good evidence anyway. It does sound as though Hall was saying that, because Warwick had been locked away since childhood, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a female prostitute (goose) from a male eunuch (capon). But I don't think this means Hall was saying Warwick was gay, just totally ignorant about adult life. When we say today that a person doesn't know his arse from his elbow we don't literally mean he doesn't know the basics of anatomy, do we?
Marie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:30 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> > Can you find any evidence that Edward of Warwick was ever seen outside the
> > Tower after Henry had paraded him publicly to prove that Lambert Simnel
> > was an imposter? I'm afraid that you are taking your own interpretation of
> > the rhyme as fact.
>
> Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm looking at what the implications would be if the
> interpretation which *you yourself supported*, and which you commented that
> you had previously been criticised for suggesting, was correct. *If* it's a
> sexual reference, which you thought it almost certanly was because of the
> "in the dark" thing, and I thought it possibly might be - although I pointed
> out that that could still refer to food, although you thought it couldn't -
> then there must have been a reason for it. *If* it's a reference to sexual
> ambivalance, then either he was overtly effeminate/androgynous or he must
> have been observed to behave in a sexual way towards males, and he was a
> priosner since before he hit puberty, so any such sexual activity would have
> to have occurred while he was a prisoner. But - as I already pointed out
> when you said it didn't sound as if it referred to food - the "in the dark"
> bit could mean "not by taste alone".
>

Didn't one of the chroniclers claim matter-of-factly that Buckingham was co-opted into rebellion by the magnificent dark eyes of some comely Frenchman?

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> To add to this, anyone in medieaval times who showed tendencies to be gay was soon earmarked and outlawed at this level in society - think Edward II and Gaveston. I'm sure some of the anti-York chroniclers would have had a field day.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:26
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>  
>
> I suggest a compromise. This is Hall talking, isn't it, so it is not good evidence anyway. It does sound as though Hall was saying that, because Warwick had been locked away since childhood, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a female prostitute (goose) from a male eunuch (capon). But I don't think this means Hall was saying Warwick was gay, just totally ignorant about adult life. When we say today that a person doesn't know his arse from his elbow we don't literally mean he doesn't know the basics of anatomy, do we?
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: consanguinity
> >
> >
> > > Can you find any evidence that Edward of Warwick was ever seen outside the
> > > Tower after Henry had paraded him publicly to prove that Lambert Simnel
> > > was an imposter? I'm afraid that you are taking your own interpretation of
> > > the rhyme as fact.
> >
> > Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm looking at what the implications would be if the
> > interpretation which *you yourself supported*, and which you commented that
> > you had previously been criticised for suggesting, was correct. *If* it's a
> > sexual reference, which you thought it almost certanly was because of the
> > "in the dark" thing, and I thought it possibly might be - although I pointed
> > out that that could still refer to food, although you thought it couldn't -
> > then there must have been a reason for it. *If* it's a reference to sexual
> > ambivalance, then either he was overtly effeminate/androgynous or he must
> > have been observed to behave in a sexual way towards males, and he was a
> > priosner since before he hit puberty, so any such sexual activity would have
> > to have occurred while he was a prisoner. But - as I already pointed out
> > when you said it didn't sound as if it referred to food - the "in the dark"
> > bit could mean "not by taste alone".
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
>
> I suggest a compromise. This is Hall talking, isn't it, so it is not good evidence anyway. It does sound as though Hall was saying that, because Warwick had been locked away since childhood, he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a female prostitute (goose) from a male eunuch (capon). But I don't think this means Hall was saying Warwick was gay, just totally ignorant about adult life. When we say today that a person doesn't know his arse from his elbow we don't literally mean he doesn't know the basics of anatomy, do we?

Carol responds:

Exactly. That was my point in the first place though apparently I didn't express it clearly.

Carol

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity


> Didn't one of the chroniclers claim matter-of-factly that Buckingham was
> co-opted into rebellion by the magnificent dark eyes of some comely
> Frenchman?

Dunno, but the contemporary king of Scotland, James III, is said to have
been gay or bi, although I don't know how strong the evidence is. James
I/VI famously was. In fact the main Stuart line died out in the end because
Bonnie Prince Charlie was a drunk and his brother Henry was a flambouyant
queen rather than a king (also a Catholic prelate, so he was doubly unable
to father a legitimate heir).

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
> > 1) The fact that George and Isabel had already married made no difference
> > to Richard's ability to marry Anne; it created NO further impediment
> > whatsoever. This was not what the impediment of affinity was about.
>
> Ung, I think you've missed the point about what we were discussing. I was
> saying that since George was related to Isabel to exactly the same extent
> and in the same way that Richard was related to Ann, then the fact that a
> dispensation is known to have been granted to George and Isabel (whether
> that was a sensible decision in genetic terms or not) means that there is no
> reason why one wouldn't be granted to Richard and Ann, so their marriage was
> legitimate (even if genetically unwise) - and even if it could be shown that
> they married in haste without a dispensation, it would still be perfectly
> reasonable for them to assume that their marriage was acceptable to the
> church, because the marriage of their siblings had been acceptable to the
> church.
>

Marie replies:-
Actually it wouldn't have been all right for them to marry without a dispensation, even though a similar one had been granted to their siblings. According to that reasoning, nobody would need to apply for a dispensation that anyone else had already been granted. Without the necessary dispensations for consanguinity and affinity Richard and Anne's marriage would have been void; these impediments are what is termed 'diriment', ie if undispensed they don't just get the couple into trouble, they render the marriage null and void. Some VIPs got away with marrying first and getting the dispensation later, but they might be refused it, and were not infrequently told to part for a year or so for penance.
We know that the impediment which arose late in the day, that of affinity in the 3rd & 4th degrees, was dispensed - ie Richard and Anne sent all the way to Rome to get it absolved - therefore the only logical conclusion is that they already had a dispensation for their blood relationships.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
> >
> > These are the facts:-
> [Snip}
> > 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).

Marie:
Oops! Yes, of course.

>
> Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.

Marie:
No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, but we are reasonably sure that they had one? It's Hick's proposition and apparently the larger public that Richard married Anne without dispensation so he could grab her lands( even though I don't know how that has anything to do with lands). Also so he can have a way out of the marriage! Why would he want to? I am in a bunch of history forums and this question pops up every so often! I wish to have an informed answer to this question .......Thank you in advance:)

Ishita, I've covered this so many times on this forum! I can send you my 2007 article if you would like. Anyway, here I go.
The notion that there was no dispensation started, so far as I can ascertain, with a tentative suggestion by James Gairdner in the 1890s, as he struggled to account for the reference to a possible future divorce in the 1474 settlement of the Beauchamp lands; but that only raised a new question, ie why no dispensation, which set Gairdner wondering if the marriage of George and Isabel might have set up an unabsolvable impediment. He was wrong about that.
From there it hardened into "tradition". No contemporary source was available at that time that stated Clarence's grounds for impugning the validity of the marriage. Ironically, that became avalible only a few years after Gairdner wrote but no one realised the significance. Clarence had conmplained that Richard had married Anne by force. This was a nullifying impediment, but what Clarence seems to have been talking about is only Richard's removal of Anne from the care of her lawful guardian, and since he placed her in sanctuary and she did not object to the marriage there was no case in canon law; nevertheless Clarence was probably using his objection as an excuse to put off agreeing to a property division with Richard.
As for Michaek Hicks, the draft of his 'Anne Neville' was just about to go to press when Peter Hammond told him a dispensation had been found for the marriage. Michael Hicks went into a tailspin, looked at the dispensation, saw it was just for a single impediment of affinity in the 3rd & 4th degrees and leapt on to Gairdner's suggestion, and declared that Richard and Anne had had to lie about the impediments because they were actually related, not just by the consanguinities we have discussed, but also by affinity in the first degree because of George's marriage to Isabel. He was simply wrong: there was no impediment caused by George and Isabel's marriage, and the dispensation was for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster, as I explained.
Would anne allow richard to marry her without a dispensation? I should think not. She knew all about dispensations.
Would Richard want to make a non-marriage? No,. It would mean his children would be bastards and could not inherit.
Did Richard need to marry Anne to "grab her lands"? No. The Nevilles and anne Beauchamp were all being treated as traitors and their lands had been confiscated. Richard had already been granted the Neville lands, to which Anne would not have been the heiress in any case. Clarence had been granted all the Beauchamp lands.
Most tellingly, that parliamentary settlement did not allow Richard to divorce Anne and keep everything. It only allowed him to keep the Beauchamp lands whilst he tried to effect a second, legal, marriage with her. So if he gave up trying, and married sommeone else, he would lose the lot.
I'm afraid Michael Hicks has been economical with the truth.
Take away the spurious charge of unabsolvable impediments and the only logical explanation left for the partial nature of the 1472 dispensation is that Richard and Anne had already got a dispensation for their blood relationship. This is not surprising given that Warwick had reputedly been aiming to marry Anne to Richard as well as Isabel to Clarence. Since Clarence and Isabel's dispensation has not yet turned up in the papal archives there is nothing odd about a similar dispensation for Richard and Anne not having been found.
Go tell it on the other forums!
Marie



>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:50 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Christine,
> > Only the dispensation for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster has turned up. The earlier one, for consanguinity, has not been found in the Vatican archives - nor has Clarence's although we know he had one.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
> > > The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
> > > Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Probably not. the Vatican Archives are just huge and haven't been properly searched. Also a lot of areas were secret until recent times. The 1472 dispensation turned up as recently as 2005 when Peter D. Clarke and his colleagues were trawling through the records of the Papal Pentientiary.
Marie

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> So has the "Human Shredder" been at work again and was he Robert Morton?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:50 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
>
>
> Christine,
> Only the dispensation for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster has turned up. The earlier one, for consanguinity, has not been found in the Vatican archives - nor has Clarence's although we know he had one.
> Marie
>
> --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
> >
> > Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
> > The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
> > Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
> > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
>
Marie responded:
> No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.

Carol again:

Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> >
> Marie responded:
> > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
>
> Carol again:
>
> Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.
>
> Carol
>

Okay, I'll have a go tomorrow. I've never posted a file to the forum before. There used to be a brief article by Peter Hammond about the 1472 dispensation on the Society website, but it wasn't very informative. It must have been written as soon as he saw Clarke's article, and didn't make any attempt to explain the impediment dispensed.
Marie

Marie wrote:
> Okay, I'll have a go tomorrow. I've never posted a file to the forum before. There used to be a brief article by Peter Hammond about the 1472 dispensation on the Society website, but it wasn't very informative. It must have been written as soon as he saw Clarke's article, and didn't make any attempt to explain the impediment dispensed.

Carol responds:

Adding a file is easy. Just go to the home or messages page of this forum. click on the Files link in the left-hand column, click Add File, choose the correct file from Browse just as you would if you were sending an e-mail attachment, add a descriptive title, check the box that allows you to announce the file in a message to the group members, and hit Send. If it worked, you'll see a message saying that a new file has been added to the forum.

That article by Hammond is already in the files and was also quoted in a recent post.

Carol

Wow! That's awesome! I will quote you next time someone( Susan H in this case) complains about Richard marrying Anne without dispensation! Thank you so much!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:20 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Marie, but we are reasonably sure that they had one? It's Hick's proposition and apparently the larger public that Richard married Anne without dispensation so he could grab her lands( even though I don't know how that has anything to do with lands). Also so he can have a way out of the marriage! Why would he want to? I am in a bunch of history forums and this question pops up every so often! I wish to have an informed answer to this question .......Thank you in advance:)
>
> Ishita, I've covered this so many times on this forum! I can send you my 2007 article if you would like. Anyway, here I go.
> The notion that there was no dispensation started, so far as I can ascertain, with a tentative suggestion by James Gairdner in the 1890s, as he struggled to account for the reference to a possible future divorce in the 1474 settlement of the Beauchamp lands; but that only raised a new question, ie why no dispensation, which set Gairdner wondering if the marriage of George and Isabel might have set up an unabsolvable impediment. He was wrong about that.
> From there it hardened into "tradition". No contemporary source was available at that time that stated Clarence's grounds for impugning the validity of the marriage. Ironically, that became avalible only a few years after Gairdner wrote but no one realised the significance. Clarence had conmplained that Richard had married Anne by force. This was a nullifying impediment, but what Clarence seems to have been talking about is only Richard's removal of Anne from the care of her lawful guardian, and since he placed her in sanctuary and she did not object to the marriage there was no case in canon law; nevertheless Clarence was probably using his objection as an excuse to put off agreeing to a property division with Richard.
> As for Michaek Hicks, the draft of his 'Anne Neville' was just about to go to press when Peter Hammond told him a dispensation had been found for the marriage. Michael Hicks went into a tailspin, looked at the dispensation, saw it was just for a single impediment of affinity in the 3rd & 4th degrees and leapt on to Gairdner's suggestion, and declared that Richard and Anne had had to lie about the impediments because they were actually related, not just by the consanguinities we have discussed, but also by affinity in the first degree because of George's marriage to Isabel. He was simply wrong: there was no impediment caused by George and Isabel's marriage, and the dispensation was for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster, as I explained.
> Would anne allow richard to marry her without a dispensation? I should think not. She knew all about dispensations.
> Would Richard want to make a non-marriage? No,. It would mean his children would be bastards and could not inherit.
> Did Richard need to marry Anne to "grab her lands"? No. The Nevilles and anne Beauchamp were all being treated as traitors and their lands had been confiscated. Richard had already been granted the Neville lands, to which Anne would not have been the heiress in any case. Clarence had been granted all the Beauchamp lands.
> Most tellingly, that parliamentary settlement did not allow Richard to divorce Anne and keep everything. It only allowed him to keep the Beauchamp lands whilst he tried to effect a second, legal, marriage with her. So if he gave up trying, and married sommeone else, he would lose the lot.
> I'm afraid Michael Hicks has been economical with the truth.
> Take away the spurious charge of unabsolvable impediments and the only logical explanation left for the partial nature of the 1472 dispensation is that Richard and Anne had already got a dispensation for their blood relationship. This is not surprising given that Warwick had reputedly been aiming to marry Anne to Richard as well as Isabel to Clarence. Since Clarence and Isabel's dispensation has not yet turned up in the papal archives there is nothing odd about a similar dispensation for Richard and Anne not having been found.
> Go tell it on the other forums!
> Marie
>
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:50 PM, mariewalsh2003 [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Christine,
> > > Only the dispensation for the affinity caused by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster has turned up. The earlier one, for consanguinity, has not been found in the Vatican archives - nor has Clarence's although we know he had one.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , C HOLMES wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi All this has come up a number of times before and you will find in the files of the forum an article on the dispensations for Richard and Anne's marriage. You may also be able to find it on the Society web site, it's in an article by Peter Hammond.
> > > > The dispensations are in the vatican archives, they required two of them for different reasons re the family relationships.
> > > > Richard and Anne's marriage was legal.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Marie, email me a copy too when you have time. No rush. Thank you!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
> > >
> > > These are the facts:-
> > [Snip}
> > > 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).
>
> Marie:
> Oops! Yes, of course.
>
> >
> > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
>
> Marie:
> No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
>
>

Oh, I just saw an article by Marie Barnfield on the RIII website. Is that you Marie? Here is the link
http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php#anne

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> >
> Marie responded:
> > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
>
> Carol again:
>
> Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.
>
> Carol
>
>

Marie, would you be able to post it as a forum File?
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: consanguinity





--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> > Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
> >
> > These are the facts:-
> [Snip}
> > 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).

Marie:
Oops! Yes, of course.

>
> Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.

Marie:
No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.

Indeed it is. Written a bit hurriedly I might add, but it can be improved over time.
Marie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I just saw an article by Marie Barnfield on the RIII website. Is that you Marie? Here is the link
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php#anne
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol earlier:
> > > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> > >
> > Marie responded:
> > > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Oh dear, reading through I see many typos have crept in. I shall have to get that fixed.
Marie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I just saw an article by Marie Barnfield on the RIII website. Is that you Marie? Here is the link
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php#anne
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol earlier:
> > > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> > >
> > Marie responded:
> > > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi Marie...are you talking about another article other than the one on the new website...

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, would you be able to post it as a forum File?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: consanguinity
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
> > >
> > > These are the facts:-
> > [Snip}
> > > 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).
>
> Marie:
> Oops! Yes, of course.
>
> >
> > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
>
> Marie:
> No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, there atre two articles:-
1) On the question of the dispensation, which was published in The Ricardian in 2007 and which I loaded on to the files section of this forum this morning (this is the one I was referring to below); and
2) My article on Anne Neville on the new RIII Soc website (which I see has been loaded up full of typos, which I hope were not mine, and which I shall have to sort out).
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie...are you talking about another article other than the one on the new website...
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, would you be able to post it as a forum File?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: consanguinity
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
> > > >
> > > > These are the facts:-
> > > [Snip}
> > > > 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).
> >
> > Marie:
> > Oops! Yes, of course.
> >
> > >
> > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> >
> > Marie:
> > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

OK Marie...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, there atre two articles:-
> 1) On the question of the dispensation, which was published in The Ricardian in 2007 and which I loaded on to the files section of this forum this morning (this is the one I was referring to below); and
> 2) My article on Anne Neville on the new RIII Soc website (which I see has been loaded up full of typos, which I hope were not mine, and which I shall have to sort out).
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie...are you talking about another article other than the one on the new website...
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, would you be able to post it as a forum File?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: consanguinity
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sorry I'm way behind with posts. Unfortunately, michael Hicks has completely misinformed the public about Richard and Anne's marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > These are the facts:-
> > > > [Snip}
> > > > > 3) In terms of consanguinity, there were two impediments to be absolved, one because of shared descent from Richard Earl of Salisbury, and one because of shared descent from Edmund of Langley. George and Isabel's dispensation was granted to there is no reason to suppose richard and Anne's weasn't granted too. [snip}
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't that be common descent from Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland? Richard, Earl of Salisbury was Anne's grandfather but Richard's uncle (as I know you know; I suspect that it was a slip of the keyboard because you're trying to catch up on posting).
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > Oops! Yes, of course.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I think it is a great article:)!!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:26 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Indeed it is. Written a bit hurriedly I might add, but it can be improved over time.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I just saw an article by Marie Barnfield on the RIII website. Is that you Marie? Here is the link
> > http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php#anne
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> > > >
> > > Marie responded:
> > > > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Thanks, Ishita.



--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I think it is a great article:)!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:26 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Indeed it is. Written a bit hurriedly I might add, but it can be improved over time.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, I just saw an article by Marie Barnfield on the RIII website. Is that you Marie? Here is the link
> > > http://www.richardiii.net/2_2_0_riii_family.php#anne
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > > > Can you link us to your response to Michael Hicks? I thought that it was on the Richard III Society website but can't find it.
> > > > >
> > > > Marie responded:
> > > > > No, they've never put it online, but I can email a copy if you would like.
> > > >
> > > > Carol again:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, please, and maybe you could post it as a file here, too, if it's not too much trouble. I could have sworn that someone (Eileen?) said that it had been posted to the R III Society website, but maybe that was the old site and it hasn't yet been moved to the new one.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>