Richard and Anne's dispensation.

A recent discovery by Peter D Clarke has solved a long-standing mystery about Richard's marriage to Anne Neville. For Research Officer Peter Hammond takes up the story:
Most of the details surrounding Richard's marriage are unclear, including the date. However an article in the most recent issue of the English Historical Review (English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century', Peter D Clarke, vol. 120, pp.1014-1029) has thrown some light on the matter and on three other marriages of interest to us.
Since there seems to be some problem in some people accepting my information re the dispensation of Richard and Anne I send this which is also on the forum in a file under my name.
The new information comes from work in the Vatican archives, in the records of the Papal Penitentiary, the functionary who dealt with everything relating to matters of conscience that appeared before the Pope. These were matters that were reserved to the Pope for absolution and included dispensations from the provisions of canon law prohibiting marriage between couples related within four degrees of blood or marriage (this is second cousin or nearer). This was almost always the case with royal marriages in the fifteenth century.
The four marriages discussed in Clarke's paper are those between Margaret of York and Charles of Burgundy, Anne Neville and Edward of Lancaster, Anne Neville and Richard of Gloucester and between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor, all of great interest. There has never been any doubt that the first two and the last marriages had received dispensations although this paper sheds much light on the politics surrounding the requests for dispensations. I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke's research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484, nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
However the marriage concerning us here is that between Anne Neville and Richard. They were certainly related within the normally forbidden degrees of kinship and since there appeared to be no record of a dispensation there has been speculation that they married without one. This has always seemed unlikely since without a dispensation marriage within the forbidden degrees was always open to challenge. The provision in the act dividing the Neville estates between Richard and his brother George saying that if Richard and Anne be subsequently divorced Richard could retain the estates whether or not they remarried (provided he did not remarry any one else) has been interpreted to mean that no dispensation had been obtained. However speculation is now at an end. Richard and Anne did apply and one was granted to them on 22 April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degrees of kinship, for which relationship
they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted. Richard was described as dux Glouirestere, laicus Lincolniensis diocesis (duke of Gloucester, layman of theLincoln diocese) and Anne as Anna Nevile, mulier Eboracensis diocesis (woman of the York diocese). Normally the diocese is the birth one. Richard's is correct, Fotheringhay is in the Lincoln diocese, but Anne was born in Warwickshire in the Worcester diocese. She may have been described as from York because the Neville estates obtained by Richard were largely in Yorkshire. These dispensations sometimes are very vague as to who the parties are, deliberately so in politically sensitive marriages. For example in the first dispensation of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor they are described as Henry Richemont and Elizabeth Plantageneta.
Although Richard and Anne received their dispensation on 22 April we still do not really know when they were married. In the religious sense they were free to marry from that date but political considerations, i.e. the question of the division of the Neville estates, might have prevented it and they may not have married until the dispute was finally settled in 1474. At least we now know that they did receive a dispensation from the church to do so.
Hope this satisfies those who doubt.
 
Christine Holmes
Loyaulte me Lie
top

Thanks Christine. I was sure I'd read this somewhere H



________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 10:10
Subject: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

 

A recent discovery by Peter D Clarke has solved a long-standing mystery about Richard's marriage to Anne Neville. For Research Officer Peter Hammond takes up the story:
Most of the details surrounding Richard's marriage are unclear, including the date. However an article in the most recent issue of the English Historical Review (English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century', Peter D Clarke, vol. 120, pp.1014-1029) has thrown some light on the matter and on three other marriages of interest to us.
Since there seems to be some problem in some people accepting my information re the dispensation of Richard and Anne I send this which is also on the forum in a file under my name.
The new information comes from work in the Vatican archives, in the records of the Papal Penitentiary, the functionary who dealt with everything relating to matters of conscience that appeared before the Pope. These were matters that were reserved to the Pope for absolution and included dispensations from the provisions of canon law prohibiting marriage between couples related within four degrees of blood or marriage (this is second cousin or nearer). This was almost always the case with royal marriages in the fifteenth century.
The four marriages discussed in Clarke's paper are those between Margaret of York and Charles of Burgundy, Anne Neville and Edward of Lancaster, Anne Neville and Richard of Gloucester and between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor, all of great interest. There has never been any doubt that the first two and the last marriages had received dispensations although this paper sheds much light on the politics surrounding the requests for dispensations. I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke's research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484, nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
However the marriage concerning us here is that between Anne Neville and Richard. They were certainly related within the normally forbidden degrees of kinship and since there appeared to be no record of a dispensation there has been speculation that they married without one. This has always seemed unlikely since without a dispensation marriage within the forbidden degrees was always open to challenge. The provision in the act dividing the Neville estates between Richard and his brother George saying that if Richard and Anne be subsequently divorced Richard could retain the estates whether or not they remarried (provided he did not remarry any one else) has been interpreted to mean that no dispensation had been obtained. However speculation is now at an end. Richard and Anne did apply and one was granted to them on 22 April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degrees of kinship, for which relationship
they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted. Richard was described as dux Glouirestere, laicus Lincolniensis diocesis (duke of Gloucester, layman of theLincoln diocese) and Anne as Anna Nevile, mulier Eboracensis diocesis (woman of the York diocese). Normally the diocese is the birth one. Richard's is correct, Fotheringhay is in the Lincoln diocese, but Anne was born in Warwickshire in the Worcester diocese. She may have been described as from York because the Neville estates obtained by Richard were largely in Yorkshire. These dispensations sometimes are very vague as to who the parties are, deliberately so in politically sensitive marriages. For example in the first dispensation of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor they are described as Henry Richemont and Elizabeth Plantageneta.
Although Richard and Anne received their dispensation on 22 April we still do not really know when they were married. In the religious sense they were free to marry from that date but political considerations, i.e. the question of the division of the Neville estates, might have prevented it and they may not have married until the dispute was finally settled in 1474. At least we now know that they did receive a dispensation from the church to do so.
Hope this satisfies those who doubt.
 
Christine Holmes
Loyaulte me Lie
top

From: C HOLMES
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:10 AM
Subject: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had
> received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke's
> research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484,
> nearly 18 months before Bosworth.

Who applied for it, do we know?

I was thinking about this before this interesting fact came to light. Y'all 'member Buck claiming that he'd seen a letter in which Elizabeth of York asked one of King Richard's counselors to start working on the marriage 'cause he was her light, her shade, her heart, her head, her hands, her tympanic membranes, her Islets of Langerhans, and that she "feared the Queen would never die"? That one?

OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.

[As an aside, I wonder if the line "I fear the Queen will never die" was at the end of one page and the next page started out something along the lines of "without experiencing more dreadful suffering before she goes to her heavenly reward, as she undoubtedly will, seeing as how she's such a wonderful person." It would seem to me that the bald, flat statement "I fear the Queen will never die," unqualified, would constitute first-class treason, which Richard's counselor would be duty-bound to reveal, so since she was still walking about at liberty the day of Bosworth, perhaps there was more to it that didn't imply "or I am so totally dosing her tea with strychnine next Tuesday, so help me God." BUT I DIGRESS...]

So let's say there really was a letter from Elizabeth of York pleading with one of King Richard's counselors to hurry it up with the marriage. I think there's more to it than

Lizzie 'Bor'cum took a quill,
Showed herself a Woodville girl;
On King Uncle cast her eye;
Feared the Queen would never die.

What if the letter was really something like this? "That creepy twerp Henry Tydder in France is planning to invade and if he takes over the kingdom, he's gonna marry me and I'd sooner kiss a poisoned pig's posterior, so can you hurry His Grace my uncle the holy hell up with the marriage to Portugal, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?"

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:10 AM
> Subject: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had
> > received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke’s
> > research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484,
> > nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
>
> Who applied for it, do we know?
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.

I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
had a crush on him? *We* do.

> What if the letter was really something like this? "That creepy twerp
> Henry Tydder in France is planning to invade and if he takes over the
> kingdom, he's gonna marry me and I'd sooner kiss a poisoned pig's
> posterior, so can you hurry His Grace my uncle the holy hell up with the
> marriage to Portugal, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?"

It does sound as though she wanted Richard to marry herself, but if she knew
Henry had applied for a dispensation to marry her that might well be a major
factor.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
>
> I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> had a crush on him? *We* do.
>


You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.

Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.

*) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!

Oh, mcJohn, you are so funny! My sides ache!

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

On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:34 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> I was thinking about this before this interesting fact came to light. Y'all 'member Buck claiming that he'd seen a letter in which Elizabeth of York asked one of King Richard's counselors to start working on the marriage 'cause he was her light, her shade, her heart, her head, her hands, her tympanic membranes, her Islets of Langerhans, and that she "feared the Queen would never die"? That one?
>
> OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
>
> [As an aside, I wonder if the line "I fear the Queen will never die" was at the end of one page and the next page started out something along the lines of "without experiencing more dreadful suffering before she goes to her heavenly reward, as she undoubtedly will, seeing as how she's such a wonderful person." It would seem to me that the bald, flat statement "I fear the Queen will never die," unqualified, would constitute first-class treason, which Richard's counselor would be duty-bound to reveal, so since she was still walking about at liberty the day of Bosworth, perhaps there was more to it that didn't imply "or I am so totally dosing her tea with strychnine next Tuesday, so help me God." BUT I DIGRESS...]
>
> So let's say there really was a letter from Elizabeth of York pleading with one of King Richard's counselors to hurry it up with the marriage. I think there's more to it than
>
> Lizzie 'Bor'cum took a quill,
> Showed herself a Woodville girl;
> On King Uncle cast her eye;
> Feared the Queen would never die.
>
> What if the letter was really something like this? "That creepy twerp Henry Tydder in France is planning to invade and if he takes over the kingdom, he's gonna marry me and I'd sooner kiss a poisoned pig's posterior, so can you hurry His Grace my uncle the holy hell up with the marriage to Portugal, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?"
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:10 AM
> > Subject: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had
> > > received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke's
> > > research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484,
> > > nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
> >
> > Who applied for it, do we know?
> >
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a
> strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange,
> even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to
> idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've
> never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was
> planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a
> torrid incestuous affair.

In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
*clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
him and jumped to conclusions.

> Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence')
> speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making
> googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU,
> UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO"
> and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how
> to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to
> pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for
> her that would take her out of the country.

Exactly. If she took after Daddy she was probably a lot taller than him,
too - he'd be trying to avoid her all over the palace and thinking "Oh,
help, here she comes again.".

> *) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove
> they didn't!

Nah - little slips of parchment, slipped into his favourite books, where
he'd have to run around removing them in case Ann saw them.

It also at least partially clears him, if he *needed* to be cleared, of the
accusation that he murdered his wife - since it shows that Ann was ill for a
long time.

One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.

The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......

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

On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:06 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
> > You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a
> > strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange,
> > even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to
> > idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've
> > never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was
> > planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a
> > torrid incestuous affair.
>
> In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> him and jumped to conclusions.
>
> > Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence')
> > speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making
> > googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU,
> > UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO"
> > and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how
> > to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to
> > pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for
> > her that would take her out of the country.
>
> Exactly. If she took after Daddy she was probably a lot taller than him,
> too - he'd be trying to avoid her all over the palace and thinking "Oh,
> help, here she comes again.".
>
> > *) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove
> > they didn't!
>
> Nah - little slips of parchment, slipped into his favourite books, where
> he'd have to run around removing them in case Ann saw them.
>
> It also at least partially clears him, if he *needed* to be cleared, of the
> accusation that he murdered his wife - since it shows that Ann was ill for a
> long time.
>
> One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
>
>

I love it, I love it, I love it!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.



Oh, mcJohn, you are so funny! My sides ache!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>

On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:34 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:

> I was thinking about this before this interesting fact came to light. Y'all 'member Buck claiming that he'd seen a letter in which Elizabeth of York asked one of King Richard's counselors to start working on the marriage 'cause he was her light, her shade, her heart, her head, her hands, her tympanic membranes, her Islets of Langerhans, and that she "feared the Queen would never die"? That one?
>
> OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
>
> [As an aside, I wonder if the line "I fear the Queen will never die" was at the end of one page and the next page started out something along the lines of "without experiencing more dreadful suffering before she goes to her heavenly reward, as she undoubtedly will, seeing as how she's such a wonderful person." It would seem to me that the bald, flat statement "I fear the Queen will never die," unqualified, would constitute first-class treason, which Richard's counselor would be duty-bound to reveal, so since she was still walking about at liberty the day of Bosworth, perhaps there was more to it that didn't imply "or I am so totally dosing her tea with strychnine next Tuesday, so help me God." BUT I DIGRESS...]
>
> So let's say there really was a letter from Elizabeth of York pleading with one of King Richard's counselors to hurry it up with the marriage. I think there's more to it than
>
> Lizzie 'Bor'cum took a quill,
> Showed herself a Woodville girl;
> On King Uncle cast her eye;
> Feared the Queen would never die.
>
> What if the letter was really something like this? "That creepy twerp Henry Tydder in France is planning to invade and if he takes over the kingdom, he's gonna marry me and I'd sooner kiss a poisoned pig's posterior, so can you hurry His Grace my uncle the holy hell up with the marriage to Portugal, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?"
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: C HOLMES
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:10 AM
> > Subject: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had
> > > received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke's
> > > research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484,
> > > nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
> >
> > Who applied for it, do we know?
> >
>
>

Good thoughts...... My question is were these girls not aware that they were dynastic cannon fodder? Surely, they had a glimmer of the idea. They were young, but had to have heard of children being promised when they were hardly walking.

On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:13 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
>
> I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> had a crush on him? *We* do.
>

You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.

Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.

*) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> him and jumped to conclusions.
>

No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...


> One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
>

I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...

If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.

Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to
> her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of
> marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part

Yes - there's nothing in the letter as he reports it to suggest that Richard
encouraged her crush. Quite the reverse.

Daft as it may seem, I've not discarded your version. Elizabeth was young and had been dumped by the Dauphin and then locked up in Sanctuary. Our man was handsome (as we've now seen) a lot younger than her father, not often at Court before her father's death and perhaps offered a happy tie in with the past where she had been her father's adored daughter. Add to that an ailing wife and ......



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 18:13
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

 

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
>
> I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> had a crush on him? *We* do.
>

You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.

Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.

*) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!

I'd have said if Richard had one sin it was about acquiring lands - see Wilkinson and his cartulary. Perhaps as a result of a very insecure childhood he was not going to let go of what he'd acquired, Anne or not. I await the firing squad!
 
 
 
 
 


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:27
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

 

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> him and jumped to conclusions.
>

No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...

> One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
>

I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...

If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.

Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...

"What are we gonna do with all these cut-up pieces of parchment from the scriptorium?"

"I've got an idea. Hand me that pot of neat's-foot glue."

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
> >
> > I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> > very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> > personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> > had a crush on him? *We* do.
> >
>
>
> You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.
>
> Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.
>
> *) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!
>

It would probably have been carefully explained to them from toddlerhood, in short words, that one day they were going to grow up and marry some dude they'd never met and be whisked away to a world of wealth and riches and live happily ever after.

In other words, not telling the young 'uns everything about the adult world is not a new phenomenon.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Good thoughts...... My question is were these girls not aware that they were dynastic cannon fodder? Surely, they had a glimmer of the idea. They were young, but had to have heard of children being promised when they were hardly walking.
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:13 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
> >
> > I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> > very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> > personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> > had a crush on him? *We* do.
> >
>
> You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.
>
> Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.
>
> *) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Good thoughts...... My question is were these girls not aware that they were dynastic cannon fodder? Surely, they had a glimmer of the idea. They were young, but had to have heard of children being promised when they were hardly walking.

Carol responds:

Richard swore in writing and in public at the time that Elizabeth and her daughters came out of sanctuary to find good husbands suitable to their rank and station for those who were of marriageable age (and the same for the others when they came of age). Why he did not immediately find a husband for Elizabeth is unclear, but it may have been simply a desire to keep her safely under his protection until Tudor wwa no longer a threat. He did arrange a marriage between her sister Cecily and his follower Ralph Scrope (later dissolved so that she could marry one of Tudor's followere--her feelings on either marriage are, of course, unrecorded).

Elizabeth's letter to the Duke of Norfolk was, IITC, dated February and Richard (who may not even have been aware of the rumors) did not deny them until after his wife's death, at the same time he publicly expressed his grief (Mercer's Company records of some sort--Marie will know the reference).

Whether the negotiations for Elizabeth's marriage along with his were prompted by these rumors, I don't know. Or he may have had a prestigious marriage for his brother's eldest daughter in mind the whole time thought that seems unlikely given that she was officially only a king's bastard daughter. If Elizabeth really wanted to marry him (or her mother was pushing her to marry him so that she could be a queen mother again), he or his councilors may have felt that such a marriage would satisfy their ambitions and get them safely out of the kingdom, away from both Richard and the Tudor.

Richard himself, of course, would never have considered a marriage to Elizabeth, which was contrary to his interest in every way and would have violated his dynastic policy of legitimate heirs only, making nonsense of Titulus Regius and making him a hypocrite--to say nothing of how his subjects would react to an uncle-niece marriage.

I have no idea whether the letter, which I assume was real since buck is not in the habit of inventing evidence, related to Richard or to the proposed Portuguese marriage. The only clue is the date of the letter, which may or may not have predated the marriage negotiations. If it predated them and referred to Richard, we can be sure that it was the reason for her inclusion in the marriage negotiations.

Carol

Thank you for the confirmation!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.



It would probably have been carefully explained to them from toddlerhood, in short words, that one day they were going to grow up and marry some dude they'd never met and be whisked away to a world of wealth and riches and live happily ever after.

In other words, not telling the young 'uns everything about the adult world is not a new phenomenon.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Good thoughts...... My question is were these girls not aware that they were dynastic cannon fodder? Surely, they had a glimmer of the idea. They were young, but had to have heard of children being promised when they were hardly walking.
>
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:13 PM, "pansydobersby" [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
> >
> > I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> > very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> > personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> > had a crush on him? *We* do.
> >
>
> You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.
>
> Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.
>
> *) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe it was one of those things where Anne was a bit apprehensive about the prospect of being divorced and chucked out with nothing and Richard put that into the contract to reassure her of his sincerity. It would be kind of like, "To prove that it's you I want and not your property, I vow to give up any claim to your lands if I ever divorce you and remarry, even though inheritance laws are on my side." We know that he did something similar on at least two occasions, once when he made that legally binding agreement with former queen Elizabeth Woodville to take care of her daughters if she permitted them out of sanctuary, and once more when he publicly denied rumors that he intended to marry Elizabeth of York.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'd have said if Richard had one sin it was about acquiring lands - see Wilkinson and his cartulary. Perhaps as a result of a very insecure childhood he was not going to let go of what he'd acquired, Anne or not. I await the firing squad!
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:27
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>  
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> > eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> > *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> > niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> > started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> > him and jumped to conclusions.
> >
>
> No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...
>
> > One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> > said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> > hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> > been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> > walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
> >
>
> I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
>
> If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
>
> Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for
> Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing?

I'm thinking it might be of a piece with what happened with the two
countesses - that if they divorced she would lose her lands but be given a
pension. That way she'd have money to live on without being a target anyone
would go after.

pansydobersby wrote:
>
> I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
>
> If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
>
> Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
>
Carol responds:

It's unlikely that Richard was controlling and possessive. His words in his promise to Elizabeth W. to "do marry" her daughters to suitable husbands include his promise to "straitly charge" their future husbands "lovingly to love and entreat them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."

I don't think he could have stated his view of how a wife should be treated any more clearly, and given his grief at Anne's death, revealed in a public document that contradicts the Croyland chronicler's cynical account, I strongly suspect that he lived by his own philosophy of how to treat a wife.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
> >
> > I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
> >
> > If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
> >
> > Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> It's unlikely that Richard was controlling and possessive. His words in his promise to Elizabeth W. to "do marry" her daughters to suitable husbands include his promise to "straitly charge" their future husbands "lovingly to love and entreat them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."
>
> I don't think he could have stated his view of how a wife should be treated any more clearly, and given his grief at Anne's death, revealed in a public document that contradicts the Croyland chronicler's cynical account, I strongly suspect that he lived by his own philosophy of how to treat a wife.
>
> Carol
>

True, true. I definitely agree with this view - though of course, one can be a loving husband and yet possessive when the thought of losing one's wife comes up. (Though naturally we have no reason to suppose he was, and even less reason to suppose he needed to be!)

I do find the clause curious, but I suspect it's just a subtle balancing act between two impulses - what Hilary said about Richard acquiring lands, and also what mcjohn_wt_net said about him being keen to prove his sincerity. Of course Richard would also have been in a position of power, as Anne's position without him would have been weak indeed.

Call it intuition or delusion, but I've always been convinced that Anne was an intensely proud woman, and not at all the shrinking violet she's traditionally been painted as. That's why (in my delusional 'intuition') I find it hard to believe she would have agreed to that clause unless there was very real mutual trust and affection between them.

  Even though a little later I wonder if SOME idea as to their thinking can be gleaned from the evidence from the Trial of the hapless Catherine Howard, kept with other 'Young Ladies' in the care of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk.   
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:35
>Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> 
>Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>> Good thoughts...... My question is were these girls not aware that they were dynastic cannon fodder? Surely, they had a glimmer of the idea. They were young, but had to have heard of children being promised when they were hardly walking.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Richard swore in writing and in public at the time that Elizabeth and her daughters came out of sanctuary to find good husbands suitable to their rank and station for those who were of marriageable age (and the same for the others when they came of age). Why he did not immediately find a husband for Elizabeth is unclear, but it may have been simply a desire to keep her safely under his protection until Tudor wwa no longer a threat. He did arrange a marriage between her sister Cecily and his follower Ralph Scrope (later dissolved so that she could marry one of Tudor's followere--her feelings on either marriage are, of course, unrecorded).
>
>Elizabeth's letter to the Duke of Norfolk was, IITC, dated February and Richard (who may not even have been aware of the rumors) did not deny them until after his wife's death, at the same time he publicly expressed his grief (Mercer's Company records of some sort--Marie will know the reference).
>
>Whether the negotiations for Elizabeth's marriage along with his were prompted by these rumors, I don't know. Or he may have had a prestigious marriage for his brother's eldest daughter in mind the whole time thought that seems unlikely given that she was officially only a king's bastard daughter. If Elizabeth really wanted to marry him (or her mother was pushing her to marry him so that she could be a queen mother again), he or his councilors may have felt that such a marriage would satisfy their ambitions and get them safely out of the kingdom, away from both Richard and the Tudor.
>
>Richard himself, of course, would never have considered a marriage to Elizabeth, which was contrary to his interest in every way and would have violated his dynastic policy of legitimate heirs only, making nonsense of Titulus Regius and making him a hypocrite--to say nothing of how his subjects would react to an uncle-niece marriage.
>
>I have no idea whether the letter, which I assume was real since buck is not in the habit of inventing evidence, related to Richard or to the proposed Portuguese marriage. The only clue is the date of the letter, which may or may not have predated the marriage negotiations. If it predated them and referred to Richard, we can be sure that it was the reason for her inclusion in the marriage negotiations.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> I'm thinking it might be of a piece with what happened with the two
> countesses - that if they divorced she would lose her lands but be given a pension. That way she'd have money to live on without being a target anyone would go after.

Carol responds:

George, for example?

Carol

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

> Call it intuition or delusion, but I've always been convinced that Anne
> was an intensely proud woman, and not at all the shrinking violet she's
> traditionally been painted as.

You and me both. She was the Kingmaker's daughter and I've always felt that
putting his daughters on a throne, any throne, was an end for Warwick, not a
means. I'm as sure as one can be that she put *herself* in that cookshop to
get away from George, and the Victorian history I can't remember the blasted
title of said that it was she who talked Richard into accepting the throne,
although I don't know what its sources were. But it would certainly make
sense - like father, like daughter.

'Being left with nothing' was a prospect of the era [I would suggest] If your 'Nearest & dearest' backed a loser, lost his head & his lands [or Just had to take an extended holiday in France or Flanders - say for ten years or so] 

This was a 'State' enjoyed intermittently by both sides, Surely Richard, his brothers and of course the 'Widow Woodville' all had experience of this. 

My understanding is she first met King Edward IV when suing for the return of her late Lancastrian husbands property. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:40
>Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> 
>Maybe it was one of those things where Anne was a bit apprehensive about the prospect of being divorced and chucked out with nothing and Richard put that into the contract to reassure her of his sincerity. It would be kind of like, "To prove that it's you I want and not your property, I vow to give up any claim to your lands if I ever divorce you and remarry, even though inheritance laws are on my side." We know that he did something similar on at least two occasions, once when he made that legally binding agreement with former queen Elizabeth Woodville to take care of her daughters if she permitted them out of sanctuary, and once more when he publicly denied rumors that he intended to marry Elizabeth of York.
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> I'd have said if Richard had one sin it was about acquiring lands - see Wilkinson and his cartulary. Perhaps as a result of a very insecure childhood he was not going to let go of what he'd acquired, Anne or not. I await the firing squad!
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby [email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:27
>> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>>
>>  
>>
>> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> >
>> > From: pansydobersby
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>> >
>> >
>> > In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
>> > eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
>> > *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
>> > niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
>> > started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
>> > him and jumped to conclusions.
>> >
>>
>> No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...
>>
>> > One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
>> > said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
>> > hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
>> > been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
>> > walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
>> >
>>
>> I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
>>
>> If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
>>
>> Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> I'm thinking it might be of a piece with what happened with the two
> countesses - that if they divorced she would lose her lands but be given a
> pension. That way she'd have money to live on without being a target
> anyone would go after.

Carol responds:

> George, for example?

Precisely.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> [snip] the Victorian history I can't remember the blasted
> title of said that it was she who talked Richard into accepting the throne, although I don't know what its sources were. But it would certainly make sense - like father, like daughter.

Carol responds:

Sir Clements Markham's "Richard III: His Life and Character," maybe? The other two Victorians who wrote about Richard are the traditionalist James Gairdner and the pro-Richard Caroline Halsted.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> Sir Clements Markham's "Richard III: His Life and Character," maybe? The
> other two Victorians who wrote about Richard are the traditionalist James
> Gairdner and the pro-Richard Caroline Halsted.

Well, this wasn't a book about Richard, as such - it was in one of a set of
Victorian books which were either on monarchs or on the history of London, I
forget which. Richard was just an entry in the list, but a long one - maybe
20 pages. I guess Markham might well have been the source. It's
infuriating - I can see the pages in fornt of me, how they were laid out and
the teeny little font they used, but I can't remember the title. I remember
it talked about Richard on the steps at his mother's house, accepting the
kingship, and opined that Ann had urged him to, and said that at her funeral
he walked with the coffin (I forget whether before or behind it) and wept in
the street.

That's funny!
If you look at Marie's email on the Consanguinity issue, she explains exactly how and why it was done. It was mostly to protect both of them from Clarence rather than from each other:D

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> > eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> > *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> > niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> > started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> > him and jumped to conclusions.
> >
>
> No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...
>
> > One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> > said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> > hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> > been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> > walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
> >
>
> I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
>
> If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
>
> Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
>
>

Now here is another of my daft questions: how did the rumor start? I am sorry but you know that thing about smoke and fire?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Daft as it may seem, I've not discarded your version. Elizabeth was young and had been dumped by the Dauphin and then locked up in Sanctuary. Our man was handsome (as we've now seen) a lot younger than her father, not often at Court before her father's death and perhaps offered a happy tie in with the past where she had been her father's adored daughter. Add to that an ailing wife and ......
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 18:13
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > OK, let's presuppose, for sake of argument, that Buck wasn't in an opium
> > > fever when he saw the letter, that it really did exist, and that enough of
> > > it survived that he was able to do some heavy gisting.
> >
> > I don't really see any reason to doubt it, myself. It shows Richard in a
> > very good light, doting on his sick wife, and he seems to have been a
> > personable little bloke: what more natural than that his niece should have
> > had a crush on him? *We* do.
> >
>
> You know, that's a good point. Even if Elizabeth had some kind of a strange crush on her uncle (and, let's face it, people can be strange, even nowadays - I've known some otherwise normal girls who seemed to idolise their elder brothers in a disturbingly romantic fashion), I've never understood how and why that's been used as evidence that *he* was planning to marry *her*, or that they were carrying on some kind of a torrid incestuous affair.
>
> Indeed, one might just as easily (and with just as much 'evidence') speculate that she was a disturbed teenager who followed him around making googly eyes at him, and left him little Post-It notes* saying "I LOVE YOU, UNCLE, YOU'RE MY HEART, YOU'RE MY SOUL, I KEEP IT SHINING EVERYWHERE I GO" and he was profoundly embarrassed by the whole thing but didn't know how to address the problem without hurting her feelings, so he decided to pretend nothing was happening and instead started planning a marriage for her that would take her out of the country.
>
> *) Yes, in this version they had Post-It notes back then. You can't prove they didn't!
>
>
>
>

I agree that Anne went in the marriage with her eyes open and from a position of power. As the " kingmaker's" daughter she would have known her worth and I am pretty sure she was not a shrinking violet either!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:06 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > pansydobersby wrote:
> > >
> > > I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
> > >
> > > If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
> > >
> > > Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > It's unlikely that Richard was controlling and possessive. His words in his promise to Elizabeth W. to "do marry" her daughters to suitable husbands include his promise to "straitly charge" their future husbands "lovingly to love and entreat them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."
> >
> > I don't think he could have stated his view of how a wife should be treated any more clearly, and given his grief at Anne's death, revealed in a public document that contradicts the Croyland chronicler's cynical account, I strongly suspect that he lived by his own philosophy of how to treat a wife.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> True, true. I definitely agree with this view - though of course, one can be a loving husband and yet possessive when the thought of losing one's wife comes up. (Though naturally we have no reason to suppose he was, and even less reason to suppose he needed to be!)
>
> I do find the clause curious, but I suspect it's just a subtle balancing act between two impulses - what Hilary said about Richard acquiring lands, and also what mcjohn_wt_net said about him being keen to prove his sincerity. Of course Richard would also have been in a position of power, as Anne's position without him would have been weak indeed.
>
> Call it intuition or delusion, but I've always been convinced that Anne was an intensely proud woman, and not at all the shrinking violet she's traditionally been painted as. That's why (in my delusional 'intuition') I find it hard to believe she would have agreed to that clause unless there was very real mutual trust and affection between them.
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Now here is another of my daft questions: how did the rumor start? I am sorry but you know that thing about smoke and fire?

Carol responds:

I can think of two possibilities. Either Elizabeth really did have a crush on her uncle and people started to whisper behind her back or the rumor, like the one about the boys being done away with, none knew how, was started by Tudor spies trying to stir up trouble for Richard.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say that where there's smoke, there's fire. Otherwise, we might as well believe that Edward was illegitimate, that Jaquetta Bedford practiced witchcraft, that Richard killed his nephews, that the murderer was Sit James Tyrrell, and whatever else I'm forgetting.

Rumor becomes "fact" in Vergil and later Tudor sources. Unless a rumor can be confirmed by a reliable source, I'd say that the best policy is skepticism.

Carol

Hi Christine,
Is this something Peter has just written? I owe a big debt to Peter, as it was he who encouraged me to dig deeper into the meaning of the 1472 dispensation in the wake of the publication of Hicks' 'Anne Neville', and arranged for Anne Sutton to publish the results in the Ricardian. I'd just say that it's great so far as it goes, but still doesn't address the fact that the 1472 dispensation found by Clarke was for a single impediment of affinity, which is not a blood relationship but a relationship by marriage. This is something Michael Hicks did notice, so it is not enough for us simply to assert that there was a dispensation: the argument has moved on and we have to address the terms of it and what it really means. I have now uploaded on to Files the text of my 2007 Ricardian article.
Marie

--- In , C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> A recent discovery by Peter D Clarke has solved a long-standing mystery about Richard’s marriage to Anne Neville. For Research Officer Peter Hammond takes up the story:
> Most of the details surrounding Richard’s marriage are unclear, including the date. However an article in the most recent issue of the English Historical Review (‘English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century’, Peter D Clarke, vol. 120, pp.1014-1029) has thrown some light on the matter and on three other marriages of interest to us.
> Since there seems to be some problem in some people accepting my information re the dispensation of Richard and Anne I send this which is also on the forum in a file under my name.
> The new information comes from work in the Vatican archives, in the records of the Papal Penitentiary, the functionary who dealt with everything relating to matters of conscience that appeared before the Pope. These were matters that were reserved to the Pope for absolution and included dispensations from the provisions of canon law prohibiting marriage between couples related within four degrees of blood or marriage (this is second cousin or nearer). This was almost always the case with royal marriages in the fifteenth century.
> The four marriages discussed in Clarke’s paper are those between Margaret of York and Charles of Burgundy, Anne Neville and Edward of Lancaster, Anne Neville and Richard of Gloucester and between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor, all of great interest. There has never been any doubt that the first two and the last marriages had received dispensations although this paper sheds much light on the politics surrounding the requests for dispensations. I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke’s research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484, nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
> However the marriage concerning us here is that between Anne Neville and Richard. They were certainly related within the normally forbidden degrees of kinship and since there appeared to be no record of a dispensation there has been speculation that they married without one. This has always seemed unlikely since without a dispensation marriage within the forbidden degrees was always open to challenge. The provision in the act dividing the Neville estates between Richard and his brother George saying that if Richard and Anne be subsequently divorced Richard could retain the estates whether or not they remarried (provided he did not remarry any one else) has been interpreted to mean that no dispensation had been obtained. However speculation is now at an end. Richard and Anne did apply and one was granted to them on 22 April 1472. It released them from the impediment of being related within the third and fourth degrees of kinship, for which relationship
> they also needed a littera declaratoria, also granted. Richard was described as dux Glouirestere, laicus Lincolniensis diocesis (duke of Gloucester, layman of theLincoln diocese) and Anne as Anna Nevile, mulier Eboracensis diocesis (woman of the York diocese). Normally the diocese is the birth one. Richard’s is correct, Fotheringhay is in the Lincoln diocese, but Anne was born in Warwickshire in the Worcester diocese. She may have been described as from York because the Neville estates obtained by Richard were largely in Yorkshire. These dispensations sometimes are very vague as to who the parties are, deliberately so in politically sensitive marriages. For example in the first dispensation of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor they are described as Henry Richemont and Elizabeth Plantageneta.
> Although Richard and Anne received their dispensation on 22 April we still do not really know when they were married. In the religious sense they were free to marry from that date but political considerations, i.e. the question of the division of the Neville estates, might have prevented it and they may not have married until the dispute was finally settled in 1474. At least we now know that they did receive a dispensation from the church to do so.
> Hope this satisfies those who doubt.
>  
> Christine Holmes
> Loyaulte me Lie
> top
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: C HOLMES
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:10 AM
> Subject: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > I will only mention here that, while we knew that Henry and Elizabeth had
> > received a dispensation in early 1486 after the battle of Bosworth, Clarke’s
> > research reveals that one was granted to them as early as 27 March 1484,
> > nearly 18 months before Bosworth.
>
> Who applied for it, do we know?
>


No, it doesn't tell us. It could have been applied for by either side without involvement or even permission from the other.
Marie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......

Marie replies:
The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> Marie replies:
The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were
divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a
valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore,
is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a
divorce requested by Richard.

Ooh, now that sounds *quite* different. Do I understand you right that this
is in effect Ann saying "Even if our marriage is disallowed by the church I
still want you as a lover and you can keep my lands, but only so long as you
remain my partner and don't marry anyone else"?

If that's what it means it's a very strong indication both that it was a
love-match and that Ann was a tough cookie, despite being four years younger
than him.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> > eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> > *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> > niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> > started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> > him and jumped to conclusions.
> >
>
> No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...
>
>
> > One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> > said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> > hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> > been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> > walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
> >
>
> I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...

Marie replies:
It was first and foremost for George's disbenefit - it deprived him of a motive to go on impugning the validity of Richard and Anne's marriage.

Pansy, the meaning of the "divorce clause" is quite complicated. Can I refer you to my article 'Diriment Impediments, etc,' in the Files section?
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> pansydobersby wrote:
> >
> > I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...
> >
> > If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.
> >
> > Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> It's unlikely that Richard was controlling and possessive. His words in his promise to Elizabeth W. to "do marry" her daughters to suitable husbands include his promise to "straitly charge" their future husbands "lovingly to love and entreat them, as wives and my kinswomen, as they will avoid and eschew my displeasure."
>
> I don't think he could have stated his view of how a wife should be treated any more clearly, and given his grief at Anne's death, revealed in a public document that contradicts the Croyland chronicler's cynical account, I strongly suspect that he lived by his own philosophy of how to treat a wife.
>
> Carol
>

I've never bought into the frail flower picture of Anne Neville - veteran
members of the Society know I've babbled often about how even in
Shakespeare, every other word out of "gentle Anne"'s mouth is a curse or an
insult, so I wonder if Shakespeare is having a little fun with perceptions,
as he often seems to.

The description most often associated with her in contemporary documents is
"gracious" - I've seen it in the transcriptions of the coronation documents
and in Rous. In her shared bookish interests with Richard and her
administrative activities we have evidence of someone with practical
abilities and intellectual aspirations. She may have been a quiet person,
but not necessarily retiring, and quite possibly not frail until the end of
her life - bear in mind that in his stiff reporting of the 1484 Christmas
celebrations, Croyland says that Elizabeth of York and Anne Neville were of
similar size and coloring. Elizabeth, in her portraits, is a very pretty
blonde girl, and not delicate. For Anne, the Salisbury Roll picture of her
and Richard may not be too far off:
http://meandrichard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/anna_neville.jpg
(I kind of like how Richard seems to be looking at Anne and how he seems to
kind of smile. Whenever I think of this picture, my impression is that
he's inclining toward her, though this isn't really the case).

Maria
ejbronte@...








On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > Marie replies:
> The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were
> divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a
> valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context,
> therefore,
> is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a
> divorce requested by Richard.
>
> Ooh, now that sounds *quite* different. Do I understand you right that
> this
> is in effect Ann saying "Even if our marriage is disallowed by the church
> I
> still want you as a lover and you can keep my lands, but only so long as
> you
> remain my partner and don't marry anyone else"?
>
> If that's what it means it's a very strong indication both that it was a
> love-match and that Ann was a tough cookie, despite being four years
> younger
> than him.
>
>
>

Perhaps he was worried about ending up like John - "Lackland"



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:58
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

 
I'd have said if Richard had one sin it was about acquiring lands - see Wilkinson and his cartulary. Perhaps as a result of a very insecure childhood he was not going to let go of what he'd acquired, Anne or not. I await the firing squad!
 
 
 
 
 


________________________________
From: pansydobersby mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:27
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> In fact, iirc Buck specifically records that she complained that Richard had
> eyes only for Ann and didn't seem to know she existed. It's evidence which
> *clears* him. We know there was a rumour that he was planning to marry his
> niece, because he had to publicly deny it, and this explains how the rumour
> started - *she* was pursuing *him* and people saw her making puppy eyes at
> him and jumped to conclusions.
>

No, I do think Buck says 'Yet it may not be denied, he pretended love to her, and a proffer of Marriage', but that Richard had no real intention of marrying her anyway. It's of course pure speculation on Buck's part on the basis of that letter (if it existed), and the speculation of Elizabeth leaving those embarrassing little love-notes in his books is just as valid a theory...

> One of the things I wonder about, btw, is about that marriage clause which
> said that if he and Ann divorced he would keep her lands. It sounds
> hostile - but considering the trouble she'd had with George, it might have
> been partly for Ann's benefit. It meant that if she wanted to she could
> walk away from the marriage without immediately becoming a target again.
>

I've often wondered about that clause, too, but I can't see how it's for Anne's benefit - how could she just walk away if she's left with nothing? On the other hand, it's not for Richard's benefit either, if he can't remarry and keep her lands...

If anything, it sounds more like a 'don't even think about leaving me, ever, or you'll be left with nothing' clause, but I have a hard time believing that either. But could be I just refuse to entertain the thought of him as a controlling, possessive husband.

Who knows, perhaps they were both controlling and possessive ;) Perhaps it's a 'don't you dare ever leave me, or you'll be left with nothing'/'and don't *you* dare ever leave me for another woman, or you too will be left with nothing' sort of clause...

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......
>
> Marie replies:
> The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.

Carol adds:

Divorce as we know it being unknown until Henry VIII found the Pope unwilling to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon under Roman Catholic canon law? (Phrased as a question because I'm not entirely sure.)

Carol

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> The description most often associated with her in contemporary documents is
> "gracious" - I've seen it in the transcriptions of the coronation documents
> and in Rous. In her shared bookish interests with Richard and her
> administrative activities we have evidence of someone with practical
> abilities and intellectual aspirations.

Not to mention that Richard was surrounded by extraordinary women by any, even modern, standards - his mother and sister especially. It's quite hard to imagine his own wife would have been a delicate little flower who simpered and sighed her way through life, thinking simple-minded thoughts about babies and pretty clothes and reading her little prayer book and whatever the 15th-century equivalent of Cosmo's '10 Ways to Please Your Man' articles would have been. ..

> Croyland says that Elizabeth of York and Anne Neville were of
> similar size and coloring. Elizabeth, in her portraits, is a very pretty
> blonde girl, and not delicate.

Was Elizabeth a blonde, though, or a redhead? (Or something in between - what we'd call 'strawberry blonde' perhaps, though I suppose that's more of a description of a particular shade of dye than natural hair... I think.) She has hazel eyes, anyway.

> For Anne, the Salisbury Roll picture of her
> and Richard may not be too far off:
> http://meandrichard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/anna_neville.jpg

How about the Rous Roll portrait? Although it makes Richard's face look like that of a particularly feminine-looking adolescent boy, the features/shape of the face aren't that far off from the facial reconstruction. I'm guessing the picture of Anne might be quite close to what she really looked like - in terms of features, if not expression.

Marie wrote:

Marie replies:
"The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were
divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a
valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore,
is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a
divorce requested by Richard."

Doug here:
So if, for whatever reason, the Church should declare Richard and Anne's
marriage null and void, Anne would retain her inheritance. However if, for
whatever reason, the Church did declare the marriage null and void, Richard
would both have to remain single AND try to regularize his marriage to Anne
in order to retain the lands? Otherwise Richard would have to return her
inheritance to her. Sounds to me as if the whole idea was to protect Anne;
if Richard really wanted those properties THAT much, Anne went with them!
I hate to ask, but just what would "continued to effect a valid marrige with
Anne" entail? If a first marriage was declared "null and void", COULD they
"remarry"?
Doug

Marie wrote:

"Pansy, the meaning of the "divorce clause" is quite complicated. Can I
refer you to my article 'Diriment Impediments, etc,' in the Files section?"

Marie, please ignore my post about that same clause. I posted before I'd
read the entire thread! I'll head for the files section...
Doug

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> if Richard really wanted those properties THAT much, Anne went with them!
I hate to ask, but just what would "continued to effect a valid marrige with
Anne" entail? If a first marriage was declared "null and void", COULD they
"remarry"?

I was wondering that meself. Can it mean "continue to live together as
husband and wife even if their offspring aren't legitimate"?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > if Richard really wanted those properties THAT much, Anne went with them!
> I hate to ask, but just what would "continued to effect a valid marrige with
> Anne" entail? If a first marriage was declared "null and void", COULD they
> "remarry"?
>
> I was wondering that meself. Can it mean "continue to live together as
> husband and wife even if their offspring aren't legitimate"?
>

Hmm. How naughty...

I do wonder why they were afraid their marriage might be declared null and void by some third party, though? I'm sure it had something to do with George, of course, but how would he have had such power over the matter...?

But I'd better read that article now. Thank you, Marie!!

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> Divorce as we know it being unknown until Henry VIII found the Pope unwilling to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon under Roman Catholic canon law? (Phrased as a question because I'm not entirely sure.)
>
> Carol
>


There was indeed only annulment, but it was almost always called divorce. Even Henry VIII's divorce was actually an annulment although not sanctioned by Rome.
Marie

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> Marie replies:
> "The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were
> divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a
> valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore,
> is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a
> divorce requested by Richard."
>
> Doug here:
> So if, for whatever reason, the Church should declare Richard and Anne's
> marriage null and void, Anne would retain her inheritance. However if, for
> whatever reason, the Church did declare the marriage null and void, Richard
> would both have to remain single AND try to regularize his marriage to Anne
> in order to retain the lands? Otherwise Richard would have to return her
> inheritance to her. Sounds to me as if the whole idea was to protect Anne;
> if Richard really wanted those properties THAT much, Anne went with them!
> I hate to ask, but just what would "continued to effect a valid marrige with
> Anne" entail? If a first marriage was declared "null and void", COULD they
> "remarry"?
> Doug
>


Marie replies:
They could remarry if the nullifying impediments to the first marriage were removed and the Pope agreed.
From the evidence we have it looks as though the objection being mooted by Clarence was nothing to do with flaws in the dispensation(s), but the fact that Richard had snatched Anne from his "care" (ref Milanese State Papers). Really, this claim was not valid for reasons I explained in an earlier post; it was either the result of wishful thinking on Clarence's part or deliberately vexatious, an excuse for his refusal to share the Beauchamp inheritance with Richard - and that's why it had to be covered in the Act setting out the basis of the partition of the Beauchamp property. It was such a poor objection, canonically speaking, that there was no realistic prospect of it leading to Richard and Anne's marriage being declared null. The "divorce clause" in the Act was just a means of shutting George up and making him co-operate.

Correct. Someone posted late this morning (GMT) that Richard had a duty to divorce Anne when their son died and she couldn't replace him by getting pregnant again.
This is appalling. A King without an heir or prospect of one makes plans for an emergency successor - Lincoln and his brothers were the only legitimate unattainted male heirs. Only when Anne took ill irrepairably would he make plans to remarry.

Quite apart from coming after Richard, Henry VIII is not a role model for Kings in this respect but an example to avoid. Since then, only one King (a Hanoverian) has divorced and George IV separated, unless I have forgotten someone, and those cases weren't to reproduce. No other monarch has resulted to an "instant" divorce by block either.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.



Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......
>
> Marie replies:
> The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.

Carol adds:

Divorce as we know it being unknown until Henry VIII found the Pope unwilling to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon under Roman Catholic canon law? (Phrased as a question because I'm not entirely sure.)

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > if Richard really wanted those properties THAT much, Anne went with them!
> I hate to ask, but just what would "continued to effect a valid marrige with
> Anne" entail? If a first marriage was declared "null and void", COULD they
> "remarry"?
>
> I was wondering that meself. Can it mean "continue to live together as
> husband and wife even if their offspring aren't legitimate"?

No - see my last post. And they would have been in hot water with the priests if they had continued to live together as man and wife after being declared not married. Really, it's a mistake to devote too much mental energy to the possibility of the marriage being annulled - this was a phantom conjured up by Clarence for his own ends.
Marie
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Correct. Someone posted late this morning (GMT) that Richard had a duty to divorce Anne when their son died and she couldn't replace him by getting pregnant again.
> This is appalling. A King without an heir or prospect of one makes plans for an emergency successor - Lincoln and his brothers were the only legitimate unattainted male heirs. Only when Anne took ill irrepairably would he make plans to remarry.
>

I hope this is not referring to what I said... the gist of my message was that *if* he was thinking about replacing her, surely that would have been the time to start planning it, instead of doing the exact opposite - i.e. strengthening her position as his Queen. (Not to mention that when I mentioned what he 'should' have been thinking, I wasn't talking about duty as I saw it, but about his survival on the throne.)

*My* opinion is that he did right by standing by her, but an ice-cold pragmatist would surely have acted differently. That's all I meant.

Hi Stephen,

We obviously read that post differently. I read it as saying that IF Richard had planned to divorce Anne because she couldn't give him another son he would surely have set that in motion much earlier on, not continued to make a big fuss of Anne. I agreed with that. The time the Crowland Chronicler has him decide to divorce her is, as you rightly say, the point at which it was no longer necessary as a means of getting rid of her (had he wanted to).

I would also add that divorcing or killing his queen just as Henry Tudor had announced he was going to invade would have been a very stupid move because Richard would have left himself at the critical moment not just without a bodily heir but also without a wife who could give him one (this is, of course, tragically what happened anyway). There would not have been time to organise a divorce/ slow poisoning and the inevitable dispensations for a second marriage before the summer.

Marie

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Correct. Someone posted late this morning (GMT) that Richard had a duty to divorce Anne when their son died and she couldn't replace him by getting pregnant again.
> This is appalling. A King without an heir or prospect of one makes plans for an emergency successor - Lincoln and his brothers were the only legitimate unattainted male heirs. Only when Anne took ill irrepairably would he make plans to remarry.
>
> Quite apart from coming after Richard, Henry VIII is not a role model for Kings in this respect but an example to avoid. Since then, only one King (a Hanoverian) has divorced and George IV separated, unless I have forgotten someone, and those cases weren't to reproduce. No other monarch has resulted to an "instant" divorce by block either.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> Divorce as we know it being unknown until Henry VIII found the Pope unwilling to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon under Roman Catholic canon law? (Phrased as a question because I'm not entirely sure.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

How about giving the guy some time to mourn, some time to win his battle for the throne, and get rid of some of those who were trying to depose him, and then, think about another wife. He had a whole lot going on, in my humble opinion.......too busy to worry about an heir and a spare!

On Feb 23, 2013, at 1:39 PM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Correct. Someone posted late this morning (GMT) that Richard had a duty to divorce Anne when their son died and she couldn't replace him by getting pregnant again.
> This is appalling. A King without an heir or prospect of one makes plans for an emergency successor - Lincoln and his brothers were the only legitimate unattainted male heirs. Only when Anne took ill irrepairably would he make plans to remarry.
>

I hope this is not referring to what I said... the gist of my message was that *if* he was thinking about replacing her, surely that would have been the time to start planning it, instead of doing the exact opposite - i.e. strengthening her position as his Queen. (Not to mention that when I mentioned what he 'should' have been thinking, I wasn't talking about duty as I saw it, but about his survival on the throne.)

*My* opinion is that he did right by standing by her, but an ice-cold pragmatist would surely have acted differently. That's all I meant.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> How about giving the guy some time to mourn, some time to win his battle for the throne, and get rid of some of those who were trying to depose him, and then, think about another wife. He had a whole lot going on, in my humble opinion.......too busy to worry about an heir and a spare!
>


Well, sure, but I was specifically talking about those grants to the Queen's College in July 1484. That was a BIG public gesture, for a wife who was supposedly 'useless' by then.

And an heir would have been a big concern at any time, I'd have thought. Childless kings have always been especially vulnerable on their thrones.

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> How about giving the guy some time to mourn, some time to win his battle
> for the throne, and get rid of some of those who were trying to depose
> him, and then, think about another wife. He had a whole lot going on, in
> my humble opinion.......too busy to worry about an heir and a spare!

The only thing against that is that it's generally said that the originals
of his portraits were very probably painted to be shown to prospective
brides when he re-entered the marriage market. I suppose that Ann, as the
Kingmaker's daughter, would probably have advised him to remarry and cement
his position as soon as he decently could.

Stephen, where did you see the post about "Richard had a duty to divorce Anne"? Am I missing posts again?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 23, 2013, at 2:28 PM, "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> Correct. Someone posted late this morning (GMT) that Richard had a duty to divorce Anne when their son died and she couldn't replace him by getting pregnant again.
> This is appalling. A King without an heir or prospect of one makes plans for an emergency successor - Lincoln and his brothers were the only legitimate unattainted male heirs. Only when Anne took ill irrepairably would he make plans to remarry.
>
> Quite apart from coming after Richard, Henry VIII is not a role model for Kings in this respect but an example to avoid. Since then, only one King (a Hanoverian) has divorced and George IV separated, unless I have forgotten someone, and those cases weren't to reproduce. No other monarch has resulted to an "instant" divorce by block either.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> Divorce as we know it being unknown until Henry VIII found the Pope unwilling to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon under Roman Catholic canon law? (Phrased as a question because I'm not entirely sure.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

I find it a little tasteless of Richard's council to push for a marriage with Joanna even before Anne was dead. She would have known about it and how terrible it must have made her feel........I know, I know. It was a political decision but that does not make it any better.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 23, 2013, at 3:14 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...>
> To: >
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
> > How about giving the guy some time to mourn, some time to win his battle
> > for the throne, and get rid of some of those who were trying to depose
> > him, and then, think about another wife. He had a whole lot going on, in
> > my humble opinion.......too busy to worry about an heir and a spare!
>
> The only thing against that is that it's generally said that the originals
> of his portraits were very probably painted to be shown to prospective
> brides when he re-entered the marriage market. I suppose that Ann, as the
> Kingmaker's daughter, would probably have advised him to remarry and cement
> his position as soon as he decently could.
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I find it a little tasteless of Richard's council to push for a marriage with Joanna even before Anne was dead. She would have known about it and how terrible it must have made her feel........I know, I know. It was a political decision but that does not make it any better.
>


But remember: we don't know whether Anne herself was pushing for it, too...

For all we know, she might have been the most level-headed person about her own approaching death. Indeed, for all we know she might have been a shrewd political mastermind with an extremely low tolerance for sentimental mumbo-jumbo!

About 11:00 GMT (04:00 USA).
----- Original Message -----
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.



Stephen, where did you see the post about "Richard had a duty to divorce Anne"? Am I missing posts again?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 23, 2013, at 2:28 PM, "Stephen Lark" stephenmlark@...> wrote:

> Correct. Someone posted late this morning (GMT) that Richard had a duty to divorce Anne when their son died and she couldn't replace him by getting pregnant again.
> This is appalling. A King without an heir or prospect of one makes plans for an emergency successor - Lincoln and his brothers were the only legitimate unattainted male heirs. Only when Anne took ill irrepairably would he make plans to remarry.
>
> Quite apart from coming after Richard, Henry VIII is not a role model for Kings in this respect but an example to avoid. Since then, only one King (a Hanoverian) has divorced and George IV separated, unless I have forgotten someone, and those cases weren't to reproduce. No other monarch has resulted to an "instant" divorce by block either.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > The fact that he could not " remarry" anyone other than Anne shows, he could hold on to those lands as long as he was not ditching Anne for another woman......
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The Act specifically states that he could keep the lands if they were divorced only so long as he didn't marry another AND continued to effect a valid marriage with Anne. What "divorced" means in this context, therefore, is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was null and void, not a divorce requested by Richard.
>
> Carol adds:
>
> Divorce as we know it being unknown until Henry VIII found the Pope unwilling to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon under Roman Catholic canon law? (Phrased as a question because I'm not entirely sure.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> For all we know, she might have been the most level-headed person about
> her own approaching death. Indeed, for all we know she might have been a
> shrewd political mastermind with an extremely low tolerance for
> sentimental mumbo-jumbo!

It's what you would expect from her father's daughter....

Pansy wrote:
> But remember: we don't know whether Anne herself was pushing for it, too...
>
> For all we know, she might have been the most level-headed person about her own approaching death. Indeed, for all we know she might have been a shrewd political mastermind with an extremely low tolerance for sentimental mumbo-jumbo!

Carol responds:

Certainly, she must have known that Richard's survival as king depended on producing an heir. Look what happened to Richard II. And, if she loved him, she may well have urged him not to mourn over long and to marry as soon as possible--not just any woman, of course, but the right woman dynastically.

We can't know, of course, but love and practicality can go hand in hand. I suspect, too, that Anne had favored his taking the crown in the first place for her sake and that of their son, but, again, we'll never know.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > For all we know, she might have been the most level-headed person about
> > her own approaching death. Indeed, for all we know she might have been a
> > shrewd political mastermind with an extremely low tolerance for
> > sentimental mumbo-jumbo!
>
> It's what you would expect from her father's daughter....
>

Indeed.

And she certainly seems to have thought of herself as very much her father's daughter - didn't she sign her name as 'Anne Warrewyk' in 'The Booke of Gostlye Grace'? I find that quite curious. Not 'Anne Neville', not 'Anne Gloucestre', but 'Anne Warrewyk', as if she were her father's *true* heir...

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> And she certainly seems to have thought of herself as very much her
> father's daughter - didn't she sign her name as 'Anne Warrewyk' in 'The
> Booke of Gostlye Grace'? I find that quite curious. Not 'Anne Neville',
> not 'Anne Gloucestre', but 'Anne Warrewyk', as if she were her father's
> *true* heir...

I hadn't heard about that - that's fascinating. Do we know if it was
written before or after her marriage? Even if before it's still
significant, of course, because she's still being the Earl's daughter rather
than a Neville. And if it's true that she did urge Richard to accept the
throne, then she too was a king-maker.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > And she certainly seems to have thought of herself as very much her
> > father's daughter - didn't she sign her name as 'Anne Warrewyk' in 'The
> > Booke of Gostlye Grace'? I find that quite curious. Not 'Anne Neville',
> > not 'Anne Gloucestre', but 'Anne Warrewyk', as if she were her father's
> > *true* heir...
>
> I hadn't heard about that - that's fascinating. Do we know if it was
> written before or after her marriage? Even if before it's still
> significant, of course, because she's still being the Earl's daughter rather
> than a Neville. And if it's true that she did urge Richard to accept the
> throne, then she too was a king-maker.
>

The book was signed by both 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre', so I assume it was after her marriage. Fascinating indeed!

Just so --

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=6498&CollID=28&NStart=2006


A J

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:

> **
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> <snip>

>
> And she certainly seems to have thought of herself as very much her
> father's daughter - didn't she sign her name as 'Anne Warrewyk' in 'The
> Booke of Gostlye Grace'? I find that quite curious. Not 'Anne Neville', not
> 'Anne Gloucestre', but 'Anne Warrewyk', as if she were her father's *true*
> heir...
>
>
>

Carol: after these last few months, the words "we'll never know," seem more and more unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if more comes to light about the relationship of Richard and Anne. It may come after I'm pushing up the daisies, but nothing would surprise me about R anymore! Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Pansy wrote:
> > But remember: we don't know whether Anne herself was pushing for it, too...
> >
> > For all we know, she might have been the most level-headed person about her own approaching death. Indeed, for all we know she might have been a shrewd political mastermind with an extremely low tolerance for sentimental mumbo-jumbo!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Certainly, she must have known that Richard's survival as king depended on producing an heir. Look what happened to Richard II. And, if she loved him, she may well have urged him not to mourn over long and to marry as soon as possible--not just any woman, of course, but the right woman dynastically.
>
> We can't know, of course, but love and practicality can go hand in hand. I suspect, too, that Anne had favored his taking the crown in the first place for her sake and that of their son, but, again, we'll never know.
>
> Carol
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

> The book was signed by both 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre', so I
> assume it was after her marriage. Fascinating indeed!

Either that, or when they were children - which would be equally
interesting, since it would tend to confirm that they were early friends,
despite the age gap. Did I dream this, or does the catalogue from the RIII
exhibition mention a bench or other wooden structure at Middleham into which
young Dick had carved his initials?

Well, the book was signed by Richard and "Anne Warrewyk" but can we be absolutely sure this wasn't the Countess of Warwick?
marie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > And she certainly seems to have thought of herself as very much her
> > father's daughter - didn't she sign her name as 'Anne Warrewyk' in 'The
> > Booke of Gostlye Grace'? I find that quite curious. Not 'Anne Neville',
> > not 'Anne Gloucestre', but 'Anne Warrewyk', as if she were her father's
> > *true* heir...
>
> I hadn't heard about that - that's fascinating. Do we know if it was
> written before or after her marriage? Even if before it's still
> significant, of course, because she's still being the Earl's daughter rather
> than a Neville. And if it's true that she did urge Richard to accept the
> throne, then she too was a king-maker.
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Well, the book was signed by Richard and "Anne Warrewyk" but can we be absolutely sure this wasn't the Countess of Warwick?
> marie
>


That's true - it actually occurred to me as I was going to bed that the book about Richard's books mentions this as a possibility. Although, if the Countess of Warwick was the previous owner of the book, it does seem a bit odd that Richard signed it twice. There's 'R. Gloucestre' in the lower corner, and 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre' in the upper corner - it would seem more likely to me that it was Richard's book first, and then he and Anne signed it again together?

I don't know. I realise I'm grasping at straws here!! There's obviously no way to know unless another example of Anne's handwriting comes to light. (I'm just so determined to see Anne as a strong, proud woman that I see 'evidence' everywhere, especially after I saw her DNB entry say 'Anne seems to have been a particularly insignificant queen'. I never swear, but I literally scowled at that text and muttered, 'Well, f*** you, too.')

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> I don't know. I realise I'm grasping at straws here!! There's obviously no
> way to know unless another example of Anne's handwriting comes to light.

Or another example of Ann Beauchamp's. Is there one? Another interesting
test which could be performed, but that probably nobody would because it
would be expensive and possibly a bit destructive, is are the Warwick and
Gloucester signatures written in exactly the same batch of ink? I'm
assuming that if they actually wrote their names in together they would have
dipped their pens in the same inkwell.

> (I'm just so determined to see Anne as a strong, proud woman that I see
> 'evidence' everywhere, especially after I saw her DNB entry say 'Anne
> seems to have been a particularly insignificant queen'. I never swear, but
> I literally scowled at that text and muttered, 'Well, f*** you, too.')

I suppose she was pretty insignificant as queen, poor girl, since she
reigned for less than two years and spent much of that time either in
mourning or dying or both. But she was a significant duchess!

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
> Or another example of Ann Beauchamp's. Is there one? Another interesting
> test which could be performed, but that probably nobody would because it
> would be expensive and possibly a bit destructive, is are the Warwick and
> Gloucester signatures written in exactly the same batch of ink? I'm
> assuming that if they actually wrote their names in together they would have
> dipped their pens in the same inkwell.


I'll bet you could tell much just by looking at those signatures, too (in terms of comparing their relative ages, I mean). We should go take a look, armed with magnifying glasses...


> I suppose she was pretty insignificant as queen, poor girl, since she
> reigned for less than two years and spent much of that time either in
> mourning or dying or both. But she was a significant duchess!


Oh, I know you're right, and I know I'm being uncharitable... but I still think they should have worded it less offensively, considering that Anne never got even half a chance to prove herself as a queen. Elizabeth of York got 17 years to prove herself, and how 'significant' was she, exactly?

It's like you said: Anne was a queen for about a year and a half, and spent most of that time either mourning or dying or both - so what exactly was she supposed to accomplish in that time? Go on a full-on Marguerite of Anjou rampage? Have Richard locked up in the Tower, seize the throne for herself, and invade France?

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
> Or another example of Ann Beauchamp's. Is there one? Another interesting
> test which could be performed, but that probably nobody would because it
> would be expensive and possibly a bit destructive, is are the Warwick and
> Gloucester signatures written in exactly the same batch of ink? I'm
> assuming that if they actually wrote their names in together they would have
> dipped their pens in the same inkwell.


I'll bet you could tell much just by looking at those signatures, too (in terms of comparing their relative ages, I mean). We should go take a look, armed with magnifying glasses...


> I suppose she was pretty insignificant as queen, poor girl, since she
> reigned for less than two years and spent much of that time either in
> mourning or dying or both. But she was a significant duchess!


Oh, I know you're right, and I know I'm being uncharitable... but I still think they should have worded it less offensively, considering that Anne never got even half a chance to prove herself as a queen. Elizabeth of York got 17 years to prove herself, and how 'significant' was she, exactly?

It's like you said: Anne was a queen for about a year and a half, and spent most of that time either mourning or dying or both - so what exactly was she supposed to accomplish in that time? Go on a full-on Marguerite of Anjou rampage? Have Richard locked up in the Tower, seize the throne for herself, and invade France?

[Dreamily considering the alternatives.]

Er... I'm sorry. Excuse me, where were we?

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 9:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> > Or another example of Ann Beauchamp's. Is there one? Another interesting
> > test which could be performed, but that probably nobody would because it
> > would be expensive and possibly a bit destructive, is are the Warwick and
> > Gloucester signatures written in exactly the same batch of ink? I'm
> > assuming that if they actually wrote their names in together they would have
> > dipped their pens in the same inkwell.
>
>
> I'll bet you could tell much just by looking at those signatures, too (in terms of comparing their relative ages, I mean). We should go take a look, armed with magnifying glasses...
>
>
> > I suppose she was pretty insignificant as queen, poor girl, since she
> > reigned for less than two years and spent much of that time either in
> > mourning or dying or both. But she was a significant duchess!
>
>
> Oh, I know you're right, and I know I'm being uncharitable... but I still think they should have worded it less offensively, considering that Anne never got even half a chance to prove herself as a queen. Elizabeth of York got 17 years to prove herself, and how 'significant' was she, exactly?
>
> It's like you said: Anne was a queen for about a year and a half, and spent most of that time either mourning or dying or both - so what exactly was she supposed to accomplish in that time? Go on a full-on Marguerite of Anjou rampage? Have Richard locked up in the Tower, seize the throne for herself, and invade France?
>

I totally agree!!!!

On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:29 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Well, the book was signed by Richard and "Anne Warrewyk" but can we be absolutely sure this wasn't the Countess of Warwick?
> marie
>

That's true - it actually occurred to me as I was going to bed that the book about Richard's books mentions this as a possibility. Although, if the Countess of Warwick was the previous owner of the book, it does seem a bit odd that Richard signed it twice. There's 'R. Gloucestre' in the lower corner, and 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre' in the upper corner - it would seem more likely to me that it was Richard's book first, and then he and Anne signed it again together?

I don't know. I realise I'm grasping at straws here!! There's obviously no way to know unless another example of Anne's handwriting comes to light. (I'm just so determined to see Anne as a strong, proud woman that I see 'evidence' everywhere, especially after I saw her DNB entry say 'Anne seems to have been a particularly insignificant queen'. I never swear, but I literally scowled at that text and muttered, 'Well, f*** you, too.')

I am going to stick to my quack theory that Richard had a "thing" about signing his name along with other people. He did it with his wife, his niece and his nephew. Did it represent some kind of closeness with his kin? Maire.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I totally agree!!!!
>
> On Feb 24, 2013, at 3:29 AM, "pansydobersby" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Well, the book was signed by Richard and "Anne Warrewyk" but can we be absolutely sure this wasn't the Countess of Warwick?
> > marie
> >
>
> That's true - it actually occurred to me as I was going to bed that the book about Richard's books mentions this as a possibility. Although, if the Countess of Warwick was the previous owner of the book, it does seem a bit odd that Richard signed it twice. There's 'R. Gloucestre' in the lower corner, and 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre' in the upper corner - it would seem more likely to me that it was Richard's book first, and then he and Anne signed it again together?
>
> I don't know. I realise I'm grasping at straws here!! There's obviously no way to know unless another example of Anne's handwriting comes to light. (I'm just so determined to see Anne as a strong, proud woman that I see 'evidence' everywhere, especially after I saw her DNB entry say 'Anne seems to have been a particularly insignificant queen'. I never swear, but I literally scowled at that text and muttered, 'Well, f*** you, too.')
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
> >
> > Well, the book was signed by Richard and "Anne Warrewyk" but can we be absolutely sure this wasn't the Countess of Warwick?

pansydobersby responded:
>
> That's true - it actually occurred to me as I was going to bed that the book about Richard's books mentions this as a possibility. Although, if the Countess of Warwick was the previous owner of the book, it does seem a bit odd that Richard signed it twice. There's 'R. Gloucestre' in the lower corner, and 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre' in the upper corner - it would seem more likely to me that it was Richard's book first, and then he and Anne signed it again together? [snip]

Carol responds:

Do we have any other examples of Anne Neville's or her mother's signatures for comparison? And if the signature is that of the Countess of Warwick (as seems likely from the wording), might the book have been a gift from her to Richard (just as we've speculated that Richard may have given some of his books to Elizabeth of York)? A book was a valuable piece of property in those days regardless of whether it had been previously owned, and if Richard and the countess were on good terms and she saw that he enjoyed a book that she had lent him, she might well have given it to him either while he was a boy staying at Middleham or when she returned to Middleham after being freed from sanctuary at Beaulieu.

Those of you who have a better eye than I do for signatures could compare the two "R Gloucestre" signatures to see if they're contemporary and whether they seem to match his older or his younger signatures.

Just a thought.

Carol

Maybe they were " courting" when they wrote on the book together!
And I get your points. She could have been a practical person who knew how the game is played.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 23, 2013, at 5:49 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > From: pansydobersby
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
> >
> >
> > > And she certainly seems to have thought of herself as very much her
> > > father's daughter - didn't she sign her name as 'Anne Warrewyk' in 'The
> > > Booke of Gostlye Grace'? I find that quite curious. Not 'Anne Neville',
> > > not 'Anne Gloucestre', but 'Anne Warrewyk', as if she were her father's
> > > *true* heir...
> >
> > I hadn't heard about that - that's fascinating. Do we know if it was
> > written before or after her marriage? Even if before it's still
> > significant, of course, because she's still being the Earl's daughter rather
> > than a Neville. And if it's true that she did urge Richard to accept the
> > throne, then she too was a king-maker.
> >
>
> The book was signed by both 'Anne Warrewyk' and 'R. Gloucestre', so I assume it was after her marriage. Fascinating indeed!
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Do we have any other examples of Anne Neville's or her mother's signatures for comparison? And if the signature is that of the Countess of Warwick (as seems likely from the wording), might the book have been a gift from her to Richard (just as we've speculated that Richard may have given some of his books to Elizabeth of York)? A book was a valuable piece of property in those days regardless of whether it had been previously owned, and if Richard and the countess were on good terms and she saw that he enjoyed a book that she had lent him, she might well have given it to him either while he was a boy staying at Middleham or when she returned to Middleham after being freed from sanctuary at Beaulieu.
>
> Those of you who have a better eye than I do for signatures could compare the two "R Gloucestre" signatures to see if they're contemporary and whether they seem to match his older or his younger signatures.
>
>


To both (good) points - I don't know. I don't have a copy of my own of 'Richard III's Books' (that blasted book is so terribly expensive second-hand) so I can't check what it says, but I don't remember it mentioning that either of the Gloucestre signatures was in his youthful handwriting. Unlike the 'Ipomedon' signature, which is specifically mentioned as being that of a young Richard.

So I suppose if the book was a gift from the Countess, it was after her return to Middleham, which would imply they were on good terms by then. Or else, 'Anne Warrewyk' was Richard's Anne showing some ego.

Frankly, either possibility is fine by me. ;)

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> So I suppose if the book was a gift from the Countess, it was after her
> return to Middleham, which would imply they were on good terms by then. Or
> else, 'Anne Warrewyk' was Richard's Anne showing some ego.

> Frankly, either possibility is fine by me. ;)

I'm just reading Marie's essay on Richard and Ann;s marriage and the
difficulty they had circumventing George. It may very well be the case that
the clause which said that Richard would keep Ann's land if their marriage
was disallowed was there purely in order to remove George's incentive for
trying to annul their marriage.

However, the clause which says that Richard could only keep Ann's lands in
the event of a divorce on condition that he continued to pursue a legal
marriage with her and didn't marry elsewhere, does not serve that purpose.
Suppose that Richard *had* wanted to separate from Ann and marry someone
else, there was no advantage to the king or to him in having Ann's lands
revert to her, making her a target for George again. That sounds like Ann
saying "You're mine and don't you dare forget it."

Plus, it's clear the old countess was extremely loud and unmanageable and
Richard was being positively heroic in taking her on. And like mother, like
daughter.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip[
> Plus, it's clear the old countess was extremely loud and unmanageable and Richard was being positively heroic in taking her on. And like mother, like daughter.

Carol responds:

Are you judging her from Tony Pollard's speculation that she was a member of the Saint Penket cult or her flurry of correspondence to every available person while she was in Beaulieu abbey or something else? We really don't know much about else about her except that she was apparently very loyal to her husband (and may have been involved in his treasonous activities, according to Marie) and that she tried to get her lands back from Henry, who "gave" them to her only to force her to give them to him. Rous (yes, I know how far we can trust him, which is not at all except in the English Rous Roll) says that she was pious and charitable and liked helping women in childbirth (not as a midwife, but something more in keeping with her rank in society).

Of course, if the letter is genuine, it may indicate that she was something of a spendthrift, but we have no other evidence of that tendency that I know of.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> Are you judging her from Tony Pollard's speculation that she was a member
> of the Saint Penket cult or her flurry of correspondence to every
> available person while she was in Beaulieu abbey or something else?

From the flurry of correspondence, and Edward's having to get his people to
keep her under close guard to stop her bombarding the court with irate
letters, and this not preventing her from petitioning parliament. And then
later the letter about the tablet, which appears to be saying that Richard
is displeased at her extravagance but this won't stop her from doing
[something]. It sounds like she still treated both the king and his brother
like naughty schoolboys.

After all, her husband "made" Edward - and she was probably privy to
whatever he knew about Edward's dodgy marriage.

I do wish I'd never started this St Penket thing - blame the web. But I don't see that the Smethon letter (if it did exist) makes her a spendthrift. I do however, (and I have historical evidence) believe she could have influenced Rous in an effort to get back her lands after Richard's death, hence the his change of tack. And I do believe Tony Pollard is a good historian - we can't dismiss them all because they have a different opinion on some things to ours. 


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 23:09
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.

 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip[
> Plus, it's clear the old countess was extremely loud and unmanageable and Richard was being positively heroic in taking her on. And like mother, like daughter.

Carol responds:

Are you judging her from Tony Pollard's speculation that she was a member of the Saint Penket cult or her flurry of correspondence to every available person while she was in Beaulieu abbey or something else? We really don't know much about else about her except that she was apparently very loyal to her husband (and may have been involved in his treasonous activities, according to Marie) and that she tried to get her lands back from Henry, who "gave" them to her only to force her to give them to him. Rous (yes, I know how far we can trust him, which is not at all except in the English Rous Roll) says that she was pious and charitable and liked helping women in childbirth (not as a midwife, but something more in keeping with her rank in society).

Of course, if the letter is genuine, it may indicate that she was something of a spendthrift, but we have no other evidence of that tendency that I know of.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > So I suppose if the book was a gift from the Countess, it was after her
> > return to Middleham, which would imply they were on good terms by then. Or
> > else, 'Anne Warrewyk' was Richard's Anne showing some ego.
>
> > Frankly, either possibility is fine by me. ;)
>
> I'm just reading Marie's essay on Richard and Ann;s marriage and the
> difficulty they had circumventing George. It may very well be the case that
> the clause which said that Richard would keep Ann's land if their marriage
> was disallowed was there purely in order to remove George's incentive for
> trying to annul their marriage.
>
> However, the clause which says that Richard could only keep Ann's lands in
> the event of a divorce on condition that he continued to pursue a legal
> marriage with her and didn't marry elsewhere, does not serve that purpose.
> Suppose that Richard *had* wanted to separate from Ann and marry someone
> else, there was no advantage to the king or to him in having Ann's lands
> revert to her, making her a target for George again. That sounds like Ann
> saying "You're mine and don't you dare forget it."

Marie replies:
In what sense did the Act not deter George from trying to get Richard and Anne's marriage annulled?
Why would a bride only 18 months into her marriage be worrying that her husband might want to stay divorced from her? The clause sctually says:-
" if the said Richard, duke of Gloucester, and Anne shall subsequently be divorced, and then lawfully married, that this present act shall still be to them as good and valid as if no such divorce had taken place, but that the same Anne had continued as the wife of the said duke of Gloucester. And moreover, it is ordained by the said authority that if the said duke of Gloucester and Anne shall subsequently be divorced, and he then does the very best he can, by all appropriate and lawful means, to be lawfully married to the said Anne, the daughter, and during the lifetime of the same Anne is not wedded or married to any other woman: that the said duke of Gloucester shall still have and enjoy as much of the foregoing as shall appertain to the said Anne during the lifetime of the said duke of Gloucester."
The reference to their remarriage (to each other), or attempt to remarry, makes it clear that the divorce referred to is not one sought by Gloucester but one that might hypothetically be imposed on the couple from outside.
We need to remember, in any case, that this was an Act of Parliament, not a contract drawn up between Richard and George and their wives, and so above all represented the King's settlement of the dispute over the Beauchamp inheritance.





>
> Plus, it's clear the old countess was extremely loud and unmanageable and
> Richard was being positively heroic in taking her on. And like mother, like
> daughter.
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> Marie replies:
In what sense did the Act not deter George from trying to get Richard and
Anne's marriage annulled?

That specific clause about what happens if he marries someone else doesn't
serve the purpose of deterrance, because it raises the possibility of a
situation in which the marriage might end and the lands might revert back to
Ann, making her available as a target for George again.

> Why would a bride only 18 months into her marriage be worrying that her
> husband might want to stay divorced from her?

If she took after Daddy, she'd probably be a hard nut who considered all
options.

> The clause sctually says:-
" if the said Richard, duke of Gloucester, and Anne shall subsequently be
divorced, and then lawfully married, that this present act shall still be to
them as good and valid as if no such divorce had taken place, but that the
same Anne had continued as the wife of the said duke of Gloucester. And
moreover, it is ordained by the said authority that if the said duke of
Gloucester and Anne shall subsequently be divorced, and he then does the
very best he can, by all appropriate and lawful means, to be lawfully
married to the said Anne, the daughter, and during the lifetime of the same
Anne is not wedded or married to any other woman: that the said duke of
Gloucester shall still have and enjoy as much of the foregoing as shall
appertain to the said Anne during the lifetime of the said duke of
Gloucester."

It gives a much warmer impression than the bald summary, doesn't it?

> We need to remember, in any case, that this was an Act of Parliament, not
> a contract drawn up between Richard and George and their wives,

Oh right, so you think the clause about losing the land if he married
someone else might just be a standard legal requirement of some kind, rather
than something specifically thought up for the occasion.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > Marie replies:
> In what sense did the Act not deter George from trying to get Richard and
> Anne's marriage annulled?
>
> That specific clause about what happens if he marries someone else doesn't
> serve the purpose of deterrance, because it raises the possibility of a
> situation in which the marriage might end and the lands might revert back to
> Ann, making her available as a target for George again.
>
> > Why would a bride only 18 months into her marriage be worrying that her
> > husband might want to stay divorced from her?
>
> If she took after Daddy, she'd probably be a hard nut who considered all
> options.
>
> > The clause sctually says:-
> " if the said Richard, duke of Gloucester, and Anne shall subsequently be
> divorced, and then lawfully married, that this present act shall still be to
> them as good and valid as if no such divorce had taken place, but that the
> same Anne had continued as the wife of the said duke of Gloucester. And
> moreover, it is ordained by the said authority that if the said duke of
> Gloucester and Anne shall subsequently be divorced, and he then does the
> very best he can, by all appropriate and lawful means, to be lawfully
> married to the said Anne, the daughter, and during the lifetime of the same
> Anne is not wedded or married to any other woman: that the said duke of
> Gloucester shall still have and enjoy as much of the foregoing as shall
> appertain to the said Anne during the lifetime of the said duke of
> Gloucester."
>
> It gives a much warmer impression than the bald summary, doesn't it?
>
> > We need to remember, in any case, that this was an Act of Parliament, not
> > a contract drawn up between Richard and George and their wives,
>
> Oh right, so you think the clause about losing the land if he married
> someone else might just be a standard legal requirement of some kind, rather
> than something specifically thought up for the occasion.
>

Marie replies:
No, you've turned the sentence on its head. It doesn't say Richard would lose the land if he married someone else - it says he would keep it if he kept trying to marry Ann and didn't marry someone else. The default position, without this clause, was that Richard would have lost his right to the lands the minute the marriage was annulled, so this clause provided Anne with no protection she wouldn't have had anyway, and indeed deprived her of some.
This provision did, however, deprive George of the incentive to get the marriage annulled. It also makes clear that the threat of annulment was coming from George, not Richard, as the reference to the couple's remarriage makes amply clear. And George did indeed give up after this.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.
>
>
> > Marie replies:
> In what sense did the Act not deter George from trying to get Richard and
> Anne's marriage annulled?
>
> That specific clause about what happens if he marries someone else doesn't
> serve the purpose of deterrance, because it raises the possibility of a
> situation in which the marriage might end and the lands might revert back to
> Ann, making her available as a target for George again

Marie replies:
A pretty remote possibility, I should have thought. The whole point is that George was trying to break up a couple who had chosen to marry. His grounds were spurious and vexatious as I have already explained. In the extremely remote possibility that he had got the marriage annulled Richard and Anne could fairly easily have organised to remarry in a way that demonstrated Anne's free consent to the Church's satisfaction. George's objection to the validity of the marriage had been a lame excuse to avoid sharing the Beauchamp lands, and even George wouldn't have kept going - and didn't keep going - with his objections in the face of such a disappearingly remote chance of success as the Act of Parliament offered.





>
> > Why would a bride only 18 months into her marriage be worrying that her
> > husband might want to stay divorced from her?
>
> If she took after Daddy, she'd probably be a hard nut who considered all
> options.
>
> > The clause sctually says:-
> " if the said Richard, duke of Gloucester, and Anne shall subsequently be
> divorced, and then lawfully married, that this present act shall still be to
> them as good and valid as if no such divorce had taken place, but that the
> same Anne had continued as the wife of the said duke of Gloucester. And
> moreover, it is ordained by the said authority that if the said duke of
> Gloucester and Anne shall subsequently be divorced, and he then does the
> very best he can, by all appropriate and lawful means, to be lawfully
> married to the said Anne, the daughter, and during the lifetime of the same
> Anne is not wedded or married to any other woman: that the said duke of
> Gloucester shall still have and enjoy as much of the foregoing as shall
> appertain to the said Anne during the lifetime of the said duke of
> Gloucester."
>
> It gives a much warmer impression than the bald summary, doesn't it?
>
> > We need to remember, in any case, that this was an Act of Parliament, not
> > a contract drawn up between Richard and George and their wives,
>
> Oh right, so you think the clause about losing the land if he married
> someone else might just be a standard legal requirement of some kind, rather
> than something specifically thought up for the occasion.
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's dispensation.


> Marie replies:
No, you've turned the sentence on its head. It doesn't say Richard would
lose the land if he married someone else - it says he would keep it if he
kept trying to marry Ann and didn't marry someone else. The default
position, without this clause, was that Richard would have lost his right to
the lands the minute the marriage was annulled,

Yes, OK, so it's what I said - this provision that he will keep the land
*only* if he doesn't remarry is some sort of default legal clause, not
something which has been inserted especially for them.