Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's heir

In a message dated 8/27/03 8:28:38 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
marie@... writes:


>
> I see I have rambled on again.
> e



Marie,
For me it was a "perfect" discussion--"Henry Holland, The Tale of a Real
Cad"--exactly what I wanted to know on many levels. I'd remembered that Elizabeth
Woodville had muscled in on someone's arrangements. I'm a bit foggy or fuzzy
on the Montacute family--it's getting intertangled with the Beauchamp family
in my confused mind, but genealogy charts will straighten that out.

Thanks for the discussion on Sir Thomas St. Leger; I'd always wondered what
motivated him to join Buckingham's Rebellion against his brother-in-law.

Regards, Pam

p.s. You inspired me to buy the "Letters of Medieval Women" book.

> The child may originally have been intended to marry Buckingham, as
> Anne of York was granted Buck's wardship in 1461. However, her
> importance increased when an act of parliament gave Anne of York the
> duchy of Exeter in her own right, her heirs being the children of her
> body regardless of sex. When Montagu had a son in 1465 the Duchess
> and Montagu came to an arrangement for their children's marriage.
> However, famously, Elizabeth Woodville muscled in when she came on
> the scene, paying the Duchess 4,000 marks to let the girl marry her
> son Dorset.


Actually the muscling in may well have been entirely Edward IV's doing he
loaned his wife the £4000 to make the match - it certainly fits with the
dodgy way in which Edward provided for his family without actually forking
out much himself. IN 65 he protected his sister and niece and provided for
his eldest stepson in one fell swoop - just as a few years later he again
provided for Anne and her new daughter by again ensuring the Holland
inheritance would pass to Anne St Leger who was to marry Dorset's son by
Cecily Bonville. (much the same way he provided for brother's George and
Richard and his son Richard of York and Norfolk)
.
>
> I wonder whether Buckingham perhaps never came to terms with missing
> out on the duchy of Exeter, as I see from Harley 433 that in May 1483
> Richard ordered the Bishop of Exeter "to deliver the Duchess of
> Exeter unto my Lord of Buckingham". However, since on June 10 he also
> promised Lord Neville (who would have been duke if Edward IV's
> parliament hadn't changed the rules) "so to remember you as shall be
> the making of you and yours", it seems there were bound to be dashed
> hopes somewhere.
> The danger that Richard would reinstate his friend Lord Neville must
> have been a big factor in St Leger's joining Buckingham's rebellion.
>

St Leger probably rightly suspected that Richard III intended to simply
resume the whole of the Exeter holdings (Ralph Neville didn't get a penny of
the Holland inheritance by the way) - as early as May of 83 he had seized
control of manors held by Lord Richard Grey (settled on him out of the
Exeter inheritance in Edward IV's last Parliament). St Leger was also
heavily tied in with Dorset's interests in the south west - the dismantling
of Wydeville Grey influences and the loss of Holland family holdings is
probably the best explanation of why he was tempted to join the rebellion in
the autumn of 1483.

In a message dated 8/27/03 5:00:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
tmc_dale@... writes:


> Actually the muscling in may well have been entirely Edward IV's doing he
> loaned his wife the £4000 to make the match - it certainly fits with the
> dodgy way in which Edward provided for his family without actually forking
> out much himself. IN 65 he protected his sister and niece and provided for
> his eldest stepson in one fell swoop - just as a few years later he again
> provided for Anne and her new daughter by again ensuring the Holland
> inheritance would pass to Anne St Leger who was to marry Dorset's son by
> Cecily Bonville. (much the same way he provided for brother's George and
> Richard and his son Richard of York and Norfolk)
> .
> >
>
> St Leger probably rightly suspected that Richard III intended to simply
> resume the whole of the Exeter holdings (Ralph Neville didn't get a penny of
> the Holland inheritance by the way) - as early as May of 83 he had seized
> control of manors held by Lord Richard Grey (settled on him out of the
> Exeter inheritance in Edward IV's last Parliament). St Leger was also
> heavily tied in with Dorset's interests in the south west - the dismantling
> of Wydeville Grey influences and the loss of Holland family holdings is
> probably the best explanation of why he was tempted to join the rebellion in
> the autumn of 1483.
>



Thanks, Tim, for adding to what Marie said. I'm learning things that I
haven't encountered in books. Did Richard listen to anyone who pleaded for St.
Leger's life? If so, what arguments did they use? He wouldn't hear a word from
Buckingham--would Buckingham have actually murdered Richard or would have
revealed an amazing secret?
Pam

In a message dated 8/27/03 9:07:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


>
> > Could this, rather than the marriage deal with Dorset or loyalty to
> > Edward IV, explain why St Leger was such a prime mover in the
> > rebellion, and why he fought to the bitter end? With Edward IV's
> line
> > and Clarence's debarred, only the lives of Richard and his young
> son
> > stood between Anne St Leger and the throne. Perhaps this also
> > explains the exceptionally bitter tone of Richard's Act of
> Attainder
> > against St Leger, raking back through past history into the 1460s
> and
> > making him look like the worst sort of ruthless rogue on the make.


> >
> Helen:
> Do you know where I could find a text of Richard's Attainder against
> Sir Thomas St Leger? Or anything more about the man?
> I am curious because I'm descended from Sir Thomas St Leger and his
> daughter Anne.



Me, too, unless someone royally goofed up in their recordkeeping. Anne St.
Leger and her husband, George Manners (Lord Roos, IIRC) have a chantry chapel in
St. George's Chapel at Windsor with very good effigies of both. There is
also a memorial plaque of Anne's parents, Anne Plantagenet and Sir Thomas St.
Leger. Anne P. may be entombed there; it's not really clear to me whether this
is so; however, Sir Thom is buried in Exeter where he was executed. I would
dearly love to see a copy of the attainder "with the exceptionally bitter tone."
If someone can only direct us to one... Richard's bitterness against
Buckingham was exacerbated by the betrayal by his brother-in-law and many others
who should have been loyal.

Pam

--- In , PamelaJButler@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 8/27/03 9:07:40 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>
> >
> > > Could this, rather than the marriage deal with Dorset or
loyalty to
> > > Edward IV, explain why St Leger was such a prime mover in the
> > > rebellion, and why he fought to the bitter end? With Edward
IV's
> > line
> > > and Clarence's debarred, only the lives of Richard and his
young
> > son
> > > stood between Anne St Leger and the throne. Perhaps this also
> > > explains the exceptionally bitter tone of Richard's Act of
> > Attainder
> > > against St Leger, raking back through past history into the
1460s
> > and
> > > making him look like the worst sort of ruthless rogue on the
make.
>
>
> > >
> > Helen:
> > Do you know where I could find a text of Richard's Attainder
against
> > Sir Thomas St Leger? Or anything more about the man?
> > I am curious because I'm descended from Sir Thomas St Leger and
his
> > daughter Anne.
>
>
>
> Me, too, unless someone royally goofed up in their recordkeeping.
Anne St.
> Leger and her husband, George Manners (Lord Roos, IIRC) have a
chantry chapel in
> St. George's Chapel at Windsor with very good effigies of both.
There is
> also a memorial plaque of Anne's parents, Anne Plantagenet and Sir
Thomas St.
> Leger. Anne P. may be entombed there; it's not really clear to me
whether this
> is so; however, Sir Thom is buried in Exeter where he was
executed. I would
> dearly love to see a copy of the attainder "with the exceptionally
bitter tone."
> If someone can only direct us to one... Richard's bitterness
against
> Buckingham was exacerbated by the betrayal by his brother-in-law
and many others
> who should have been loyal.
>
> Pam
>
>
>


I don't know if it's the complete text but I read it in the Complete
Peerage. Probably under "Exeter" as evidently St Leger won't have an
entry himself.

How amazing, being descended from Richard's sister! I wouldn't be
apologetic. I don't go for all that guff about "the heartless
duchess" - I think that is just Victorian shock horror at a woman
divorcing her husband. He was probably rotten to her. It's notable
that, unlike the Lancastrian leaders captured at Tewkesbury he wasn't
executed, and Edward seems to have had to get rid of him in the end
by backdoor methods. I suggest that his 'heartless' sister, although
she had no intention of cohabiting with him again, probably pleaded
for his life.

As for St Leger, he acted as one would expect given his interests and
the interests of his only child. Although the Act of Attainder
suggests his daughter got to be Duchess of Exeter because of
extraordinary pressure put by St Leger on the King (it mentions Act
of 1467), the situation actually arose due to a series of Acts of
Parliament designed to protect the Duchess, starting back in 1461,
and in 1467 anyway she was not married to St Leger and had no
children by him - the child of her body that these acts were intended
to endow was her daughter by Exeter, although the king must have
known that the wording left open the possibility that, in the event
of her death and his sister's remarriage, the duchy would pass to the
children of her second husband; but since Exeter was still alive at
that time and no divorce had been forthcoming that possibility may
have seemed remote.
It is true that St Leger and the Duchess had some sort of
relationship from the 1460s, as the Paston Letters, in 1468 I think,
make the statement "Mistress Griseacre is sure [engaged] to St Leger
with [by means of?] my Lady of Exeter" - the St Leger in question
being a brother of Thomas'; also, I suggest that if St Leger and the
Duchess had not been linked for so long he might have married
earlier. However, they had no children (at least, none that survived
and are known about) until after their marriage, so that they may not
have been lovers in the modern sense - ie having a full sexual
relationship. Nor is it plausible that St Leger would have had this
sort of power over the King in the 1460s.
I have to put my hands up and admit that the accusations in Richard's
Act of Attainder about how St Leger forced the King to make his
daughter Duchess of Exeter are frankly ludicrous.
I believe the Duchess Anne is buried in Windsor, and I've heard that
St Leger paid for the tomb, but if so it may have not have been
finished until after his death as it shows her wearing a gable
headdress. Exeter himself was, I think, buried in Dover.
I have a family tree of the St Legers from Burke's Kentish Gentry if
either of you would like it emailed to you.
And yes, it's true, Lord Neville never got to be Duke of Exeter.
Whether Richard would have got round to it if he'd defeated Tudor and
got his finances back on track, of course, we can't know.

Marie

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
>
> > The child may originally have been intended to marry Buckingham,
as
> > Anne of York was granted Buck's wardship in 1461. However, her
> > importance increased when an act of parliament gave Anne of York
the
> > duchy of Exeter in her own right, her heirs being the children of
her
> > body regardless of sex. When Montagu had a son in 1465 the Duchess
> > and Montagu came to an arrangement for their children's marriage.
> > However, famously, Elizabeth Woodville muscled in when she came on
> > the scene, paying the Duchess 4,000 marks to let the girl marry
her
> > son Dorset.
>
>
> Actually the muscling in may well have been entirely Edward IV's
doing he
> loaned his wife the £4000 to make the match - it certainly fits
with the
> dodgy way in which Edward provided for his family without actually
forking
> out much himself. IN 65 he protected his sister and niece and
provided for
> his eldest stepson in one fell swoop - just as a few years later he
again
> provided for Anne and her new daughter by again ensuring the Holland
> inheritance would pass to Anne St Leger who was to marry Dorset's
son by
> Cecily Bonville. (much the same way he provided for brother's
George and
> Richard and his son Richard of York and Norfolk)


Hmm.
1) Edward didn't protect his sister and niece and provide for Dorset
in one fell swoop in 1465. Protecting sister and niece was done
during the 1460s by successive acts of parliament, and they were
quite well protected, thank you, by 1465 without the marriage to
Dorset. Which is precisely why she was wanted for Dorset. This
marriage was of benefit to Dorset, who was looking for a wife. The
little Duchess of Exeter already had a perfectly good husband in
Montagu's heir.

2) Anne St Leger's marriage to Dorset's son again had nothing to do
with ensuring she got the Exeter inheritance - that was already hers
in right of her mother (the relevant Acts were passed long before she
was born). No, this marriage only ensured that the duchy stayed in
Dorset's family, his having missed out personally when the duchess'
first daughter died on him. Of course, being married to a powerful
man was always important for an heiress with a claim that was not
rock solid, and I'm sure that explains St Leger's willingness to do
the deal, but I don't see that this would have been a concern of
Edward's at that time. Edward wouldn't see that Anne St Leger's right
to the duchy needed protecting by anyone other than himself as king.
It is all too easy to say that everything the Woodvilles did must
really have been initiated by Edward IV for his own reasons, but
although it can be difficult to sort out the policies of the king and
his consort, this can too easily become a blanket excuse.

2) You say Edward provided for George and Richard in the same way as
he did for the Woodvilles. In fact, as far as their marriages went,
they seem to have eventually provided for themselves, being rather
neglected in that respect. Hicks argues that Edward severely
neglected the needs of his brothers in the 1460s. The same certainly
can't be said of his new Woodville relations, which suggests to me
that he was at the very least encouraged to see to their needs
promptly. It may be neither here nor there, but Anne of Exeter,
though prominent at Edward's own coronation, seems to have been
absent from Elizabeth Woodville's, though both her (younger) sisters
had important roles. I realise this is speculation, but is it
possible she was out of favour because she was refusing to break off
the arrangement with Montagu in favour of Dorset? Is this why the
Queen had to borrow 4,000 marks from her husband to secure the lady
in the end? Perhaps Edward offered the money to keep the peace.(Note
that the Queen - or the King if you will - was/were also after
Buckingham at this time for Elizabeth's sister, though his tutelage
had also been granted to the duchess of Exeter).

Marie

In a message dated 8/28/03 2:56:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
marie@... writes:


>
> I have a family tree of the St Legers from Burke's Kentish Gentry if
> either of you would like it emailed to you.



Dear Marie,
Absolutely! I hope it's not a lot of trouble. And thank you!

Regarding the Paston Letters, just how extensive are they? I have a book
that contains some of the letters, arranged by topic, I'm sure that they're only
scanty excerpts of a very large body of work.

Best, Pam



> And yes, it's true, Lord Neville never got to be Duke of Exeter.
> Whether Richard would have got round to it if he'd defeated Tudor and
> got his finances back on track, of course, we can't know.
>

1) Edward didn't protect his sister and niece and provide for Dorset
in one fell swoop in 1465. Protecting sister and niece was done
during the 1460s by successive acts of parliament, and they were
quite well protected, thank you, by 1465 without the marriage to
Dorset. Which is precisely why she was wanted for Dorset. This
marriage was of benefit to Dorset, who was looking for a wife. The
little Duchess of Exeter already had a perfectly good husband in
Montagu's heir.

Sorry let me clarify the point I didn't phrase it too well - effectively
throughout the 1460's and 70's Edward was faced with a problem of how to
endow his immediate family and those peers and gentry who were loyal
supporters of the House of York without bankrupting the crown - by the time
of his marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville most of the attainted Lancastrian
lands had already been doled out (mainly to Clarence, Warwick, Herbert,
Hastings, Montague etc). Henry VI had considered an earldom and a rich
heiress the right thing to do for his half brother - Thomas Grey got the
same with his marriage to Anne Holland/ It also gave added security to the
Duchess that Edward wouldn't renege on his earlier grant and simply resume
the Holland estate or try to buy off her husband by allowing him his
property back (which given the number of restorations in the mid 1460's
might have given her the view that it was a possibility as she saw Somerset
and Oxford back in favour).

Edward had as you say invested the Holland lands in his sister and her heirs
by the Duke of Exeter in December of 1461 - despite the fact that
technically Holland was under attainder as a committed Lancastrian and
Edward would have been perfectly legal had he simply resumed the entire
estate.
In 1466 - Elizabeth Wydeville paid Anne of Exeter £4000 for the marriage of
Anne Holland and Thomas Grey. In 1467 Edward vested the lands in Anne
Holland with the reversion to the Duchess Anne and the heirs of her body.
It is also quite possible that the Duchess was willing to break the match
with Montagu - to be honest the King's step son was a better match - not
necessarily in financial terms but certainly politically - Anne Holland got
a husband with few landed interests and a husband who as the King's stepson
was far more likely to protect her rights. His pedigree was certainly as
good as Neville's - his paternal grandmother was a Ferrars, his great
grandmother was a Mowbray. The match benefited both of them - and Edward
was able to provide for his step son at no cost to the crown.
No other acts were passed with regard the Exeter inheritance until 1483 when
a Parliamentary Act confirmed Anne St Leger as heir to the Exeter estates
(she was by then betrothed to Dorset's son and heir by Cecily Bonville) and
reserved property worth about 500 marks for Lord Richard Grey (for which the
Queen paid the King £5000). Dorset had also received in 1476 - at the same
time as he gained custody of Clarence's heir - a life interest in some of
the Holland estate.

Edward's interest was important in the deal - and the 1483 Act would have
never got through Parliament without him for a start - secondly you need to
carefully examine the way in which Edward governed in the 1460's and 70's -
principally through several key peers who were influential in parts of the
country - Gloucester in the north, Clarence and Hastings in the Midlands,
the Earl of Pembroke in Wales (followed in the 1470's with Rivers governing
through the Prince of Wales council) - that leaves the West Country were the
bulk of the Holland estates were situated. It is interesting that Edward
and his Queen pursued the aim of providing for Dorset in the South West
throughout the seventies - particularly after Dorset's second marriage to
Hastings' Step Daughter whose estates largely lay in the South West.


2) You say Edward provided for George and Richard in the same way as
he did for the Woodvilles. In fact, as far as their marriages went,
they seem to have eventually provided for themselves, being rather
neglected in that respect. Hicks argues that Edward severely
neglected the needs of his brothers in the 1460s. The same certainly
can't be said of his new Woodville relations, which suggests to me
that he was at the very least encouraged to see to their needs
promptly.

- firstly George Duke of Clarence - in 62 and 63 he'd received vast amounts
of forfeited lands in Yorkshire and Northumberland (previously the property
of the Lancastrian Percies) and in 1464 he received the lands of the Earldom
of Chester, and according to Ross his assets were worth almost £4,000 a year
by 1465. He'd also been appointed Lieutenant of Ireland for seven years in
1462. His dissatisfaction with Edward probably owed more to Edward's
failure to find a foreign bride for him and Edward's refusal to allow him to
marry the only suitable English girl - Isabel of Warwick.

For a variety of reasons Richard was very poorly provided for - early grants
were lost due to the restoration of the Earls of Oxford, or grants were
transferred to George of Clarence from Richard. He didn't really see the
benefits until after the readaption.

Both boy's marriages were not about providing for themselves - both
brother's enjoyed the Neville, Warwick and Montague inheritance through a
variety of dodgy Parliamentary Acts. Isabel and Anne Neville were indeed
their parents legal heirs - but only partially - much of Warwick's inherited
wealth from both his mother (the Montague heiress) and his father Lord
Salisbury were entailed to the male line and should have passed to George
Neville, Duke of Bedford. And the girls had no right to the Beauchamp
inheritance of their mother while she lived. The brother's provided for
themselves by ignoring the usual rules of inheritance and through brother
Edward simply persuading parliament to back up their occupation of those
holdings.

The Wydeville's received very little in the way of grants of lands or cash -
Royal influence certainly helped the marriages of the Queen's sisters though
several of them were with families which they already had links with. (Grey
and Bourchier being the obvious links - the Grey Earl of Kent's being
related to the Queen's first husband and the Bourchier family had a double
connection - Edward's Aunt Isabel was the wife of the Bourchier Earl of
Essex and his brother had married Elizabeth W's widowed mother in law Lady
Ferrers of Groby). And many of the noble spouses would have been quite
eager to gain such a connection which would give them close access to the
Royal Family. For the King and Queen to have done nothing for her family
would have been against all contemporary practice and custom - the
unfortunate thing was that there were so many girls to marry off which
naturally meant it did seem that they'd cornered the market engendering
jealousy and resentment I suspect - though even Warwick was only angry at
two or three of the matches (he was jealous of Pembroke another new Yorkist
peer anyway and was annoyed that the King confirmed the Lordship of Dunster
on Pembroke's heir and his new Wydeville bride, Warwick was also bound to
dislike the marriage of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk to John Wydeville
aswell as the Exeter marriage). Anthony Lord Scales got very little until
the second reign, his father was already on the council but got one great
office of state and an earldom, John Wydeville got a very rich elderly wife
(who may have been protecting her own assets from her own rather rapacious
relations - there's no indication the woman objected) - and the intention
was probably to endow him with the estates she held from her second husband
whose heirs were under attainder anyway. The rest of the family got
virtually nothing and were significantly unsuccessful in building up any
great hereditary landed interest throughout Edward IV's reign.

It may be neither here nor there, but Anne of Exeter,
though prominent at Edward's own coronation, seems to have been
absent from Elizabeth Woodville's, though both her (younger) sisters
had important roles. I realise this is speculation, but is it
possible she was out of favour because she was refusing to break off
the arrangement with Montagu in favour of Dorset? Is this why the
Queen had to borrow 4,000 marks from her husband to secure the lady
in the end?

Anne isn't mentioned by name in any of the sources I have seen however 13
Duchesses were in attendance according to some sources - quite possible she
was one of those <g>. Seriously though it was common to pay for someone's
marriage (and the value of the Holland holdings would indicate the need for
a high price for the marriage) - the Queen paid Hastings over two grand for
Dorset's marriage to Cecily Bonville. The reason for the payment was two
fold - it was to ease the passage of any other arrangement having to be
broken and compensation being paid - it was also to provide compensation for
any loss of income by the person controlling estates that would go to the
young couple as their jointure.

Perhaps Edward offered the money to keep the peace.(Note
that the Queen - or the King if you will - was/were also after
Buckingham at this time for Elizabeth's sister, though his tutelage
had also been granted to the duchess of Exeter).

Actually by August 1465 - Buckingham and his brother Humphrey were in the
Queen's household - that month she received a grant of cash towards their
upkeep "being minors in the King's custody who for some time have been
maintained at the Queen's expense" - there was no need for them to be after
him for Katherine Wydeville - his marriage belonged to Edward who seemed to
have given his wardship and marriage to the Queen anyway.

In a message dated 8/28/03 5:10:38 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
tmc_dale@... writes:


> ) Edward didn't protect his sister and niece and provide for Dorset
> .



Tim, I'm blown away by this in-depth discussion. Between what you and Marie
have told me, I'm beginning to see the full scope of Anne P's life and
situation. She's always been a peripheral character in most books I've read. I see
Edward IV a bit differently, too. Thanks so much for all of this.

Pam

>
> Sorry let me clarify the point I didn't phrase it too well -
effectively
> throughout the 1460's and 70's Edward was faced with a problem of
how to
> endow his immediate family and those peers and gentry who were loyal
> supporters of the House of York without bankrupting the crown - by
the time
> of his marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville most of the attainted
Lancastrian
> lands had already been doled out (mainly to Clarence, Warwick,
Herbert,
> Hastings, Montague etc). Henry VI had considered an earldom and a
rich
> heiress the right thing to do for his half brother - Thomas Grey
got the
> same with his marriage to Anne Holland/ It also gave added
security to the
> Duchess that Edward wouldn't renege on his earlier grant and simply
resume
> the Holland estate or try to buy off her husband by allowing him his
> property back (which given the number of restorations in the mid
1460's
> might have given her the view that it was a possibility as she saw
Somerset
> and Oxford back in favour).

That is a possibility, though by this time Exeter was living in exile
with Queen Margaret. In August 1461 the Milanese ambassador reported
that he'd heard Exeter had signified his wish to return and ask for a
pardon. Nothing came of it, however; possibly Edward was not prepared
to have him back if his sister really didn't want this.
IF the Duchess was not totally confident of Edward's continuing
support she would have wanted a strong supporter, but she probably
saw the Nevilles as quite adequate in that respect. Also, if she were
to lose the duchy, George Neville was at that time the heir to a
marquisate, whereas Thomas Grey was still plain Thomas Grey, I think
(sorry, can't recall when he became a marquis).
However, as regards EDWARD using this marriage to protect his sister,
I repeat my point that he could only have been protecting her from
himself!
>
> Edward had as you say invested the Holland lands in his sister and
her heirs
> by the Duke of Exeter in December of 1461 - despite the fact that
> technically Holland was under attainder as a committed Lancastrian
and
> Edward would have been perfectly legal had he simply resumed the
entire
> estate.
> In 1466 - Elizabeth Wydeville paid Anne of Exeter £4000 for the
marriage of
> Anne Holland and Thomas Grey. In 1467 Edward vested the lands in
Anne
> Holland with the reversion to the Duchess Anne and the heirs of her
body.
> It is also quite possible that the Duchess was willing to break the
match
> with Montagu - to be honest the King's step son was a better match -
not
> necessarily in financial terms but certainly politically - Anne
Holland got
> a husband with few landed interests and a husband who as the King's
stepson
> was far more likely to protect her rights. His pedigree was
certainly as
> good as Neville's - his paternal grandmother was a Ferrars, his
great
> grandmother was a Mowbray. The match benefited both of them - and
Edward
> was able to provide for his step son at no cost to the crown.
> No other acts were passed with regard the Exeter inheritance until
1483 when
> a Parliamentary Act confirmed Anne St Leger as heir to the Exeter
estates
> (she was by then betrothed to Dorset's son and heir by Cecily
Bonville) and
> reserved property worth about 500 marks for Lord Richard Grey (for
which the
> Queen paid the King £5000). Dorset had also received in 1476 - at
the same
> time as he gained custody of Clarence's heir - a life interest in
some of
> the Holland estate.

I agree it wasn't a bad match. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't
have seemed so great an improvement on the existing arrangement to
the Duchess. It was the Woodvilles who were short of a spouse.

To summarise the relevant grants as I understand them:
1) May 1461 - at her own supplication, the estates were granted to a
group of noble trustees (temporal & spiritual, and including Montagu)
to hold to her use for life
1) November 1461 - she was granted the lands sthe'd held jointly with
Exeter, plus other forfeited estates, to her use for life
2) December 1461 - she got all her husband's properties with
remainder to her in tail. She was also granted Wiltshire's estates
3) 2 May 1462 - she was granted Exeter's estates with remainder to
her in fee.
1464 or 1465 - she was granted her husband's estates "as woman sole,
to her own use".
4) 26 August 1467 - she weas granted the estates for life, with
remainder to her daughter Anne by the Duke in tail, then to herself
in tail.
5) February 1469 - Queen Elizabeth was granted the reversion of the
estates.

So it is likely that the Duke's daughter would not have been named as
heiress had she not been married to the Queen's son. The Woodville
interest n the estate for their own benefit, however, is betrayed by
the 1469 grant. Also, the 1467 Act took place a year after the
Duchess agreed to the marriage, though probably there had been a
promise made to that effect, and that is what swayed the duchess
rather tnan the money. However, as you can see, her position with
regard to the inheritance had been improving constantly up to that
time, and just as the Woddvilles might have protected her daughter's
interests, in the event of the girl's death they might just as easily
have become a threat. What would have happened, for instance, if Anne
and Dorset hadn't both had further children? Look how Edward's son
got to keep the duchy of Norfolk after the death of his child bride.
>
> Edward's interest was important in the deal - and the 1483 Act
would have
> never got through Parliament without him for a start - secondly you
need to
> carefully examine the way in which Edward governed in the 1460's
and 70's -
> principally through several key peers who were influential in parts
of the
> country - Gloucester in the north, Clarence and Hastings in the
Midlands,
> the Earl of Pembroke in Wales (followed in the 1470's with Rivers
governing
> through the Prince of Wales council) - that leaves the West Country
were the
> bulk of the Holland estates were situated. It is interesting that
Edward
> and his Queen pursued the aim of providing for Dorset in the South
West
> throughout the seventies - particularly after Dorset's second
marriage to
> Hastings' Step Daughter whose estates largely lay in the South West.

This is the protecting her from himself argument?
>
>
> 2) You say Edward provided for George and Richard in the same way as
> he did for the Woodvilles. In fact, as far as their marriages went,
> they seem to have eventually provided for themselves, being rather
> neglected in that respect. Hicks argues that Edward severely
> neglected the needs of his brothers in the 1460s. The same certainly
> can't be said of his new Woodville relations, which suggests to me
> that he was at the very least encouraged to see to their needs
> promptly.
>
> - firstly George Duke of Clarence - in 62 and 63 he'd received vast
amounts
> of forfeited lands in Yorkshire and Northumberland (previously the
property
> of the Lancastrian Percies) and in 1464 he received the lands of
the Earldom
> of Chester, and according to Ross his assets were worth almost
£4,000 a year
> by 1465. He'd also been appointed Lieutenant of Ireland for seven
years in
> 1462. His dissatisfaction with Edward probably owed more to
Edward's
> failure to find a foreign bride for him and Edward's refusal to
allow him to
> marry the only suitable English girl - Isabel of Warwick.
>
> For a variety of reasons Richard was very poorly provided for -
early grants
> were lost due to the restoration of the Earls of Oxford, or grants
were
> transferred to George of Clarence from Richard. He didn't really
see the
> benefits until after the readaption.
>
> Both boy's marriages were not about providing for themselves - both
> brother's enjoyed the Neville, Warwick and Montague inheritance
through a
> variety of dodgy Parliamentary Acts. Isabel and Anne Neville were
indeed
> their parents legal heirs - but only partially - much of Warwick's
inherited
> wealth from both his mother (the Montague heiress) and his father
Lord
> Salisbury were entailed to the male line and should have passed to
George
> Neville, Duke of Bedford. And the girls had no right to the
Beauchamp
> inheritance of their mother while she lived. The brother's
provided for
> themselves by ignoring the usual rules of inheritance and through
brother
> Edward simply persuading parliament to back up their occupation of
those
> holdings.

Exactly. I think we need to distinguish between provision in the form
of lands and marriage provision. People wanted good marriage
alliances and the chance to breed heirs as well as dosh. And Edward,
for whatever reason (because he was insecure about his own
legitimacy???) avoided providing his brothers with either foreign
brides or Warwick's daughters.

>
> The Wydeville's received very little in the way of grants of lands
or cash -
> Royal influence certainly helped the marriages of the Queen's
sisters though
> several of them were with families which they already had links
with. (Grey
> and Bourchier being the obvious links - the Grey Earl of Kent's
being
> related to the Queen's first husband and the Bourchier family had a
double
> connection - Edward's Aunt Isabel was the wife of the Bourchier
Earl of
> Essex and his brother had married Elizabeth W's widowed mother in
law Lady
> Ferrers of Groby). And many of the noble spouses would have been
quite
> eager to gain such a connection which would give them close access
to the
> Royal Family. For the King and Queen to have done nothing for her
family
> would have been against all contemporary practice and custom - the
> unfortunate thing was that there were so many girls to marry off
which
> naturally meant it did seem that they'd cornered the market
engendering
> jealousy and resentment I suspect - though even Warwick was only
angry at
> two or three of the matches (he was jealous of Pembroke another new
Yorkist
> peer anyway and was annoyed that the King confirmed the Lordship of
Dunster
> on Pembroke's heir and his new Wydeville bride, Warwick was also
bound to
> dislike the marriage of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk to John
Wydeville
> aswell as the Exeter marriage). Anthony Lord Scales got very little
until
> the second reign, his father was already on the council but got one
great
> office of state and an earldom, John Wydeville got a very rich
elderly wife
> (who may have been protecting her own assets from her own rather
rapacious
> relations - there's no indication the woman objected) - and the
intention
> was probably to endow him with the estates she held from her second
husband
> whose heirs were under attainder anyway. The rest of the family got
> virtually nothing and were significantly unsuccessful in building
up any
> great hereditary landed interest throughout Edward IV's reign.
>
> It may be neither here nor there, but Anne of Exeter,
> though prominent at Edward's own coronation, seems to have been
> absent from Elizabeth Woodville's, though both her (younger) sisters
> had important roles. I realise this is speculation, but is it
> possible she was out of favour because she was refusing to break off
> the arrangement with Montagu in favour of Dorset? Is this why the
> Queen had to borrow 4,000 marks from her husband to secure the lady
> in the end?
>
> Anne isn't mentioned by name in any of the sources I have seen
however 13
> Duchesses were in attendance according to some sources - quite
possible she
> was one of those <g>.

Well, i'm sure I've looked into this (a book on the coronation, I
think) and this is the case.

Seriously though it was common to pay for someone's
> marriage (and the value of the Holland holdings would indicate the
need for
> a high price for the marriage) - the Queen paid Hastings over two
grand for
> Dorset's marriage to Cecily Bonville. The reason for the payment
was two
> fold - it was to ease the passage of any other arrangement having
to be
> broken and compensation being paid - it was also to provide
compensation for
> any loss of income by the person controlling estates that would go
to the
> young couple as their jointure.

Yes, but wasn't it normal for the girl's family to pay a dowry to the
groom's and not the other way round?


>
> Perhaps Edward offered the money to keep the peace.(Note
> that the Queen - or the King if you will - was/were also after
> Buckingham at this time for Elizabeth's sister, though his tutelage
> had also been granted to the duchess of Exeter).
>
> Actually by August 1465 - Buckingham and his brother Humphrey were
in the
> Queen's household - that month she received a grant of cash towards
their
> upkeep "being minors in the King's custody who for some time have
been
> maintained at the Queen's expense" - there was no need for them to
be after
> him for Katherine Wydeville - his marriage belonged to Edward who
seemed to
> have given his wardship and marriage to the Queen anyway.

Yes, Tim, I was linking the two things but I do realise the Queen got
Buckingham's guardianship before she married him to her sister, and
this was some moinths before Anne accepted that money. However, as I
understand, his tutelage up to 1465 was in the hands of the Duchess
of Exeter. So she may not have been so pleased with the Queen, which
is the point I was trying to make.

Marie

I think that, however the duchess & St Leger's interests may have
been served by the Grey marriages, it is not possible to argue that
the impetus from the other side came from Edward trying to protect
his sister (from himself); his only interest can have been how it
would help his wife's family.

>
> I agree it wasn't a bad match. What I'm saying is that it wouldn't
> have seemed so great an improvement on the existing arrangement to
> the Duchess. It was the Woodvilles who were short of a spouse.
>
> To summarise the relevant grants as I understand them:
> 1) May 1461 - at her own supplication, the estates were granted to
a
> group of noble trustees (temporal & spiritual, and including
Montagu)
> to hold to her use for life
> 1) November 1461 - she was granted the lands sthe'd held jointly
with
> Exeter, plus other forfeited estates, to her use for life
> 2) December 1461 - she got all her husband's properties with
> remainder to her in tail. She was also granted Wiltshire's estates
> 3) 2 May 1462 - she was granted Exeter's estates with remainder to
> her in fee.
> 1464 or 1465 - she was granted her husband's estates "as woman
sole,
> to her own use".
> 4) 26 August 1467 - she weas granted the estates for life, with
> remainder to her daughter Anne by the Duke in tail, then to herself
> in tail.
> 5) February 1469 - Queen Elizabeth was granted the reversion of the
> estates.
>
> So it is likely that the Duke's daughter would not have been named
as
> heiress had she not been married to the Queen's son. The Woodville
> interest n the estate for their own benefit, however, is betrayed
by
> the 1469 grant. Also, the 1467 Act took place a year after the
> Duchess agreed to the marriage, though probably there had been a
> promise made to that effect, and that is what swayed the duchess
> rather tnan the money. However, as you can see, her position with
> regard to the inheritance had been improving constantly up to that
> time, and just as the Woddvilles might have protected her
daughter's
> interests, in the event of the girl's death they might just as
easily
> have become a threat. What would have happened, for instance, if
Anne
> and Dorset hadn't both had further children? Look how Edward's son
> got to keep the duchy of Norfolk after the death of his child bride.
> >
> > Edward's interest was important in the deal - and the 1483 Act
> would have
> > never got through Parliament without him for a start - secondly
you
> need to
> > carefully examine the way in which Edward governed in the 1460's
> and 70's -
> > principally through several key peers who were influential in
parts
> of the
> > country - Gloucester in the north, Clarence and Hastings in the
> Midlands,
> > the Earl of Pembroke in Wales (followed in the 1470's with Rivers
> governing
> > through the Prince of Wales council) - that leaves the West
Country
> were the
> > bulk of the Holland estates were situated. It is interesting
that
> Edward
> > and his Queen pursued the aim of providing for Dorset in the
South
> West
> > throughout the seventies - particularly after Dorset's second
> marriage to
> > Hastings' Step Daughter whose estates largely lay in the South
West.
>
> This is the protecting her from himself argument?
> >
> >
> > 2) You say Edward provided for George and Richard in the same way
as
> > he did for the Woodvilles. In fact, as far as their marriages
went,
> > they seem to have eventually provided for themselves, being rather
> > neglected in that respect. Hicks argues that Edward severely
> > neglected the needs of his brothers in the 1460s. The same
certainly
> > can't be said of his new Woodville relations, which suggests to me
> > that he was at the very least encouraged to see to their needs
> > promptly.
> >
> > - firstly George Duke of Clarence - in 62 and 63 he'd received
vast
> amounts
> > of forfeited lands in Yorkshire and Northumberland (previously
the
> property
> > of the Lancastrian Percies) and in 1464 he received the lands of
> the Earldom
> > of Chester, and according to Ross his assets were worth almost
> £4,000 a year
> > by 1465. He'd also been appointed Lieutenant of Ireland for
seven
> years in
> > 1462. His dissatisfaction with Edward probably owed more to
> Edward's
> > failure to find a foreign bride for him and Edward's refusal to
> allow him to
> > marry the only suitable English girl - Isabel of Warwick.
> >
> > For a variety of reasons Richard was very poorly provided for -
> early grants
> > were lost due to the restoration of the Earls of Oxford, or
grants
> were
> > transferred to George of Clarence from Richard. He didn't really
> see the
> > benefits until after the readaption.
> >
> > Both boy's marriages were not about providing for themselves -
both
> > brother's enjoyed the Neville, Warwick and Montague inheritance
> through a
> > variety of dodgy Parliamentary Acts. Isabel and Anne Neville
were
> indeed
> > their parents legal heirs - but only partially - much of
Warwick's
> inherited
> > wealth from both his mother (the Montague heiress) and his father
> Lord
> > Salisbury were entailed to the male line and should have passed
to
> George
> > Neville, Duke of Bedford. And the girls had no right to the
> Beauchamp
> > inheritance of their mother while she lived. The brother's
> provided for
> > themselves by ignoring the usual rules of inheritance and through
> brother
> > Edward simply persuading parliament to back up their occupation
of
> those
> > holdings.
>
> Exactly. I think we need to distinguish between provision in the
form
> of lands and marriage provision. People wanted good marriage
> alliances and the chance to breed heirs as well as dosh. And
Edward,
> for whatever reason (because he was insecure about his own
> legitimacy???) avoided providing his brothers with either foreign
> brides or Warwick's daughters.
>
> >
> > The Wydeville's received very little in the way of grants of
lands
> or cash -
> > Royal influence certainly helped the marriages of the Queen's
> sisters though
> > several of them were with families which they already had links
> with. (Grey
> > and Bourchier being the obvious links - the Grey Earl of Kent's
> being
> > related to the Queen's first husband and the Bourchier family had
a
> double
> > connection - Edward's Aunt Isabel was the wife of the Bourchier
> Earl of
> > Essex and his brother had married Elizabeth W's widowed mother in
> law Lady
> > Ferrers of Groby). And many of the noble spouses would have been
> quite
> > eager to gain such a connection which would give them close
access
> to the
> > Royal Family. For the King and Queen to have done nothing for
her
> family
> > would have been against all contemporary practice and custom - the
> > unfortunate thing was that there were so many girls to marry off
> which
> > naturally meant it did seem that they'd cornered the market
> engendering
> > jealousy and resentment I suspect - though even Warwick was only
> angry at
> > two or three of the matches (he was jealous of Pembroke another
new
> Yorkist
> > peer anyway and was annoyed that the King confirmed the Lordship
of
> Dunster
> > on Pembroke's heir and his new Wydeville bride, Warwick was also
> bound to
> > dislike the marriage of the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk to John
> Wydeville
> > aswell as the Exeter marriage). Anthony Lord Scales got very
little
> until
> > the second reign, his father was already on the council but got
one
> great
> > office of state and an earldom, John Wydeville got a very rich
> elderly wife
> > (who may have been protecting her own assets from her own rather
> rapacious
> > relations - there's no indication the woman objected) - and the
> intention
> > was probably to endow him with the estates she held from her
second
> husband
> > whose heirs were under attainder anyway. The rest of the family
got
> > virtually nothing and were significantly unsuccessful in building
> up any
> > great hereditary landed interest throughout Edward IV's reign.
> >
> > It may be neither here nor there, but Anne of Exeter,
> > though prominent at Edward's own coronation, seems to have been
> > absent from Elizabeth Woodville's, though both her (younger)
sisters
> > had important roles. I realise this is speculation, but is it
> > possible she was out of favour because she was refusing to break
off
> > the arrangement with Montagu in favour of Dorset? Is this why the
> > Queen had to borrow 4,000 marks from her husband to secure the
lady
> > in the end?
> >
> > Anne isn't mentioned by name in any of the sources I have seen
> however 13
> > Duchesses were in attendance according to some sources - quite
> possible she
> > was one of those <g>.
>
> Well, i'm sure I've looked into this (a book on the coronation, I
> think) and this is the case.
>
> Seriously though it was common to pay for someone's
> > marriage (and the value of the Holland holdings would indicate
the
> need for
> > a high price for the marriage) - the Queen paid Hastings over two
> grand for
> > Dorset's marriage to Cecily Bonville. The reason for the payment
> was two
> > fold - it was to ease the passage of any other arrangement having
> to be
> > broken and compensation being paid - it was also to provide
> compensation for
> > any loss of income by the person controlling estates that would
go
> to the
> > young couple as their jointure.
>
> Yes, but wasn't it normal for the girl's family to pay a dowry to
the
> groom's and not the other way round?
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps Edward offered the money to keep the peace.(Note
> > that the Queen - or the King if you will - was/were also after
> > Buckingham at this time for Elizabeth's sister, though his
tutelage
> > had also been granted to the duchess of Exeter).
> >
> > Actually by August 1465 - Buckingham and his brother Humphrey
were
> in the
> > Queen's household - that month she received a grant of cash
towards
> their
> > upkeep "being minors in the King's custody who for some time have
> been
> > maintained at the Queen's expense" - there was no need for them
to
> be after
> > him for Katherine Wydeville - his marriage belonged to Edward who
> seemed to
> > have given his wardship and marriage to the Queen anyway.
>
> Yes, Tim, I was linking the two things but I do realise the Queen
got
> Buckingham's guardianship before she married him to her sister, and
> this was some moinths before Anne accepted that money. However, as
I
> understand, his tutelage up to 1465 was in the hands of the Duchess
> of Exeter. So she may not have been so pleased with the Queen,
which
> is the point I was trying to make.
>
> Marie
>
> I think that, however the duchess & St Leger's interests may have
> been served by the Grey marriages, it is not possible to argue that
> the impetus from the other side came from Edward trying to protect
> his sister (from himself); his only interest can have been how it
> would help his wife's family.

> To summarise the relevant grants as I understand them:
> 1) May 1461 - at her own supplication, the estates were granted to
a
> group of noble trustees (temporal & spiritual, and including
Montagu)
> to hold to her use for life
> 1) November 1461 - she was granted the lands sthe'd held jointly
with
> Exeter, plus other forfeited estates, to her use for life
> 2) December 1461 - she got all her husband's properties with
> remainder to her in tail. She was also granted Wiltshire's estates
> 3) 2 May 1462 - she was granted Exeter's estates with remainder to
> her in fee.
> 1464 or 1465 - she was granted her husband's estates "as woman
sole,
> to her own use".
> 4) 26 August 1467 - she weas granted the estates for life, with
> remainder to her daughter Anne by the Duke in tail, then to herself
> in tail.
> 5) February 1469 - Queen Elizabeth was granted the reversion of the
> estates.

Can anyone help me here? - I'm useless regarding inheritance law and
suchlike. Does "remainder in fee" mean that the Holland lands would
have passed on to the duchess' issue? If so, then all that changed in
1467 is that Anne Holland took precedence over any son the duchess
might produce by a second husband. Which would mean the 1467 Act was
to the benefit of the Woodvilles but not of the Duchess Anne; the
1469 addition of Elizabeth Woodville at the end of the list would
therefore be in keeping with this.
If this is the case, then I don't see that Anne stood to gain
anything from the marriage, which is why she had to be bought with a
reverse dowry. Indeed, she may have needed her brother's protection
for her interests even more with her daughter married to Dorset than
before.


As regards the coronation (May 1465), Anne is not named at all,
unlike her younger sisters, who followed the Queen into the abbey
along with the Duchess of Buckingham and Jacquetta Woodville; the
Duchess of Suffolk also held the crown on the Queen's head at times;
at the feast the Duchess of Suffolk sat on one side of the Queen, and
Margaret of York on the other. There were 13 duchesses and
countesses in all, including 5 duchesses who are named, ie Bedford, 2
duchesses of Buckingham, Suffolk, & the elder Duchess of Norfolk (K.
Neville), plus the 3 Countesses Shrewsbury the Younger, Kent, Essex.
I suggest the five others would have included the younger Duchess of
Norfolk (otherwise why distinguish Katherine Neville as "the
Elder"?), the elder countess of shrewsbury and wives of other earls
named as taking part such as Arundel & Oxford.
The list of people at table suggests there were some unnamed
countesses but no more unnamed duchesses.
Which suggests that Anne of Exeter was probably not there, and
neither was her mother. If she was there, she was notably snubbed in
comparison with her sister.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> > To summarise the relevant grants as I understand them:
> > 1) May 1461 - at her own supplication, the estates were granted
to
> a
> > group of noble trustees (temporal & spiritual, and including
> Montagu)
> > to hold to her use for life
> > 1) November 1461 - she was granted the lands sthe'd held jointly
> with
> > Exeter, plus other forfeited estates, to her use for life
> > 2) December 1461 - she got all her husband's properties with
> > remainder to her in tail. She was also granted Wiltshire's estates
> > 3) 2 May 1462 - she was granted Exeter's estates with remainder
to
> > her in fee.
> > 1464 or 1465 - she was granted her husband's estates "as woman
> sole,
> > to her own use".
> > 4) 26 August 1467 - she weas granted the estates for life, with
> > remainder to her daughter Anne by the Duke in tail, then to
herself
> > in tail.
> > 5) February 1469 - Queen Elizabeth was granted the reversion of
the
> > estates.
>
> Can anyone help me here? - I'm useless regarding inheritance law
and
> suchlike. Does "remainder in fee" mean that the Holland lands would
> have passed on to the duchess' issue?

Marie

As it happens I teach Trusts law, but as things have changed a bit in
500 years I will have to check my terminology next week when I'm at
work and the books are available!

I think the position is this:-

1) 'To her use' meant that the land was held by trustees for her
benefit during her lifetime, but nothing was specified as to what
should happen on her death (unless there is something in the
documents which you haven't quoted). The trustees controlled
everything.

2) 'Remainder to her in tail' meant that she had full control over
the property in her lifetime, except she could not dispose of it, and
it passed on her death to the issue of her body (i.e. her children
whether male or female, males having priority over females - 'tail
male' means male issue only, and was more usual).

3) 'In fee' meant that the property would pass on her death to heirs
general - i.e. heirs who were not necessarily her issue - though the
trustees still controlled the property.

4) 'As a woman sole' meant that she was held to own the land in her
own right - no trustees - and she could do what she liked with it.
This was a valuable position to be in.

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > To summarise the relevant grants as I understand them:
> > > 1) May 1461 - at her own supplication, the estates were granted
> to
> > a
> > > group of noble trustees (temporal & spiritual, and including
> > Montagu)
> > > to hold to her use for life
> > > 1) November 1461 - she was granted the lands sthe'd held
jointly
> > with
> > > Exeter, plus other forfeited estates, to her use for life
> > > 2) December 1461 - she got all her husband's properties with
> > > remainder to her in tail. She was also granted Wiltshire's
estates
> > > 3) 2 May 1462 - she was granted Exeter's estates with remainder
> to
> > > her in fee.
> > > 1464 or 1465 - she was granted her husband's estates "as woman
> > sole,
> > > to her own use".
> > > 4) 26 August 1467 - she weas granted the estates for life, with
> > > remainder to her daughter Anne by the Duke in tail, then to
> herself
> > > in tail.
> > > 5) February 1469 - Queen Elizabeth was granted the reversion of
> the
> > > estates.
> >
> > Can anyone help me here? - I'm useless regarding inheritance law
> and
> > suchlike. Does "remainder in fee" mean that the Holland lands
would
> > have passed on to the duchess' issue?
>
> Marie
>
> As it happens I teach Trusts law, but as things have changed a bit
in
> 500 years I will have to check my terminology next week when I'm at
> work and the books are available!
>
> I think the position is this:-
>
> 1) 'To her use' meant that the land was held by trustees for her
> benefit during her lifetime, but nothing was specified as to what
> should happen on her death (unless there is something in the
> documents which you haven't quoted). The trustees controlled
> everything.
>
> 2) 'Remainder to her in tail' meant that she had full control over
> the property in her lifetime, except she could not dispose of it,
and
> it passed on her death to the issue of her body (i.e. her children
> whether male or female, males having priority over females - 'tail
> male' means male issue only, and was more usual).
>
> 3) 'In fee' meant that the property would pass on her death to
heirs
> general - i.e. heirs who were not necessarily her issue - though
the
> trustees still controlled the property.
>
> 4) 'As a woman sole' meant that she was held to own the land in her
> own right - no trustees - and she could do what she liked with it.
> This was a valuable position to be in.
>
> Ann

Thanks a lot for that, Ann. So it seems she already had full control
of the property and on her death it would pass to her heirs general.
In that situation would her daughter take precedence over a male heir
who was not her issue?

Marie

Marie

Briefly the only area where I really disagree with you is the suggestion
that the deal was somehow forced through on the Queen's behalf (which is I
think what you are suggesting) - my own view is that it provided Edward with
a relatively cheap way of providing for his eldest step son (in virtually
the same way Henry VI had provided for his half brother) at the same time
pleasing his Queen.

On a few of your points:


whereas Thomas Grey was still plain Thomas Grey, I think
(sorry, can't recall when he became a marquis).


He was created Earl of Huntington which he later surrendered to the crown
(Edward IV gave it to Pembroke's son and heir who in turn surrendered the
Earldom of Pembroke to Edward who gave it to his eldest son Edward Prince of
Wales) - Grey was created Marquess of Dorset in 1475 - shortly after his
marriage to Cecily Bonville.

>

"To summarise the relevant grants as I understand them:
1) May 1461 - at her own supplication, the estates were granted to a
group of noble trustees (temporal & spiritual, and including Montagu)
to hold to her use for life
1) November 1461 - she was granted the lands sthe'd held jointly with
Exeter, plus other forfeited estates, to her use for life
2) December 1461 - she got all her husband's properties with
remainder to her in tail. She was also granted Wiltshire's estates
3) 2 May 1462 - she was granted Exeter's estates with remainder to
her in fee.
1464 or 1465 - she was granted her husband's estates "as woman sole,
to her own use".
4) 26 August 1467 - she weas granted the estates for life, with
remainder to her daughter Anne by the Duke in tail, then to herself
in tail.
5) February 1469 - Queen Elizabeth was granted the reversion of the
estates.

So it is likely that the Duke's daughter would not have been named as
heiress had she not been married to the Queen's son."

She was always the heir of her parents - the above protected her mother by
granting her control of estates for life that she had no legal right to.

" The Woodville
interest n the estate for their own benefit, however, is betrayed by
the 1469 grant."

Arguably the reversion was worthless to the Queen if Anne and Thomas Grey
had children because they would be the heirs under the 67 grant.
Technically had Elizabeth W been that greedy she could have bullied Edward
into refusing his consent to Anne's divorce and remarriage to St Leger which
technically made the reversion worthless. The reversion was probably to
ensure Elizabeth could still endow her son appropriately if his marriage
proved childless and would recompense her for the cost of the marriage in
the first place.

"Also, the 1467 Act took place a year after the
Duchess agreed to the marriage, though probably there had been a
promise made to that effect, and that is what swayed the duchess
rather tnan the money. However, as you can see, her position with
regard to the inheritance had been improving constantly up to that
time, and just as the Woddvilles might have protected her daughter's
interests, in the event of the girl's death they might just as easily
have become a threat. What would have happened, for instance, if Anne
and Dorset hadn't both had further children?"

Simple under the intial grants Anne of Exeter's heirs general would have got
the lot - which in her case was her eldest brother Edward IV. Under the 69
reversion the lot went to the Queen. As technically the lands had belonged
to an attainted traitor they should have reverted to the crown back in 61
anyway.

" Look how Edward's son
got to keep the duchy of Norfolk after the death of his child bride."

similar case the co-heirs had very little rights to the property in that
case either - though the Mowbray estates weren't under threat of attainder.

"but wasn't it normal for the girl's family to pay a dowry to the
groom's and not the other way round?"

No it wasn't - i would refer you to the numerous agreements that survive
from the period - it was common for both sides to fork out property, land
and cash to contribute to the jointure etc and in the case of a match
between two minors the parents or guardians of the children would usually
share in the spoils until the kids reached adulthood. It was common for the
weaker party in any match (ie the one with the least money and the least
influence to fork out slightly more or be forced to accept a tough deal) - a
good example is the match made between Hastings and Elizabeth Wydeville a
few weeks before Edward IV married her. Elizabeth is clearly the weaker
party and Hastings takes appalling advantage knowing full well he was the
stronger of the two with better connections.


"I think that, however the duchess & St Leger's interests may have
been served by the Grey marriages, it is not possible to argue that
the impetus from the other side came from Edward trying to protect
his sister (from himself); his only interest can have been how it
would help his wife's family."

Sorry what I was saying was that he was providing for his new relations on
the cheap at little cost to himself and importantly he was tying both
families (his wife's and his own) closer together ensuring the loyalty of
all concerned. He also was ensuring that eventually the Exeter holdings
would find a master who was unlikely to be anything but loyal to himself and
his future heirs - and for that reason Thomas Grey was a far better bet than
Buckingham, Neville or anyone else you'd care to mention.



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Thanks a lot for that, Ann. So it seems she already had full control
> of the property and on her death it would pass to her heirs general.
> In that situation would her daughter take precedence over a male heir
> who was not her issue?
>

Technically yes - however a lot would depend on the influence of the
daughter's husband if the heirs general had powerful connections and could
manipulate things to their own advantage. Partially why Anne Holland would
need a powerful husband.

Useful to compare it to George Duke of Clarence's determination to prevent
his sister in law (and along with his wife co-heir general of Warwick) from
marrying Richard of Gloucester - a powerful husband who would be able to
prise George's greedy mits off Anne Neville's share of the inheritance.

Just a couple of points - Henry VIII as Duke of York remained at Greenwich
with his sisters nominally under the custody of his mother Elizabeth of
York - however despite his sister Margaret's betrothal and new style Queen
of Scot's - the houshold was always described as that of the Duke of York -
at his brother's death Henry was 11 or so.

Richard of Shrewsbury was born in the August of 1474 - he was actually not
quite 9 at his father's death in May 1483.

The decision to despatch Edward of Wales to Ludlow appears partially to have
been an attempt to make a clear royal presence felt in Wales after the
readaption. Incidentally when he was sent to Ludlow his mother went with
him and stayed for some time (she was pregnant with Richard of York at the
time).



----- Original Message -----
From: "aelyon2001" <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's heir


>
> > >
> > >
> > > My gut feeling is that we can disregard Shakespearer here - he
> was
> > > writing 100 years later for starters. But a boy of 10 still being
> > in
> > > his mother's household was unusual.
> > >
> > > Ann
> >
> > I wonder. Certainly it was common (perhaps a new fashion??) for
> boys
> > to be sent to another household at 7 or 8, but Im not sure it was
> > universal. Richard and George seem to have been sent to Ludlow to
> > join their older brothers by Sept. 1459, but after Edward became
> king
> > they seem to have stayed in the same household as their sister
> > Margaret. Richard apparently didn't go to Warwick's household until
> > he was about 13, and George never went anywhere at all.
>
>
> I don't think it was a 'new' fashion for boys to be sent elsewhere at
> 7 or 8, rather it was a long-established one. Have you read
> Hicks's 'False Fleeting Perjured Clarence'? Hicks says that it's
> fairly clear from royal household accounts that although Clarence
> wasn't sent anywhere after 1461 he had his own household (possibly
> shared with Richard), a governor, male tutors, companions etc
> (Clarence had better mattresses and bedding than the companions!) Do
> no accounts survive from later in the reign which would indicate what
> the Duke of York was doing?
>
>
> > Besides, it is quite possible that Richard Duke of York was in male
> > tutelage even though he was still in the main royal household.
>
> True. Personally, I don't think there is much room for argument that
> there was anything wrong with him, although his still being with his
> mama at the age of 10 seems odd when you consider that his brother
> was given his own household and moved to Ludlow when aged two!
>
> Ann
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Tim, I'll have to be quick on this.

I think our disagreement stems from our perspective.

You're looking at it from the point of view Edward IV as husband of
Elizabeth Woodville - the W's are a long-standing interest of yours.
I've been looking at it from the Duchess of Exeter's viewpoint -
she's my long-standing interest.

I completely agree that he was providing for EW's family in this.
However, if as you say (and it seems you may not be right) Anne
Holland was not the heiress than marrying her within his family was
not an issue. I'm not saying EW was being greedy on her own behalf
and wanted the duchy for herself. She thought family and wanted it
for her son - not for Anne of York and her issue.

It does appear you may be incorrect in saying Edward IV would
necessarily have been Anne's heir general (I know where you have tail
general as opposed to tail male, daughters inherited, but that may be
different).

Even if Anne Holland hadn't inherited the duchy of Exeter, by the
arrangement her mother had already made she stood to become a
marchioness.
Even if Dorset was Earl of Huntingdon when the marriage took place
(and you haven't specified), this would still not compensate for a
marquisate.

I'm still of the opinion that Anne of Exeter may not have seen this
as such a wonderful offer, particularly as it meant letting down the
Nevilles. Montagu was by all accounts unhappy and the Nevilles seem
to have held the Woodvilles responsible.

Marie

> > I think the position is this:-
> >
> > 1) 'To her use' meant that the land was held by trustees for her
> > benefit during her lifetime, but nothing was specified as to what
> > should happen on her death (unless there is something in the
> > documents which you haven't quoted). The trustees controlled
> > everything.
> >
> > 2) 'Remainder to her in tail' meant that she had full control
over
> > the property in her lifetime, except she could not dispose of it,
> and
> > it passed on her death to the issue of her body (i.e. her
children
> > whether male or female, males having priority over females -
'tail
> > male' means male issue only, and was more usual).
> >
> > 3) 'In fee' meant that the property would pass on her death to
> heirs
> > general - i.e. heirs who were not necessarily her issue - though
> the
> > trustees still controlled the property.
> >
> > 4) 'As a woman sole' meant that she was held to own the land in
her
> > own right - no trustees - and she could do what she liked with
it.
> > This was a valuable position to be in.
> >
> > Ann
>
> Thanks a lot for that, Ann. So it seems she already had full
control
> of the property and on her death it would pass to her heirs
general.
> In that situation would her daughter take precedence over a male
heir
> who was not her issue?
>
> Marie


Yes

>
> Richard of Shrewsbury was born in the August of 1474 - he was
actually not
> quite 9 at his father's death in May 1483.

I know there is some argument about the year of the Duke of York's
death, but 1473 is more usually given than 1474. what makes you say
1474?

In any case, 7-8 was the typical age for a boy to be put firmly under
male tutelage, whether he was sent away from home or not.

Ann

> Tim, I'll have to be quick on this.
>
> I think our disagreement stems from our perspective.
>
Me too and I am sure you are correct in the above.


> I completely agree that he was providing for EW's family in this.
> However, if as you say (and it seems you may not be right) Anne
> Holland was not the heiress than marrying her within his family was
> not an issue. I'm not saying EW was being greedy on her own behalf
> and wanted the duchy for herself. She thought family and wanted it
> for her son - not for Anne of York and her issue.


That's where we part company - the remarriage of Anne of York to St Leger
made the reversion worthless anyway.

>
> It does appear you may be incorrect in saying Edward IV would
> necessarily have been Anne's heir general (I know where you have tail
> general as opposed to tail male, daughters inherited, but that may be
> different).
>
My understanding of the situation in 1467 - was that the estates were Anne
of York's for life thence to her daughter in tail - in the event of her
daughter dying without issue thence back to Anne of York and her in tail (ie
to any other children she may have had - given the postion in 1467 that she
was living apart from her husband who was also living the perception to
contemporaries in 67 would be that she would be unlikely to have any more
legitimate issue which meant that assuming Anne Holland died without issue
the lot would revert to the crown . The 67 was a pretty good deal for Anne
Holland given that it effectively meant she inherited irrespective of
whether her mother had any further issue male or female - even in the
unlikely even of Anne of York and the Duke getting back together and having
a son)

> Even if Anne Holland hadn't inherited the duchy of Exeter, by the
> arrangement her mother had already made she stood to become a
> marchioness.


Under the 62 "in fee" agreement Anne Holland was already the heir to the
estates (under that agreement though she would have been replaced by any
male sibling her mother may have produced - also under the 62 agreement the
reversion in the event of both Anne of York and Anne Holland dying "in fee"
would see the lot go to the nearest heir general of Anne of York which were
her siblings (principally Edward IV and his heirs).

Anne Holland did not stand to become a Marchioness - she was dead before
Thomas Grey was created Marquess of Dorset which reflected his landed
interest in the West Country through his second wife Cecily Bonville. His
Earldom creation date I don't have to hand but it was fairly early and he
surrendered it to Edward IV sometime in the 1470's.


>
> I'm still of the opinion that Anne of Exeter may not have seen this
> as such a wonderful offer, particularly as it meant letting down the
> Nevilles. Montagu was by all accounts unhappy and the Nevilles seem
> to have held the Woodvilles responsible.
>

That assumes firstly that Anne of York cared two hoots about her cousin
Montagu - and £4000 in cash might have mollified her a little. Well the
Neville's blamed everybody for all their ills other than themselves - the
most ungrateful couple Montague and Warwick - they were by a long way the
major beneificiaries of patronage throughout the 60's far outstripping the
rewards given to other longstanding Yorkist peers and the Wydevilles - yet
still Warwick wanted more.

Sorry reading too late last night - 1473 is quite right created Duke of York
in 1474 - so nearly 10 in 83.
>
> In any case, 7-8 was the typical age for a boy to be put firmly under
> male tutelage, whether he was sent away from home or not.

Henry VIII was nominally under the control of his mother until her death -
although he had his own household probably controlled and attached to the
Queen's. He naturally had male governors and tutors though.

It is quite likely that Richard of Shrewsbury was brought up in much the
same way - semi attached to his mother's household with male tutors and
governors with the company of his sisters - unfortunately Elizabeth W's
household accounts for the late 70's don't survive which would have given us
a better impression of arrangements.

I don't think you can read anything into the fact that he wasn't sent away
to some other household - Royal Prince's weren't usually sent away anyway -
they usually eventually got their own household with a governor, tutors etc.
The Prince of Wales is a slightly different issue - Edward's household at
Ludlow was established for sound political reasons rather than following a
Royal tradition.

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Tim, I'll have to be quick on this.
> >
> > I think our disagreement stems from our perspective.
> >
> Me too and I am sure you are correct in the above.
>
>
> > I completely agree that he was providing for EW's family in this.
> > However, if as you say (and it seems you may not be right) Anne
> > Holland was not the heiress than marrying her within his family
was
> > not an issue. I'm not saying EW was being greedy on her own behalf
> > and wanted the duchy for herself. She thought family and wanted it
> > for her son - not for Anne of York and her issue.
>
>
> That's where we part company - the remarriage of Anne of York to St
Leger
> made the reversion worthless anyway.

So? Are you saying that the Queen would have prevented her
remarriage? Another answer was found in marrying together the issue
of Anne's second marriage with Dorset's new offspring. I expect the
Queen was much happier for Anne to marry a nonentity like St Leger
than a powerful nobleman.

>
> >
> > It does appear you may be incorrect in saying Edward IV would
> > necessarily have been Anne's heir general (I know where you have
tail
> > general as opposed to tail male, daughters inherited, but that
may be
> > different).
> >
> My understanding of the situation in 1467 - was that the estates
were Anne
> of York's for life thence to her daughter in tail - in the event of
her
> daughter dying without issue thence back to Anne of York and her in
tail (ie
> to any other children she may have had - given the postion in 1467
that she
> was living apart from her husband who was also living the
perception to
> contemporaries in 67 would be that she would be unlikely to have
any more
> legitimate issue which meant that assuming Anne Holland died
without issue
> the lot would revert to the crown . The 67 was a pretty good deal
for Anne
> Holland given that it effectively meant she inherited irrespective
of
> whether her mother had any further issue male or female - even in
the
> unlikely even of Anne of York and the Duke getting back together
and having
> a son)


Which is exactly where her mother stood before 1467 - see your own
point below.
>
> > Even if Anne Holland hadn't inherited the duchy of Exeter, by the
> > arrangement her mother had already made she stood to become a
> > marchioness.
>
>
> Under the 62 "in fee" agreement Anne Holland was already the heir
to the
> estates (under that agreement though she would have been replaced
by any
> male sibling her mother may have produced - also under the 62
agreement the
> reversion in the event of both Anne of York and Anne Holland
dying "in fee"
> would see the lot go to the nearest heir general of Anne of York
which were
> her siblings (principally Edward IV and his heirs).
>
> Anne Holland did not stand to become a Marchioness - she was dead
before
> Thomas Grey was created Marquess of Dorset which reflected his
landed
> interest in the West Country through his second wife Cecily
Bonville.

Tim, clearly I was talking about her position PRIOR to the marriage
arrangement with T. Grey - ie she was wed to the heir of the Marquis
Montagu! I'm not so stupid - sometimes I am making a real point.

Anyway it seems to me you have actually reinforced my own point in
these discussions that the match was designed to endow the Woodvilles
and didn't leave Edward's sister any better endowed than she had been
before. Without the benefit of hindsight that we have she could not
have supposed that Warwick's brother would not be a strong enough
individual to be allied to.

His
> Earldom creation date I don't have to hand but it was fairly early
and he
> surrendered it to Edward IV sometime in the 1470's.
>
>
> >
> > I'm still of the opinion that Anne of Exeter may not have seen
this
> > as such a wonderful offer, particularly as it meant letting down
the
> > Nevilles. Montagu was by all accounts unhappy and the Nevilles
seem
> > to have held the Woodvilles responsible.
> >
>
> That assumes firstly that Anne of York cared two hoots about her
cousin
> Montagu - and £4000 in cash might have mollified her a little.

Well, Tim, you would say we shouldn't suppose the Woodvilles didn't
care two hoots about everybody unless we have double-dyed proof - but
all right when it's somebody else apparently.


Well the
> Neville's blamed everybody for all their ills other than
themselves - the
> most ungrateful couple Montague and Warwick - they were by a long
way the
> major beneificiaries of patronage throughout the 60's far
outstripping the
> rewards given to other longstanding Yorkist peers and the
Wydevilles - yet
> still Warwick wanted more.

Well if it werent for Warwick and Montagu risking their lives
fighting the Lancastrians in Northumberland during this period it's
likely Edward wouldn't have kept his throne. The Woodvilles may have
become in-laws but they were conspicuously not apt to put their lives
on the line for Edward. Did a single one of them have a commanding
position at Barnet or Tewkesbury?

---> Anne Holland did not stand to become a Marchioness - she was
dead before
> Thomas Grey was created Marquess of Dorset which reflected his
landed
> interest in the West Country through his second wife Cecily
Bonville. His
> Earldom creation date I don't have to hand but it was fairly early
and he
> surrendered it to Edward IV sometime in the 1470's.


Sorry, just to corect myself on my last response to this - John
Neville wasn't Marquis Montagu when EW sought Anne Holland for her
son, but Earl of Northumberland (from May 1464). Good enough, I would
have thought. Earl not as high as a marquis, but a much better-
endowed title and a very powerful one. Actually, the duchy of Exeter
was not terribly well endowed for a duchy, one of the reasons Duke
Henry was always after other people's stuff in the 1450s.

Marie
>

Well I certainly don't want a discordant row with you Marie I actually enjoy
our discussions.

My original concern was that there is no evidence to suggest that Anne of
Exeter was coerced into the agreement struck in 1466 with the Queen. That
the payment of £4000 for the marriage sounds about right given the value of
the Holland holdings which although not substantial did at least give Thomas
Grey some landed security in an area where there was a bit of power vacuum.
That I am in full agreement with you that the aim of that agreement was to
endow and provide for Thomas Grey. However the suggestion that it was an
example of the mythic "Wydeville" greed doesn't stand up given that had the
Queen been the determined domineering shrew she is often portrayed as rather
than faf around with new agreements in the 1470's between her and the St
Legers she could have simply browbeaten her husband into refusing to support
Anne of Exeter's divorce and remarriage and under the 69 reversion simply
inherited the lot.



£Tim, clearly I was talking about her position PRIOR to the marriage
arrangement with T. Grey - ie she was wed to the heir of the Marquis
Montagu! I'm not so stupid - sometimes I am making a real point."

Sorry I misinterpreted your point - though Montague was Earl of
Northumberland at this point not Marquess Montagu.

"Anyway it seems to me you have actually reinforced my own point in
these discussions that the match was designed to endow the Woodvilles
and didn't leave Edward's sister any better endowed than she had been
before. Without the benefit of hindsight that we have she could not
have supposed that Warwick's brother would not be a strong enough
individual to be allied to."

Sorry I guess that I believe an alliance with the King's stepson - someone
who will one day be the half brother to a monarch -is a stronger one than
marriage with the King's cousin's son.


"Well if it werent for Warwick and Montagu risking their lives
fighting the Lancastrians in Northumberland during this period it's
likely Edward wouldn't have kept his throne. The Woodvilles may have
become in-laws but they were conspicuously not apt to put their lives
on the line for Edward. Did a single one of them have a commanding
position at Barnet or Tewkesbury?"

And both of them betrayed Edward in the end which is something none of his
wife's kin did - but seriously on this and without downplaying the role
Warwick and Montagu played in securing Edward's throne.

The Queen's male relations in 1469 who were of age and key court figures -
were actually only her father Richard Lord Rivers, and her brothers Anthony
Lord Scales and Sir John Wydeville. Rivers and Sir John were murdered by
Warwick in 1469 after the loyal peers (principally Pembroke and his men of
Wales) were defeated at Edgecoat. Scales was with the King at Doncaster at
the end of September in 1470, when it became clear that flight was the only
option for Edward. Edward fled to Holland from Kings Lynn (where Scales had
influence) and Scales went with him. He joined Edward on his return to
England (helping to secure ships for the journey in Bruges and commanding
one of the vessels himself). He fought at Barnet for the King and some
sources suggest he was wounded. By the May of 71 he was in London where he
played a significant role in defeating the Bastard of Fauconberg. A fairly
reasonable contribution I would have thought.

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> Well I certainly don't want a discordant row with you Marie I
actually enjoy
> our discussions.

So do I. A lot, in fact.
>
> That I am in full agreement with you that the aim of that agreement
was to
> endow and provide for Thomas Grey. However the suggestion that it
was an
> example of the mythic "Wydeville" greed doesn't stand up given that
had the
> Queen been the determined domineering shrew she is often portrayed
as rather
> than faf around with new agreements in the 1470's between her and
the St
> Legers she could have simply browbeaten her husband into refusing
to support
> Anne of Exeter's divorce and remarriage and under the 69 reversion
simply
> inherited the lot.
>
>
> > Sorry I guess that I believe an alliance with the King's stepson -
someone
> who will one day be the half brother to a monarch -is a stronger
one than
> marriage with the King's cousin's son.

Some cousin, though, eh?

I tried posting a message earlier but it doesn't seem to have stuck.
I don't intend to get into the question of whether Elizabeth
Woodville was greedy. It's unknowable and not really relevant here.
Anne of York may have been greedy too but I don't know. I'd rather
stick to analysing people's positions and interests except where we
have more evidence.
My point was that Anne would have had no reason to be unhappy with
the Neville match in 1465, and that there was over a year between the
King's marriage being announced and her accepting the payment for the
Grey marriage, during which period she failed to have any role at all
in the Queen's coronation, in contrast to her (junior)sisters. I am
not aware that John Neville had made any such payment for the child,
nor that it constituted a jointure settled on the couple, or even a
settlement on the bride. From what I've read it was a payment direct
to the duchess, and as no such payment seems to have been made for
the former match I interpret it as, not the going rate, but an
inducement to change.
The Duchess' view on the matter of her daughter's marriage is likely
to have changed over time. To begin with I can't see that she would
have seen any great benefit in naffing off the Nevilles, depriving
her daughter of marriage to the powerful Earl of Northumberland
(Kings in the North, as the recent book on the Percys dubs them) for
the new queen's son. That would have been a good match, but by no
means a big temptation in the circumstances.
However, once it had become clear that Edward's relationship with the
Nevilles was ruined and that the Woodvilles were networking
themselves in en masse, I imagine that she would have come to feel
very differently about the match and about keeping good relations
with the Queen.
Certainly, Anne's long-term relationship with the Queen seems to have
been fine, judging from that scene at Windsor described by Gruthuuse
(I think one of the very few times that her presence is noted in any
of the records of that period).

As for the Woodvilles being so good in not rebelling against Edward -
well they wouldn't have, would they? I know you disagree with me
here, but I would say they did rebel against his express wishes once
he was defunct and could no longer be relied upon to keep them in
power.

Marie

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> >
> > It does appear you may be incorrect in saying Edward IV would
> > necessarily have been Anne's heir general (I know where you have
tail
> > general as opposed to tail male, daughters inherited, but that
may be
>> My understanding of the situation in 1467 - was that the estates
were Anne
> of York's for life thence to her daughter in tail - in the event of
her
> daughter dying without issue thence back to Anne of York and her in
tail (ie
> to any other children she may have had - given the postion in 1467
that she
> was living apart from her husband who was also living the
perception to
> contemporaries in 67 would be that she would be unlikely to have
any more
> legitimate issue which meant that assuming Anne Holland died
without issue
> the lot would revert to the crown .

Yes, I agree - I think I've already said that. But I've thought since
that it probably wasn't quite so simple. Exeter was in Burgundy at
that time and I guess (don't have time to check now) negotiations
were already underway for Margaret's marriage to Duke Charles. In
which case there would surely have been a query over whether Exeter
would have been handed back. Also, Anne may already have petitioned
the Pope for divorce. She would presumably have preferred to pass her
estates and titles to a son by a husband she actually liked.
As far as Edward was concerned, having fallen out with Warwick over
his marriage he may have been anxious to get this Lancastrian heiress
away from the Nevilles. And there was over a year's delay between the
announcement of Edward's marriage and the payment to Anne, during
which period she failed to have a place at the Queen's coronation.

I don't think we're ever going to quite agree. I think you take my
expressions like 'muscling in' a bit too seriously, but I still
maintain that there would have been no reason why the Duchess of
Exeter wouldn't have been perfectly happy with the Neville match.
After all, the Kingmaker wasn't just any old cousin and the Earldom
of Northumberland was an exceptionally powerful one. 'Kings in the
North' the recent book on the Percys is titled, I think.
From what I've read, though, the payment to Anne was directly to her
and not a jointure settled on the couple. I'm not aware of John
Neville having made a similar payment so I'm not sure it was what
would have been required were it not for the fact that Anne had to be
induced to break an existing arrangement.

One thing I would agree with and that is that Anne seems to have got
on with the Queen fine afterwards - I've also read about the 1472
occasion at Windsor, one of the very few occasions on which Anne
surfaces publicly.
My suspicion would be that once she saw the Nevilles were completely
estranged from the King she came round to the idea that the match no
longer made sense. But that good relations with the Queen did.

Obviously the Woodvilles would not have rebelled against Edward,
given their position. But once that particular meal-ticket was
defunct they did (in my view) move to exclude Edward's brother from
government, against Edward's expressed last wishes. I know we've
discussed that one as well and we don't agree there either!

And yes, I enjoy our discussions tremendously too. It's hard to keep
any discussion going where there is complete agreement. And a string
of Absolutely's! and Right on's! wouldn't interest anyone. Or wring
the full possibilities out of the sources.

Marie