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

----- Original Message -----
From: "tim" <tmc_dale@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's heir


> 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/
>