Canon law for marriage

I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.

In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."

So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.

Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.

Does anyone have further information on this?

Hi, this is in the Petition to Richard as Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his first Parliament for ratification. As you can see, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair, it points out that the marriage to Elizabeth Grey was not in accordance with the requirements of the Church


'And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land, and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage, and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '

From the Parliament Roll of RIII. H.

--- In , "merriannmclain" <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
>
> Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
>
> In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."
>
> So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.
>
> Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.
>
> Does anyone have further information on this?
>

This is an excerpt from the Petition to Richard when Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his only Parliament for the members to ratify. You can see that it indeed refers to the legitimacy of the clandestine marriage, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair. 
 
 
' And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed
King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and
assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed
by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the
common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was
made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private
chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to
the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the
church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage,
and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood
married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl
of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of
matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth
Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it
is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and
the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to
the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '
(From the Parliament Rolls)
H
 

________________________________
From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 5:05
Subject: Canon law for marriage

 

I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.

In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."

So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.

Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.

Does anyone have further information on this?

Thank you. It appears that there were no changes, but I am still checking.

merriann

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> This is an excerpt from the Petition to Richard when Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his only Parliament for the members to ratify. You can see that it indeed refers to the legitimacy of the clandestine marriage, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair. 
>  
>  
> ' And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed
> King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and
> assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed
> by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the
> common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
> and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
> thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was
> made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private
> chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to
> the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the
> church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage,
> and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood
> married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of
> matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth
> Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it
> is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and
> the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to
> the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '
> (From the Parliament Rolls)
> H
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 5:05
> Subject: Canon law for marriage
>
>  
>
> I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
>
> Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
>
> In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."
>
> So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.
>
> Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.
>
> Does anyone have further information on this?
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's important actually, as you probably know because if this is true then Edward's children were illegitimate anyway, with or without the Eleanor Butler issue.



________________________________
From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 4:32
Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage

 

Thank you. It appears that there were no changes, but I am still checking.

merriann

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> This is an excerpt from the Petition to Richard when Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his only Parliament for the members to ratify. You can see that it indeed refers to the legitimacy of the clandestine marriage, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair. 
>  
>  
> ' And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed
> King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and
> assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed
> by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the
> common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
> and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
> thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was
> made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private
> chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to
> the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the
> church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage,
> and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood
> married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of
> matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth
> Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it
> is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and
> the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to
> the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '
> (From the Parliament Rolls)
> H
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 5:05
> Subject: Canon law for marriage
>
>  
>
> I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
>
> Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
>
> In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."
>
> So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.
>
> Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.
>
> Does anyone have further information on this?
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 04/04/2013 10:02, Hilary Jones wrote:
> as is the
> common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
> and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
> thought necessary.
Interesting as the traditionalists all use 'common fame' as
justification for their slanders, but unlike Richard, they can offer no
proof when asked. Had one asked Richard for the proof of Edward's
precontract I would bet Stillington and numerous canon lawyers would
have been turned out! Which of course in private they may well have been.
Paul


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Quite. Either a secret marriage is:
Invalid - so EW's children are illegitimate.
Valid - so the Talbot marriage was valid and EW's children are illegitimate.

----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage



It's important actually, as you probably know because if this is true then Edward's children were illegitimate anyway, with or without the Eleanor Butler issue.

________________________________
From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 4:32
Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage



Thank you. It appears that there were no changes, but I am still checking.

merriann

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> This is an excerpt from the Petition to Richard when Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his only Parliament for the members to ratify. You can see that it indeed refers to the legitimacy of the clandestine marriage, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair.Â
> Â
> Â
> 'Â And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed
> King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and
> assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed
> by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the
> common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
> and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
> thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was
> made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private
> chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to
> the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the
> church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage,
> and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood
> married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of
> matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth
> Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it
> is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and
> the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to
> the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '
> (From the Parliament Rolls)
> H
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 5:05
> Subject: Canon law for marriage
>
> Â
>
> I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
>
> Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
>
> In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."
>
> So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.
>
> Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.
>
> Does anyone have further information on this?
>
>
>
>
>
>

So either way EW's children were illegitimate!! Hope a few traditionalists are reading the messages on this forum.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Quite. Either a secret marriage is:
> Invalid - so EW's children are illegitimate.
> Valid - so the Talbot marriage was valid and EW's children are illegitimate.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage
>
>
>
> It's important actually, as you probably know because if this is true then Edward's children were illegitimate anyway, with or without the Eleanor Butler issue.
>
> ________________________________
> From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 4:32
> Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage
>
>
>
> Thank you. It appears that there were no changes, but I am still checking.
>
> merriann
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > This is an excerpt from the Petition to Richard when Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his only Parliament for the members to ratify. You can see that it indeed refers to the legitimacy of the clandestine marriage, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair.Â
> > Â
> > Â
> > 'Â And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed
> > King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and
> > assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed
> > by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the
> > common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
> > and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
> > thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was
> > made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private
> > chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to
> > the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the
> > church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage,
> > and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood
> > married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl
> > of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of
> > matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth
> > Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it
> > is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and
> > the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to
> > the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> > sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> > provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> > calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> > the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> > children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> > anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '
> > (From the Parliament Rolls)
> > H
> > Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 5:05
> > Subject: Canon law for marriage
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.
> >
> > http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
> >
> > Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
> >
> > In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."
> >
> > So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.
> >
> > Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.
> >
> > Does anyone have further information on this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) went over some of the marriage canon, but the date and the substance precludes any changes to Edward. I am still confused: the clandestine clause must have been known, so a) was there a Papal dispensation, b) did Edward ever consider a Papal dispensation or was he just an arrogant doodyhead?

Wasn't Stillington himself an expert in canon law?

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> Had one asked Richard for the proof of Edward's
> precontract I would bet Stillington and numerous canon lawyers would
> have been turned out! Which of course in private they may well have been.
> Paul
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I don't think Edward ever considered applying for a dispensation for the secret thing he'd done when his hormones took over. Besides which, wouldn't the mere application for a papal dispensation have made the entire thing public before the pope even came to consider granting a dispensation?

I'm thinking there was arrogance on Edward's part and a terror of public humiliation on EW's if she knew about her status as the second, illegal wife. "Stillington's an old man and he knows to keep his silence. I'm sure he'll die before we do, so no one will ever know. All will be well, my dear."

Not to mention, what if the pope got sniggy and refused the dispensation per canon law?

I think Edward & Co. wanted the entire inconvenient night's indiscretion kept secret and safe and swept under the royal rug. It's unfortunate he didn't bring Little Brother in on his plans. Then again, given the royal snit said brother likely threw over the dishonor of accepting a French pension rather than recreating Agincourt, Edward likely knew what sort of a reaction he'd get if he told Little Brother that golden Big Brother was a bigamist and to shhh! keep the sekrit, m'kay?

~Weds

--- In , Merri Ann Mc Lain <merriannmclain@...> wrote:
>
> The Council of Trent (1545-1563) went over some of the marriage canon, but the date and the substance precludes any changes to Edward. I am still confused: the clandestine clause must have been known, so a) was there a Papal dispensation, b) did Edward ever consider a Papal dispensation or was he just an arrogant doodyhead?

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think Edward ever considered applying for a dispensation for the secret thing he'd done when his hormones took over. Besides which, wouldn't the mere application for a papal dispensation have made the entire thing public before the pope even came to consider granting a dispensation?
>
> I'm thinking there was arrogance on Edward's part and a terror of public humiliation on EW's if she knew about her status as the second, illegal wife. "Stillington's an old man and he knows to keep his silence. I'm sure he'll die before we do, so no one will ever know. All will be well, my dear."
>
> Not to mention, what if the pope got sniggy and refused the dispensation per canon law? [snip]

Carol responds:

But why not apply for an annulment based on the secrecy of the marriage and the lack of a dispensation? If he'd done that before he married Elizabeth Woodville, half the problem would be solved. (Of course, the secrecy of the *second* marriage still remained, but it was only a problem in relation to the first because it prevented Stillington or some other person from declaring the existence of an impediment.)

I wonder if there are still experts in canon law who would be willing to undertake this challenge--a Jesuit cardinal, maybe.

Carol

But the pre-contract was irrelevant if the second marriage was not legal anyway. And it doesn't appear to have been so. So the 'princes' were still illegitimate because, Eleanor or not, the marriage to EW had not been conducted in accordance with canon law and the children of that marriage could never be legitimate.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think Edward ever considered applying for a dispensation for the secret thing he'd done when his hormones took over. Besides which, wouldn't the mere application for a papal dispensation have made the entire thing public before the pope even came to consider granting a dispensation?
> >
> > I'm thinking there was arrogance on Edward's part and a terror of public humiliation on EW's if she knew about her status as the second, illegal wife. "Stillington's an old man and he knows to keep his silence. I'm sure he'll die before we do, so no one will ever know. All will be well, my dear."
> >
> > Not to mention, what if the pope got sniggy and refused the dispensation per canon law? [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But why not apply for an annulment based on the secrecy of the marriage and the lack of a dispensation? If he'd done that before he married Elizabeth Woodville, half the problem would be solved. (Of course, the secrecy of the *second* marriage still remained, but it was only a problem in relation to the first because it prevented Stillington or some other person from declaring the existence of an impediment.)
>
> I wonder if there are still experts in canon law who would be willing to undertake this challenge--a Jesuit cardinal, maybe.
>
> Carol
>

I just started reading J A-H's book about Eleanor. So far, very I testing, and I have bumped into the Cheddars. I am just in Eleanor's childhood and the many circuitous marriages and children. Whew, it is so confusing.

On Apr 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think Edward ever considered applying for a dispensation for the secret thing he'd done when his hormones took over. Besides which, wouldn't the mere application for a papal dispensation have made the entire thing public before the pope even came to consider granting a dispensation?
>
> I'm thinking there was arrogance on Edward's part and a terror of public humiliation on EW's if she knew about her status as the second, illegal wife. "Stillington's an old man and he knows to keep his silence. I'm sure he'll die before we do, so no one will ever know. All will be well, my dear."
>
> Not to mention, what if the pope got sniggy and refused the dispensation per canon law? [snip]

Carol responds:

But why not apply for an annulment based on the secrecy of the marriage and the lack of a dispensation? If he'd done that before he married Elizabeth Woodville, half the problem would be solved. (Of course, the secrecy of the *second* marriage still remained, but it was only a problem in relation to the first because it prevented Stillington or some other person from declaring the existence of an impediment.)

I wonder if there are still experts in canon law who would be willing to undertake this challenge--a Jesuit cardinal, maybe.

Carol

hjnatdat wrote:

"But the pre-contract was irrelevant if the second marriage was not legal
anyway. And it doesn't appear to have been so. So the 'princes' were still
illegitimate because, Eleanor or not, the marriage to EW had not been
conducted in accordance with canon law and the children of that marriage
could never be legitimate."

Doug here:
If I understand the problem correctly (!?!?), the clandestine nature of both
marriages made possibility of regularizing either marriage problematic.
The problem that would have developed, had knowledge of Edward's "marriage"
to Eleanor gotten out, was that, if Edward tried to claim his "marriage" to
Eleanor wasn't legal, the *only* defense he had under canon law was that the
marriage had been in secret.
Which would have invalidated his *marriage* to EW.
However, and this is assuming knowledge of his marriage to Eleanor was
public knowledge, if Edward tried to claim the secrecy of his marriage to EW
didn't invalidate it, that would have made EW Edward's mistress.
And children of a mistress, regardless of whether born before after the
death of the legal spouse, couldn't be recognized as legitimate by the
Church. Which would have *all* of Edward's children by EW illegitimate, boys
and girls.
Of course, Parliament could do as it had for the Beauforts...
Doug

However,
*because* of Edward's marriage to Eleanor that his children by EW couldn't
be legitimised via a dispensation. Because, it (Edward's marriage to
Eleanor, however dodgy) made EW, while Eleanor was still living, Edward's
mistress and it was *that* status EW retained even after Eleanor died.
Apparently *any* off-spring from a marriage between a man and his mistress,
regardless of whether those offspring were born before or after the man's
wife had died, remained illegitimate.
I think that had the marriage to Eleanor not occurred, then a dispensation
*might* have been available to legitimise Edward and EW's "relationship"
(and their children) in the eyes of the Church, because then EW would never
have been Edward's mistress (her status in the eyes of the Church, both
while Eleanor was alive and after her death). However, I could be completely
wrong about that last.
Doug
Once a mistress, always a mistress.
And *any* children of such a relationship could not be recognized as
legitimate by the Church. Parliament, of course, could do what it did for
the Beauforts

That's how I, and I think Stephen, read it. So Richard did't need to invent the Stillington story. He had enough ammunition without it.  



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 16:39
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage

 


hjnatdat wrote:

"But the pre-contract was irrelevant if the second marriage was not legal
anyway. And it doesn't appear to have been so. So the 'princes' were still
illegitimate because, Eleanor or not, the marriage to EW had not been
conducted in accordance with canon law and the children of that marriage
could never be legitimate."

Doug here:
If I understand the problem correctly (!?!?), the clandestine nature of both
marriages made possibility of regularizing either marriage problematic.
The problem that would have developed, had knowledge of Edward's "marriage"
to Eleanor gotten out, was that, if Edward tried to claim his "marriage" to
Eleanor wasn't legal, the *only* defense he had under canon law was that the
marriage had been in secret.
Which would have invalidated his *marriage* to EW.
However, and this is assuming knowledge of his marriage to Eleanor was
public knowledge, if Edward tried to claim the secrecy of his marriage to EW
didn't invalidate it, that would have made EW Edward's mistress.
And children of a mistress, regardless of whether born before after the
death of the legal spouse, couldn't be recognized as legitimate by the
Church. Which would have *all* of Edward's children by EW illegitimate, boys
and girls.
Of course, Parliament could do as it had for the Beauforts...
Doug

However,
*because* of Edward's marriage to Eleanor that his children by EW couldn't
be legitimised via a dispensation. Because, it (Edward's marriage to
Eleanor, however dodgy) made EW, while Eleanor was still living, Edward's
mistress and it was *that* status EW retained even after Eleanor died.
Apparently *any* off-spring from a marriage between a man and his mistress,
regardless of whether those offspring were born before or after the man's
wife had died, remained illegitimate.
I think that had the marriage to Eleanor not occurred, then a dispensation
*might* have been available to legitimise Edward and EW's "relationship"
(and their children) in the eyes of the Church, because then EW would never
have been Edward's mistress (her status in the eyes of the Church, both
while Eleanor was alive and after her death). However, I could be completely
wrong about that last.
Doug
Once a mistress, always a mistress.
And *any* children of such a relationship could not be recognized as
legitimate by the Church. Parliament, of course, could do what it did for
the Beauforts

My thought exactly.  I started it a few weeks ago and put it aside and read something lighter.  I'm just finishing that (totally OT -  the last of the Cazalet Chronicles)  and then will go back to JAH.    I really want to read it but I just wasn't in the mood.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 22:30
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage

I just started reading J A-H's book about Eleanor. So far, very I testing, and I have bumped into the Cheddars. I am just in Eleanor's childhood and the many circuitous marriages and children. Whew, it is so confusing.

On Apr 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think Edward ever considered applying for a dispensation for the secret thing he'd done when his hormones took over. Besides which, wouldn't the mere application for a papal dispensation have made the entire thing public before the pope even came to consider granting a dispensation?
>
> I'm thinking there was arrogance on Edward's part and a terror of public humiliation on EW's if she knew about her status as the second, illegal wife. "Stillington's an old man and he knows to keep his silence. I'm sure he'll die before we do, so no one will ever know. All will be well, my dear."
>
> Not to mention, what if the pope got sniggy and refused the dispensation per canon law? [snip]

Carol responds:

But why not apply for an annulment based on the secrecy of the marriage and the lack of a dispensation? If he'd done that before he married Elizabeth Woodville, half the problem would be solved. (Of course, the secrecy of the *second* marriage still remained, but it was only a problem in relation to the first because it prevented Stillington or some other person from declaring the existence of an impediment.)

I wonder if there are still experts in canon law who would be willing to undertake this challenge--a Jesuit cardinal, maybe.

Carol









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thank you...this is what I was reading into the information but I like to be substantiated! So Lady Eleanor is immaterial to the purpose here, the Princes were natural sons. Parliament might have legitimated them, but that would have invited another Beaufort-type problem, the easiest thing would be to remove them from harm's way. This retains the Yorkist line on the throne, and the children can be married to advantage but without threat.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Quite. Either a secret marriage is:
> Invalid - so EW's children are illegitimate.
> Valid - so the Talbot marriage was valid and EW's children are illegitimate.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage
>
>
>
> It's important actually, as you probably know because if this is true then Edward's children were illegitimate anyway, with or without the Eleanor Butler issue.
>
> ________________________________
> From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 5 April 2013, 4:32
> Subject: Re: Canon law for marriage
>
>
>
> Thank you. It appears that there were no changes, but I am still checking.
>
> merriann
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > This is an excerpt from the Petition to Richard when Duke of Gloucester which was read out at his only Parliament for the members to ratify. You can see that it indeed refers to the legitimacy of the clandestine marriage, as well as the Eleanor Butler affair.Â
> > Â
> > Â
> > 'Â And here we also consider how the said feigned marriage between the abovenamed
> > King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was presumptuously made without the knowledge and
> > assent of the lords of this land, and also by sorcery and witchcraft committed
> > by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta, duchess of Bedford, as is the
> > common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame throughout this land,
> > and as can be adequately proved hereafter at a convenient time and place, if
> > thought necessary. And we also consider here how the said feigned marriage was
> > made privately and secretly, without the publishing of banns, in a private
> > chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the church according to
> > the law of God's church, but contrary to it and to the laudable custom of the
> > church of England. And also, how when he contracted the same feigned marriage,
> > and previously and for a long time after, the said King Edward was and stood
> > married and troth-plighted to one Dame Eleanor Butler, daughter of the old earl
> > of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a pre-contract of
> > matrimony long before he made the said feigned marriage with the said Elizabeth
> > Grey in the abovesaid manner and form. If all that is true, as in very truth it
> > is, it clearly appears and follows that during his life the said King Edward and
> > the said Elizabeth lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery, contrary to
> > the law of God and of his church; and it is therefore no wonder that, with the
> > sovereign lord and the head of this land being of such ungodly disposition and
> > provoking the ire and indignation of our lord God, such heinous misfortunes and
> > calamities, as are described above, were used and committed in the realm among
> > the subjects. Also, it clearly appears and follows that all the issue and
> > children of the said King Edward are bastards, and unable to inherit or claim
> > anything by inheritance, by the law and custom of England. '
> > (From the Parliament Rolls)
> > H
> > Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: merriannmclain <merriannmclain@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2013, 5:05
> > Subject: Canon law for marriage
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I came across the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) Canon 51 on clandestine marriage - getting sidetracked can be very enlightening.
> >
> > http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
> >
> > Summary. Clandestine marriages and witness to them by a priest are forbidden. Marriages to be contracted must be published in the churches by the priests so that, if legitimate impediments exist, they may be made known. If doubt exists, let the contemplated marriage be forbidden till the matter is cleared up.
> >
> > In the body of the text:"But if anyone should presume to contract a clandestine...marriage...the children from such a union shall be considered illegitimate, nor shall the ignorance of the parents be pleaded as an extenuating circumstance in their behalf, since they by contracting such marriages appear not as wanting in knowledge but rather as affecting ignorance."
> >
> > So far I have not found any revision of this law within the time of Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville.
> >
> > Presumably, the Pope could have legitimated the Princes, but I suspect, given the legitimacy battles with Lancaster, this would have been the least attractive option for Richard.
> >
> > Does anyone have further information on this?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"That's how I, and I think Stephen, read it. So Richard did't need to invent
the Stillington story. He had enough ammunition without it. "

Doug here:
Oh good, I *finally* got something right!
Based on a strictly legal interpretation, I think you're right with your
last sentence, however, had Stillington not come forward, I really can't see
anyone objecting to Edward (V) remaining king based *solely* on the fact his
parents had been married clandestinely.
Because, and I could be wrong here (again), had his clandestine marriage to
EW been Edward IV's *only* marriage it *might* have regularized by a Papal
dispensation. In any case, the conditions under which the marriage was
contracted didn't seem to matter much to the nobles and/or member of
Parliament. It was the combination of both *marriages* that blew away any
chance of Edward remaining on the throne.
Without knowledge of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler I'm
presuming the Papal authorities would also consider the intent of those
involved which, in the case of EW and Edward, would have led to a judgement
in favor of the couple. Add in the fact it would have been the King of
England requesting the dispensation and the chances for Edward getting a
dispensation for his clandestine marriage to EW would increase. It would
probably also cost a *bit* more in fines and bribes, so there's that too.
Anyone (Stephen? Marie?) with a knowledge of such things would be better
able to answer *that* question.
Doug
(with my apologizes for committing a "Rous" in my previous post)

My recollection is that it's like the pre-contract - you can regularise, but not put back the clock with the same woman because of sin. So it was too late for his existing heirs. I'm not the expert though; perhaps the others can help?



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 16:41
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"That's how I, and I think Stephen, read it. So Richard did't need to invent
the Stillington story. He had enough ammunition without it. "

Doug here:
Oh good, I *finally* got something right!
Based on a strictly legal interpretation, I think you're right with your
last sentence, however, had Stillington not come forward, I really can't see
anyone objecting to Edward (V) remaining king based *solely* on the fact his
parents had been married clandestinely.
Because, and I could be wrong here (again), had his clandestine marriage to
EW been Edward IV's *only* marriage it *might* have regularized by a Papal
dispensation. In any case, the conditions under which the marriage was
contracted didn't seem to matter much to the nobles and/or member of
Parliament. It was the combination of both *marriages* that blew away any
chance of Edward remaining on the throne.
Without knowledge of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler I'm
presuming the Papal authorities would also consider the intent of those
involved which, in the case of EW and Edward, would have led to a judgement
in favor of the couple. Add in the fact it would have been the King of
England requesting the dispensation and the chances for Edward getting a
dispensation for his clandestine marriage to EW would increase. It would
probably also cost a *bit* more in fines and bribes, so there's that too.
Anyone (Stephen? Marie?) with a knowledge of such things would be better
able to answer *that* question.
Doug
(with my apologizes for committing a "Rous" in my previous post)

That's right. EW had been Edward's mistress and pretend wife because of the Talbot marriage - even when the latter died, EW could never marry him.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage



My recollection is that it's like the pre-contract - you can regularise, but not put back the clock with the same woman because of sin. So it was too late for his existing heirs. I'm not the expert though; perhaps the others can help?

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 16:41
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage




Hilary Jones wrote:

"That's how I, and I think Stephen, read it. So Richard did't need to invent
the Stillington story. He had enough ammunition without it. "

Doug here:
Oh good, I *finally* got something right!
Based on a strictly legal interpretation, I think you're right with your
last sentence, however, had Stillington not come forward, I really can't see
anyone objecting to Edward (V) remaining king based *solely* on the fact his
parents had been married clandestinely.
Because, and I could be wrong here (again), had his clandestine marriage to
EW been Edward IV's *only* marriage it *might* have regularized by a Papal
dispensation. In any case, the conditions under which the marriage was
contracted didn't seem to matter much to the nobles and/or member of
Parliament. It was the combination of both *marriages* that blew away any
chance of Edward remaining on the throne.
Without knowledge of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler I'm
presuming the Papal authorities would also consider the intent of those
involved which, in the case of EW and Edward, would have led to a judgement
in favor of the couple. Add in the fact it would have been the King of
England requesting the dispensation and the chances for Edward getting a
dispensation for his clandestine marriage to EW would increase. It would
probably also cost a *bit* more in fines and bribes, so there's that too.
Anyone (Stephen? Marie?) with a knowledge of such things would be better
able to answer *that* question.
Doug
(with my apologizes for committing a "Rous" in my previous post)

And every other biographical article I find on Stillington is written by - Hicks! who says he never went south, even as a bishop.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2013, 16:06
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage

 

That's right. EW had been Edward's mistress and pretend wife because of the Talbot marriage - even when the latter died, EW could never marry him.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage

My recollection is that it's like the pre-contract - you can regularise, but not put back the clock with the same woman because of sin. So it was too late for his existing heirs. I'm not the expert though; perhaps the others can help?

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 6 April 2013, 16:41
Subject: Re: Re: Canon law for marriage

Hilary Jones wrote:

"That's how I, and I think Stephen, read it. So Richard did't need to invent
the Stillington story. He had enough ammunition without it. "

Doug here:
Oh good, I *finally* got something right!
Based on a strictly legal interpretation, I think you're right with your
last sentence, however, had Stillington not come forward, I really can't see
anyone objecting to Edward (V) remaining king based *solely* on the fact his
parents had been married clandestinely.
Because, and I could be wrong here (again), had his clandestine marriage to
EW been Edward IV's *only* marriage it *might* have regularized by a Papal
dispensation. In any case, the conditions under which the marriage was
contracted didn't seem to matter much to the nobles and/or member of
Parliament. It was the combination of both *marriages* that blew away any
chance of Edward remaining on the throne.
Without knowledge of Edward's previous marriage to Eleanor Butler I'm
presuming the Papal authorities would also consider the intent of those
involved which, in the case of EW and Edward, would have led to a judgement
in favor of the couple. Add in the fact it would have been the King of
England requesting the dispensation and the chances for Edward getting a
dispensation for his clandestine marriage to EW would increase. It would
probably also cost a *bit* more in fines and bribes, so there's that too.
Anyone (Stephen? Marie?) with a knowledge of such things would be better
able to answer *that* question.
Doug
(with my apologizes for committing a "Rous" in my previous post)