Hastings Execution - Thanks for replies.

My apologies for delay in responding but theres a lot to take in.before i offer any theory, my practice is to look at a sequence of events, who did what,when and the why is the key element for me.What motivated peoples actions or reactions.I spent many decades researching the Kennedy Assassination and i learned a lot during that process. I did not start from an open minded point of view, this may seem biased and it is, but it allowed me to measure,compare and consider alternatives to my viewpoint, I was open however to the possibility that i was wrong, all in a search for the truth. I make this qualification as 'my theories' will often contradict/oppose the views of Society members. I do not beleive the Pre-Contract theory,stated in the book as i think the pre contract was a fabrication, invented to justify taking the crown. Lady Eleanor Butler Talbot met King Edward 1v to ask the King to return the two manors formerly bequeathed to her by her father in law,Lord Talbot; who then sought to redeem one of those Manors on the death of his son, Eleanor's husband. Edward took possession of both properties, due to an error in paperwork. Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he already possessed what she wanted.If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up. Who are the Brooklyn contingent.PS. Oswald did it.

From: ringoandstar
To:
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 11:06 PM
Subject: Hastings Execution - Thanks for
replies.


> Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he
> already possessed what she wanted.

Maybe because he was almost wholly driven by greed, especially sexual greed,
but wasn't a rapist, and she *wasn't* driven by greed but was a sincerely
religious and chaste woman who wouldn't have sex outside marriage even to
regain her lands? Or possibly on the contrary she was equally greedy and
saw the crown within her grasp, so she held out for *more* than her lands?

> If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the
> effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a
> dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no
> pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up.

Yes, but you're assuming that Edward was *sensible* - one has to remember
there were just as many idiots, drunks and unfortunate persons with
room-temperature IQs in the past as there are nowadays. Think of Edward as
e.g. a braying Hooray Henry type with his brains, what there was of them,
firmly in his balls: the kind of young man who holds down some impressive
job in a bank, but who outside work you wouldn't trust to buy a pint of milk
without supervision.

After all, Elizabeth was a bad choice even without the pre-contract, and
marrying her caused a raft of trouble and alienated his most powerful
supporter, but he made that bad choice just to get his end away, even though
the fact that he married her in secret strongly indicates that he *knew* she
was a bad choice everyone would scream about.

Having just spent the last couple of weeks living and breathing just a small part of issues around the pre-contract I can assure you that the whole thing was much more complex than your solution.



________________________________
From: ringoandstar <ringoandstar@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 23:06
Subject: Hastings Execution - Thanks for replies.

 

My apologies for delay in responding but theres a lot to take in.before i offer any theory, my practice is to look at a sequence of events, who did what,when and the why is the key element for me.What motivated peoples actions or reactions.I spent many decades researching the Kennedy Assassination and i learned a lot during that process. I did not start from an open minded point of view, this may seem biased and it is, but it allowed me to measure,compare and consider alternatives to my viewpoint, I was open however to the possibility that i was wrong, all in a search for the truth. I make this qualification as 'my theories' will often contradict/oppose the views of Society members. I do not beleive the Pre-Contract theory,stated in the book as i think the pre contract was a fabrication, invented to justify taking the crown. Lady Eleanor Butler Talbot met King Edward 1v to ask the King to return the two manors formerly bequeathed to her by her father in
law,Lord Talbot; who then sought to redeem one of those Manors on the death of his son, Eleanor's husband. Edward took possession of both properties, due to an error in paperwork. Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he already possessed what she wanted.If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up. Who are the Brooklyn contingent.PS. Oswald did it.

I'm sorry but there is no way to annul a secret marriage except by making it public first. A second spouse on the horizon would also make an annulment less likely and Kings were subject to canon law on this as much as anyone - think of Henry VIII's "great matter". This would apply even if EW were pregnant and birth cannot be delayed by more than a few days just to legitimise a child.
PS What grounds would there be for an annulment? Non-consummation is impossible because consummation sealed the marriage in the first place (de verbo futura).
----- Original Message -----
From: ringoandstar
To:
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 11:06 PM
Subject: Hastings Execution - Thanks for replies.



My apologies for delay in responding but theres a lot to take in.before i offer any theory, my practice is to look at a sequence of events, who did what,when and the why is the key element for me.What motivated peoples actions or reactions.I spent many decades researching the Kennedy Assassination and i learned a lot during that process. I did not start from an open minded point of view, this may seem biased and it is, but it allowed me to measure,compare and consider alternatives to my viewpoint, I was open however to the possibility that i was wrong, all in a search for the truth. I make this qualification as 'my theories' will often contradict/oppose the views of Society members. I do not beleive the Pre-Contract theory,stated in the book as i think the pre contract was a fabrication, invented to justify taking the crown. Lady Eleanor Butler Talbot met King Edward 1v to ask the King to return the two manors formerly bequeathed to her by her father in law,Lord Talbot; who then sought to redeem one of those Manors on the death of his son, Eleanor's husband. Edward took possession of both properties, due to an error in paperwork. Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he already possessed what she wanted.If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up. Who are the Brooklyn contingent.PS. Oswald did it.

Hi Ringo...can you clarify please. Are you saying that you believe the fact that Edward held the manor/s that ET wanted would have been reason enough for her to sleep with him and therefore he would have had no need to promise and go through a marriage ceremony with her. This is my understanding of what you have said but I may have got the wrong end of stick...eileen

--- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
>
> My apologies for delay in responding but theres a lot to take in.before i offer any theory, my practice is to look at a sequence of events, who did what,when and the why is the key element for me.What motivated peoples actions or reactions.I spent many decades researching the Kennedy Assassination and i learned a lot during that process. I did not start from an open minded point of view, this may seem biased and it is, but it allowed me to measure,compare and consider alternatives to my viewpoint, I was open however to the possibility that i was wrong, all in a search for the truth. I make this qualification as 'my theories' will often contradict/oppose the views of Society members. I do not beleive the Pre-Contract theory,stated in the book as i think the pre contract was a fabrication, invented to justify taking the crown. Lady Eleanor Butler Talbot met King Edward 1v to ask the King to return the two manors formerly bequeathed to her by her father in law,Lord Talbot; who then sought to redeem one of those Manors on the death of his son, Eleanor's husband. Edward took possession of both properties, due to an error in paperwork. Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he already possessed what she wanted.If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up. Who are the Brooklyn contingent.PS. Oswald did it.
>

Just to confirm, if somebody hasn't already done so - a "precontract" is not some sort of betrothal or agreement that a pope could undo by a dispensation, it is simply the term for the prior marriage as cited in a bigamy case. Titulus Regius makes it quite clear that Edward had married Eleanor. If this was so, then nobody could undo that marriage unless there had been a nullifying impediment in place which rendered it void, which seems unlikely; certainly there were no impediments due to relationship, Eleanor wasn't under-age and it clearly wouldn't have been a forced marriage.
The Catholic Church didn't countenance divorce in the sense of the dissolution of a valid marriage then any more than it does now.
The precontract issue is complex, and you might want to join the Society just for access to what are probably the only two reliable papers ever written on the subject, both by eminent canon law historians and both published in the Ricardian.
Marie


--- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
>
> My apologies for delay in responding but theres a lot to take in.before i offer any theory, my practice is to look at a sequence of events, who did what,when and the why is the key element for me.What motivated peoples actions or reactions.I spent many decades researching the Kennedy Assassination and i learned a lot during that process. I did not start from an open minded point of view, this may seem biased and it is, but it allowed me to measure,compare and consider alternatives to my viewpoint, I was open however to the possibility that i was wrong, all in a search for the truth. I make this qualification as 'my theories' will often contradict/oppose the views of Society members. I do not beleive the Pre-Contract theory,stated in the book as i think the pre contract was a fabrication, invented to justify taking the crown. Lady Eleanor Butler Talbot met King Edward 1v to ask the King to return the two manors formerly bequeathed to her by her father in law,Lord Talbot; who then sought to redeem one of those Manors on the death of his son, Eleanor's husband. Edward took possession of both properties, due to an error in paperwork. Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he already possessed what she wanted.If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up. Who are the Brooklyn contingent.PS. Oswald did it.
>

Thank you Marie. And it's good to have you back
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:42 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Just to confirm, if somebody hasn't already done so - a "precontract" is not some sort of betrothal or agreement that a pope could undo by a dispensation, it is simply the term for the prior marriage as cited in a bigamy case. Titulus Regius makes it quite clear that Edward had married Eleanor. If this was so, then nobody could undo that marriage unless there had been a nullifying impediment in place which rendered it void, which seems unlikely; certainly there were no impediments due to relationship, Eleanor wasn't under-age and it clearly wouldn't have been a forced marriage.
> The Catholic Church didn't countenance divorce in the sense of the dissolution of a valid marriage then any more than it does now.
> The precontract issue is complex, and you might want to join the Society just for access to what are probably the only two reliable papers ever written on the subject, both by eminent canon law historians and both published in the Ricardian.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ringoandstar" <ringoandstar@...> wrote:
> >
> > My apologies for delay in responding but theres a lot to take in.before i offer any theory, my practice is to look at a sequence of events, who did what,when and the why is the key element for me.What motivated peoples actions or reactions.I spent many decades researching the Kennedy Assassination and i learned a lot during that process. I did not start from an open minded point of view, this may seem biased and it is, but it allowed me to measure,compare and consider alternatives to my viewpoint, I was open however to the possibility that i was wrong, all in a search for the truth. I make this qualification as 'my theories' will often contradict/oppose the views of Society members. I do not beleive the Pre-Contract theory,stated in the book as i think the pre contract was a fabrication, invented to justify taking the crown. Lady Eleanor Butler Talbot met King Edward 1v to ask the King to return the two manors formerly bequeathed to her by her father in law,Lord Talbot; who then sought to redeem one of those Manors on the death of his son, Eleanor's husband. Edward took possession of both properties, due to an error in paperwork. Why would he promise to marry her in order to 'have his way' when he already possessed what she wanted.If such a pre contract had existed, Edward being ever mindful of the effect on the succession, on marrying Elizabeth, would have sought a dispensation from the pope to have the pre contract annulled.There was no pre contract,in my view - it just don't add up. Who are the Brooklyn contingent.PS. Oswald did it.
> >
>
>