Richard and Anne's Wedding

Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
Thanks so much, Barbara

Hello Barbara! Tamara here.

Since I was the person who posted the relevant parts from Ian Roger's website, I'll reiterate them here:

Ian Rogers' Diary for 1472 (available at www.girders.net) states the following WRT Richard and Anne's marriage and taking up residence at Middleham:

"12 Feb. Richard and Anne were married at some point between this date and 18 March.(C.C.p.557)" (18 March was when George and Richard came to an agreement on how to divvy up the Kingmaker's lands.)

And: "By late Spring Richard and Anne at Middleham. (P.M.K.P.120)"

For the first reference, "C.C.p.557" is page 557 of "Chronological Catalogue; Articles relating to the reign of Henry the Sixth" (www.usigs.org/library/books/uk/Henry6/h6chronology1.txt -- unfortunately this seems to be a dead link -- I suspect the article, which was hosted on a US-based genealogical site, has been either deleted or moved behind a pay wall).

For the second, "P.M.K.P.120" is page 120 of Paul Murray Kendall's Richard III.

That's the best I can do at the moment.


Tamara



--- In , "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> Thanks so much, Barbara
>

That's incredibly helpful, Tamara - I do appreciate it. Thanks very much.
Barbara



--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Barbara! Tamara here.
>
> Since I was the person who posted the relevant parts from Ian Roger's website, I'll reiterate them here:
>
> Ian Rogers' Diary for 1472 (available at www.girders.net) states the following WRT Richard and Anne's marriage and taking up residence at Middleham:
>
> "12 Feb. Richard and Anne were married at some point between this date and 18 March.(C.C.p.557)" (18 March was when George and Richard came to an agreement on how to divvy up the Kingmaker's lands.)
>
> And: "By late Spring Richard and Anne at Middleham. (P.M.K.P.120)"
>
> For the first reference, "C.C.p.557" is page 557 of "Chronological Catalogue; Articles relating to the reign of Henry the Sixth" (www.usigs.org/library/books/uk/Henry6/h6chronology1.txt -- unfortunately this seems to be a dead link -- I suspect the article, which was hosted on a US-based genealogical site, has been either deleted or moved behind a pay wall).
>
> For the second, "P.M.K.P.120" is page 120 of Paul Murray Kendall's Richard III.
>
> That's the best I can do at the moment.
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > Thanks so much, Barbara
> >
>

To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
 
St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion.  Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
 
Hope this helps. H


________________________________
From: "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
Thanks so much, Barbara

There is no doubt those dates are wrong for the marriage because they fall entirely during Lent that year, and there was a prohibition on marrying during Lent!
I don't know why 12th February (which was Ash Wednesday)has been picked, but on 17th February, as reported in the Paston Letters, ". . . the King, the Queen, my Lord of Clarence and Gloucester went to Sheen to pardon, men say, not all in charity. . . . The King entreateth my Lord of Clarence for my Lord of Gloucester and, as it is said, he answereth that he may well have my Lady his sister-in-law, but they shall part no livelode, as he saith."
On 18 March the following grant was made to Clarence:
"Warrant to the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, to whom the King had granted all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and other possessions late of Richard, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury, in the right of the latter or of Isabel his wife, and who at the King's request has surrendered a parcel of the same to his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, that neither by authority of Parliament nor in any other way shall any castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands, rents, services, reversions or possessions granted to him before this by the King be taken from him or his heirs, and that if any restitution should be made to anyone of any parcel of the lands late of Thomas Earl of Devon granted to him, such persons shall be recompensed by the King and not by the Duke, and no similar restitution shall be to his prejudice, provided that this grant shall not extend to any castles, lordships or lands belonging to the Duke of Gloucester by force of the said petition. By K."
So by 16th February Clarence had agreed to the marriage so long as he still kept all the Beauchamp lands, but before 18 March he had surrendered some of them to Gloucester. You might suppose that this must have been in right of Gloucester's wife and therefore they had already married, but there is actually no reference to Anne in the document.
More importantly, that last dispensation was still awaited. It was issued in Rome on 22 April, so Richard and Anne may have sent the messenger to Rome with the petition during early March. The journey from Rome to England could easily have taken six weeks, in which case the dispensation would not have reached the couple until early June, but a messenger in a hurry could have done it a lot more quickly. As it happens, we know that Cardinal Bessarion set out from Rome on 20 April that year on an embassy to France which meant a great deal to him, and had reached Boulogne (waiting for a safeconduct to enter Louis' territories) by 13th May. (Mind you, he was pushing himself so hard on his travels that summer that he actually dropped dead when he got back to Rome.)
But anyway, to sum up, the earliest the dispensation could have reached London is late May 1472, and there would then have been the job of showing the dispensations to the Bishop (it was not valid otherwise) and either waiting out the period of the banns or getting a special licence, before the marriage could actually take place. But on Thursday 30th April Sir John Paston was under the impression that Richard was planning to leave London for the North the following day. How long he stayed away from the SE is debateable - the previous weekend Archbishop Neville had been arrested, and Richard learned on the 28th that he was to be appointed to the commission Edward had just decided to appoint to try him, and also to try a long list of other men who had fought on the Lancastrian side at Barnet. Richard may just have been getting making a statement by absenting himself until the proceedings were over. The commission sat on 11 May, and neither Richard nor George took part.
Marie

--- In , "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...> wrote:
>
> That's incredibly helpful, Tamara - I do appreciate it. Thanks very much.
> Barbara
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Barbara! Tamara here.
> >
> > Since I was the person who posted the relevant parts from Ian Roger's website, I'll reiterate them here:
> >
> > Ian Rogers' Diary for 1472 (available at www.girders.net) states the following WRT Richard and Anne's marriage and taking up residence at Middleham:
> >
> > "12 Feb. Richard and Anne were married at some point between this date and 18 March.(C.C.p.557)" (18 March was when George and Richard came to an agreement on how to divvy up the Kingmaker's lands.)
> >
> > And: "By late Spring Richard and Anne at Middleham. (P.M.K.P.120)"
> >
> > For the first reference, "C.C.p.557" is page 557 of "Chronological Catalogue; Articles relating to the reign of Henry the Sixth" (www.usigs.org/library/books/uk/Henry6/h6chronology1.txt -- unfortunately this seems to be a dead link -- I suspect the article, which was hosted on a US-based genealogical site, has been either deleted or moved behind a pay wall).
> >
> > For the second, "P.M.K.P.120" is page 120 of Paul Murray Kendall's Richard III.
> >
> > That's the best I can do at the moment.
> >
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > >
> >
>

Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
Edward was one of the witnesses.
Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
Paul


On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
>
> St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
>
> Hope this helps. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>
>
> Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> Thanks so much, Barbara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

> So by 16th February Clarence had agreed to the marriage >

I meant 17th of course.

<How long he stayed away from the SE is debateable>

Or even debatable.

< Richard may just have been getting making a statement by absenting himself until the proceedings were over.>

Or Richard may have been simply making a statement.

I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> Edward was one of the witnesses.
> Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> Paul
>
>
> On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> >
> > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> >
> > Hope this helps. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >
> >
> > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > Thanks so much, Barbara
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Thanks, Marie!

So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)

I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May). Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?

Tamara

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There is no doubt those dates are wrong for the marriage because they fall entirely during Lent that year, and there was a prohibition on marrying during Lent!
> I don't know why 12th February (which was Ash Wednesday)has been picked, but on 17th February, as reported in the Paston Letters, ". . . the King, the Queen, my Lord of Clarence and Gloucester went to Sheen to pardon, men say, not all in charity. . . . The King entreateth my Lord of Clarence for my Lord of Gloucester and, as it is said, he answereth that he may well have my Lady his sister-in-law, but they shall part no livelode, as he saith."
> On 18 March the following grant was made to Clarence:
> "Warrant to the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, to whom the King had granted all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and other possessions late of Richard, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury, in the right of the latter or of Isabel his wife, and who at the King's request has surrendered a parcel of the same to his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, that neither by authority of Parliament nor in any other way shall any castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands, rents, services, reversions or possessions granted to him before this by the King be taken from him or his heirs, and that if any restitution should be made to anyone of any parcel of the lands late of Thomas Earl of Devon granted to him, such persons shall be recompensed by the King and not by the Duke, and no similar restitution shall be to his prejudice, provided that this grant shall not extend to any castles, lordships or lands belonging to the Duke of Gloucester by force of the said petition. By K."
> So by 16th February Clarence had agreed to the marriage so long as he still kept all the Beauchamp lands, but before 18 March he had surrendered some of them to Gloucester. You might suppose that this must have been in right of Gloucester's wife and therefore they had already married, but there is actually no reference to Anne in the document.
> More importantly, that last dispensation was still awaited. It was issued in Rome on 22 April, so Richard and Anne may have sent the messenger to Rome with the petition during early March. The journey from Rome to England could easily have taken six weeks, in which case the dispensation would not have reached the couple until early June, but a messenger in a hurry could have done it a lot more quickly. As it happens, we know that Cardinal Bessarion set out from Rome on 20 April that year on an embassy to France which meant a great deal to him, and had reached Boulogne (waiting for a safeconduct to enter Louis' territories) by 13th May. (Mind you, he was pushing himself so hard on his travels that summer that he actually dropped dead when he got back to Rome.)
> But anyway, to sum up, the earliest the dispensation could have reached London is late May 1472, and there would then have been the job of showing the dispensations to the Bishop (it was not valid otherwise) and either waiting out the period of the banns or getting a special licence, before the marriage could actually take place. But on Thursday 30th April Sir John Paston was under the impression that Richard was planning to leave London for the North the following day. How long he stayed away from the SE is debateable - the previous weekend Archbishop Neville had been arrested, and Richard learned on the 28th that he was to be appointed to the commission Edward had just decided to appoint to try him, and also to try a long list of other men who had fought on the Lancastrian side at Barnet. Richard may just have been getting making a statement by absenting himself until the proceedings were over. The commission sat on 11 May, and neither Richard nor George took part.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> >
> > That's incredibly helpful, Tamara - I do appreciate it. Thanks very much.
> > Barbara
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Barbara! Tamara here.
> > >
> > > Since I was the person who posted the relevant parts from Ian Roger's website, I'll reiterate them here:
> > >
> > > Ian Rogers' Diary for 1472 (available at www.girders.net) states the following WRT Richard and Anne's marriage and taking up residence at Middleham:
> > >
> > > "12 Feb. Richard and Anne were married at some point between this date and 18 March.(C.C.p.557)" (18 March was when George and Richard came to an agreement on how to divvy up the Kingmaker's lands.)
> > >
> > > And: "By late Spring Richard and Anne at Middleham. (P.M.K.P.120)"
> > >
> > > For the first reference, "C.C.p.557" is page 557 of "Chronological Catalogue; Articles relating to the reign of Henry the Sixth" (www.usigs.org/library/books/uk/Henry6/h6chronology1.txt -- unfortunately this seems to be a dead link -- I suspect the article, which was hosted on a US-based genealogical site, has been either deleted or moved behind a pay wall).
> > >
> > > For the second, "P.M.K.P.120" is page 120 of Paul Murray Kendall's Richard III.
> > >
> > > That's the best I can do at the moment.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I have read St Peter ad Vincula (but like Paul can't remember where but geographically it would make sense), St Stephen's, like you Eileen, and latterly more and more, Westminster Abbey. My money would actually be on the former because of its proximity to Baynard's.
 

________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:31
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> Edward was one of the witnesses.
> Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> Paul
>
>
> On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> >
> > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> >
> > Hope this helps. H
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "barbaragd@..." <barbaragd@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >
> >
> > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > Thanks so much, Barbara
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Yep....take your pick...St Stephens makes sense to me as it was part of Westminster Palace..thus Edward who surely would have attended his brothers wedding would not have to have travelled far. Just through a doorway. St Stephens was used quite a bit for royal occasions such as the Anne Mowbray wedding.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have read St Peter ad Vincula (but like Paul can't remember where but geographically it would make sense), St Stephen's, like you Eileen, and latterly more and more, Westminster Abbey. My money would actually be on the former because of its proximity to Baynard's.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:31
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> > were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> > Edward was one of the witnesses.
> > Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> > maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> > >
> > > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps. H
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Marie!
>
> So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
>
> I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).

Marie replies:
I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.



Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?


Marie:
No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.

I imagine St Stephen's Chapel and Westminster Abbey are both based on Hearne's Fragment ("Westminster"). But Hearne gets the year wrong, so how much trust can we place in his location?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have read St Peter ad Vincula (but like Paul can't remember where but geographically it would make sense), St Stephen's, like you Eileen, and latterly more and more, Westminster Abbey. My money would actually be on the former because of its proximity to Baynard's.
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:31
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> > were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> > Edward was one of the witnesses.
> > Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> > maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> > >
> > > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps. H
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It annoys me so much that we don't know these small but interesting details for sure.....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I imagine St Stephen's Chapel and Westminster Abbey are both based on Hearne's Fragment ("Westminster"). But Hearne gets the year wrong, so how much trust can we place in his location?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I have read St Peter ad Vincula (but like Paul can't remember where but geographically it would make sense), St Stephen's, like you Eileen, and latterly more and more, Westminster Abbey. My money would actually be on the former because of its proximity to Baynard's.
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:31
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> > I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> > > were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> > > Edward was one of the witnesses.
> > > Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> > > maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> > > >
> > > > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps. H
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > > > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I have read that it was St Stephens Eileen, though it was not definite. I have never read that it was St Peters ad Vincula.

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> > were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> > Edward was one of the witnesses.
> > Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> > maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> > >
> > > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps. H
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

It is infuriating. But also really important that we remember how much of the received story has a very fragile basis, otherwise when new information does come along the significance tends to get overlooked. And frustration keeps us researching. I wonder how many documents from this period are still shut up in private collections.
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> It annoys me so much that we don't know these small but interesting details for sure.....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I imagine St Stephen's Chapel and Westminster Abbey are both based on Hearne's Fragment ("Westminster"). But Hearne gets the year wrong, so how much trust can we place in his location?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have read St Peter ad Vincula (but like Paul can't remember where but geographically it would make sense), St Stephen's, like you Eileen, and latterly more and more, Westminster Abbey. My money would actually be on the former because of its proximity to Baynard's.
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 16:31
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > I have read somewhere...where?...that it was St Stephens Chapel, Westminster Palace....I cannot ever understand how we have lost all this knowledge. Another example the mystery of where Edward of Middlham was buried. These were important occasions,...surely they were recorded...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't ask me where this came from but I recall reading somewhere they
> > > > were married at St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower of London, and King
> > > > Edward was one of the witnesses.
> > > > Maybe I just imagined it, maybe because that's how it is in my script,
> > > > maybe I was there....who knows? :-)
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 14/07/2013 07:49, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > To you mean February and March 1472 or 1473? We know that they were married by October 1472 - see earlier posts. Feburary and March would almost certainly fall in Lent and marriage was not permitted then - so we are back to the late Spring to September 1472.
> > > > >
> > > > > St Martin le Grand was situated by Cheapside towards Aldgate on the East side of the City. It was a well known refuge for petty villains taking sanctuary for crime. so like Westminster Abbey, no. In fact it's Dean's (like Stillington) enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy. I doubt Anne was allowed near the other sanctuary seekers, or they near her. It is pretty near to Barnard's Castle, though, so she could have been there at Cis's suggestion. Both Cis and Richard were based at Barnard's. Like Marie, I can't imagine Cis allowing Richard to take her North before a proper marriage. She'd probably had enough of scandal in that direction.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps. H
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: "barbaragd@" <barbaragd@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 13 July 2013, 23:23
> > > > > Subject: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Further to recent posts, I wonder if the suggested date of Richard's wedding to Anne taking place between 12th February and 18th March has a reliable source? And does this time slot fit with the arrival of the second dispensation? I had an idea that the dispensation was dated a little later, but I can't remember where I got that from.
> > > > > And does anyone know the conditions of Sanctuary at St. Martin Le Grand where Anne had previously been staying? I've heard a good deal about the spacious Sanctuary provided at Westminster, but was St; Martin Le Grand also so generously situated?
> > > > > I'd love to know, if anyone has the answer.
> > > > > Thanks so much, Barbara
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
Marie


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Marie!
> >
> > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> >
> > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
>
> Marie replies:
> I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
>
>
>
> Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
>
>
> Marie:
> No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
>

Purely without foundation I can imagine Cecily having a genuine interest in the happiness of both Richard and Anne, so I see your proposal as highly likely. She must have had an affinity with Richard (she and he were the youngest of very large families) and Anne was the daughter of a nephew of whom she had been very fond (she pleaded with Edward for him before Barnet). Moreover, as family matriarch, I would have thought she would have gone out of her way to prevent more squabbles and scandals which were very effectively weakening Edward's (and the House of York's) reign. 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 20:33
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 


But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Marie!
> >
> > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> >
> > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
>
> Marie replies:
> I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
>
>
>
> Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
>
>
> Marie:
> No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
>

That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).

That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.

How does that sound to you?

Tamara





Tamara



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Marie!
> >
> > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> >
> > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
>
> Marie replies:
> I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
>
>
>
> Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
>
>
> Marie:
> No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
>

For what it's worth (which may not be all that much), Lisa Hilton alleges that Cicely and Anne got on well together and loved to discuss theology, especially that pertaining to Saint Mechtilde. (Though from what little I've read about Hilton it seems that truckloads of salt may be in order.)

Tamara


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Purely without foundation I can imagine Cecily having a genuine interest in the happiness of both Richard and Anne, so I see your proposal as highly likely. She must have had an affinity with Richard (she and he were the youngest of very large families) and Anne was the daughter of a nephew of whom she had been very fond (she pleaded with Edward for him before Barnet). Moreover, as family matriarch, I would have thought she would have gone out of her way to prevent more squabbles and scandals which were very effectively weakening Edward's (and the House of York's) reign. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2013, 20:33
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> Marie
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie!
> > >
> > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > >
> > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> >
> >
> > Marie:
> > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.

I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie!
> > >
> > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > >
> > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> >
> >
> > Marie:
> > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> >
>

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
>
> That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
>
> How does that sound to you?
>
> Tamara
>

Hi Tamara,
Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
Marie





>
>
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie!
> > >
> > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > >
> > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> >
> >
> > Marie:
> > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> >
>

Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
Marie

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
>
> I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > >
> > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > >
> > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > >
> > > Marie replies:
> > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > >
> >
>

Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding





--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
>
> That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
>
> How does that sound to you?
>
> Tamara
>

Hi Tamara,
Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
Marie

>
>
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Marie!
> > >
> > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > >
> > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> >
> >
> > Marie:
> > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> >
>

Marie: Thanks for the info on the Society! (And all your other info! Knowing that Proud Cis likely never made it to Middleham actually helps me out in one big respect, even as having the marriage date and Middleham occupation date pushed back rules out something else.)

I think JA-H's beef was that some folk (generally Tudor apologists) were misconstruing the term "precontract" as if it meant "engagement" as opposed to full-on marriage. (All the better to throw shade on Titulus Regius, apparently.) He was quite clear that the sort of marriage that Edward and Eleanor had contracted would a) have been quite real and b) would have been made official once consummated.

Stephen: That's very interesting about Henry "Tudor"'s father. Not only would Edmund "Tudor" have been illegitimate either way, but if Edmund Beaufort really was Edmund "Tudor"'s father, then Edmund "Tudor"'s marriage to his child bride Margaret Beaufort would have been to a close cousin. Funny, usually the products of adulterous unions tend to diversify the old bloodlines, but this adultery (assuming that Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor were actually married) would have had the opposite effect.

Thanks again!

Tamara



-- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> >
> > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> >
> > How does that sound to you?
> >
> > Tamara
> >
>
> Hi Tamara,
> Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > >
> > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > >
> > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > >
> > > Marie replies:
> > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 


Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
Marie

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
>
> I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > >
> > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > >
> > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > >
> > > Marie replies:
> > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.

Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
Marie




> Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> >
> > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> >
> > How does that sound to you?
> >
> > Tamara
> >
>
> Hi Tamara,
> Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > >
> > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > >
> > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > >
> > > Marie replies:
> > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie:
> > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Marie: Thanks for the info on the Society! (And all your other info! Knowing that Proud Cis likely never made it to Middleham actually helps me out in one big respect, even as having the marriage date and Middleham occupation date pushed back rules out something else.)
>
> I think JA-H's beef was that some folk (generally Tudor apologists) were misconstruing the term "precontract" as if it meant "engagement" as opposed to full-on marriage. (All the better to throw shade on Titulus Regius, apparently.) He was quite clear that the sort of marriage that Edward and Eleanor had contracted would a) have been quite real and b) would have been made official once consummated.

Depends on the words they exchanged. There were two forms of contract, "de verba praesenti" and "de verba future", ie "I do marry you" or "I will marry you". The first was binding immediately, even without consummation; in that respect 15th century marriage differed from ours. The second only became a binding marriage upon consummation. So what John is saying is that, whatever form of words Edward and Eleanor exchanged, since we can assume he did so in order to get her to sleep with him then it would have amounted to a complete marriage. And, as I said before, Titulus Regius tells us directly that they were "married".
What we haven't got now is the proof that the marriage actually occurred!
Marie


>
> Stephen: That's very interesting about Henry "Tudor"'s father. Not only would Edmund "Tudor" have been illegitimate either way, but if Edmund Beaufort really was Edmund "Tudor"'s father, then Edmund "Tudor"'s marriage to his child bride Margaret Beaufort would have been to a close cousin. Funny, usually the products of adulterous unions tend to diversify the old bloodlines, but this adultery (assuming that Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor were actually married) would have had the opposite effect.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > >
> > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > >
> > > How does that sound to you?
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> >
> > Hi Tamara,
> > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > >
> > > > Marie replies:
> > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie:
> > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> >
> > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > >
> > > > Marie replies:
> > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie:
> > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'? 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> >
> > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > >
> > > > Marie replies:
> > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie:
> > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I missed that. Is the article still available, and if so can you give me a link?
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > >
> > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie:
> > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)

Tamara

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
>
> Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > >
> > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > >
> > > How does that sound to you?
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> >
> > Hi Tamara,
> > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > >
> > > > Marie replies:
> > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie:
> > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> >
> > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > >
> > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > >
> > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Tamara,
> > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie:
> > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I think it was on The National Archives website
Elaine


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I missed that. Is the article still available, and if so can you give me a link?
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> > Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > > H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > > >
> > > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> until he was expired...Eileen
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > >
> > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > >
> > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In ,
> "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.

JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:

"For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."

(Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)

He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.


Tamara

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > >
> > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > >
> > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I don't think Elizabeth Mowbray (Talbot) would have been excited about the match with Richard of Shrewsbury. It meant that Edward would acquire for the Crown substantial portions of her late husband's lands via his son's marriage and he indeed did so when Anne died as a child. Edward was ever into acquiring land, even as King.
 
Neither do I hold too much store by Mancini; if Clarence did find out it was as likely via the Warwicks in 1469 (Anne Beauchamp was EB's aunt) or from Stillington ( if he was witness and did know at that point) later who moved in the same geographical circles and ended up in the Tower at about the same time.
 
 As for EW, I don't reckon she knew. Something tells me someone with her strength of character would have made Edward put things in order (kings could change the succession, Edward I had over-turned prmogeniture). But it's just another thing which I doubt we will ever know. 


________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 20:23
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.

JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:

"For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 147677 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."

(Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)

He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.

Tamara

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > >
> > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > >
> > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/neville.htm



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 12:49
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 


I missed that. Is the article still available, and if so can you give me a link?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'? 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > H. (who is still plucking up courageàto finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose!à
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > >
> > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie:
> > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I will certainly try. I will contact Pam, who might have a copy in the Worcestershire Branch Library. If we have not then I will e-mail Joanna.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> >
> > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > >
> > > > Marie replies:
> > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie:
> > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I had a look but can't find it.
Marie

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think it was on The National Archives website
> Elaine
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I missed that. Is the article still available, and if so can you give me a link?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'? 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > > > H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > > > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > > > >
> > > > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
Marie

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > until he was expired...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
> > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...

Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.

Round and round we go...Eileen
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
>
> JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
>
> "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
>
> (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
>
> He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
>
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.

Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!

Tamara


--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
>
> Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
>
> Round and round we go...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> >
> > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> >
> > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> >
> > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> >
> > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> >
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

 I agree he couldn't regularise the marriage with EW but, knowing Edward, he could clarify the succession (it had been tossed around in the fourteenth century). If the debate was brought into the open Edward would have the opportunity to quash rumours and opponents then - that's what I'd have said to Edward had I been EW and known. Or I might have said, go after those who know and make sure they are literally silenced. So why let Stillington out? Why not send widow Mowbray to a convent on the death of her husband? No. I don't think EW knew. As we've said before, the secret was only dangerous whilst it remained one and there was a possibility of Edward dying before his son's majority, which he did. It's an interesting question as to whether it would ever have emerged had Edward V been of age when he succeeded.

 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:07
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
Marie

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > until he was expired...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
> > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
>
> Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
>
> Tamara
>
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> >
> > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> >
> > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > >
> > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > >
> > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > >
> > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > >
> > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

There is no doubt in my mind that Richard didn't know. I like to think that Clarence tried to protect him.
 
I'm surprised that PG hasn't picked up the Leslau theory that EB's death was faked and that she lived on to the 1490s protected by her sister. That is after having a son by Edward in 1461. Can anything be more PG than the latter?
 
It is strange that perhaps one of the best parts of this story has been ignored by PG, but I shouldn't mention that in case she's looking in.
 
H (Who is chickening out of viewing TWQ again this evening)


________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:11
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 


Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...

Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.

Round and round we go...Eileen
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
>
> JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
>
> "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 147677 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
>
> (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
>
> He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
>
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
>
> JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
>
> "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
>
> (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)


Marie responds:
I think it's difficult to know what to make of Mancini's assertions because he was writing from hindsight (ie after Richard had become king on the grounds of Edward V's illegitimacy), had not been in England when Clarence was executed, and was extremely muddled on the question of both the precontract and Edward's marriage to Elizabeth. When talking of Clarence's execution he claims the Queen had recalled the Duke's calumnies, "namely that according to established usage she was not the legitimate wife of the king." (p. 63)
What did he mean by this? Was he talking about the precontract to Eleanor Butler? Definitely not because Mancini thought that Richard set aside Edward V "because his father King Edward [IV] on marrying Elizabeth was legally contracted to another wife to whom the [earl] of Warwick had joined him. Indeed on Edward's authority the [earl] had espoused the other lady by proxy - as it is called - on the continent. Besides, Elizabeth herself had been married to another, and ravished rather than espoused by Edward." (p. 97)
'Ravished' is 'ereptam' in Mancini's Latin, and so is a reference to the impediment of raptus, or forced marriage/ abduction.
So, even as regards the precontract announced whilst he was in England Mancini is hopelessly ill informed. I wouldn't, therefore, rely very heavily on his linking of the Queen's enmity to Clarence with objections to her own marriage. The sort of prior marriage (of both Edward and Elizabeth) which Mancini believed to have existed would have been public knowledge, so it is not surprising that he imagined the Queen would have feared Clarence using these impediments against her and her offspring. What bothers me is that we know Clarence was impugning the royal legitimacy, but the only solid evidence for what that involved is his accusation that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, which is spelled out in the Act of Attainder.
As for the oft-cited arrest of Stillington, that did not occur until a month after Clarence had died - about nine months after the Duke's own arrest - and it was not, as Kendall claims, "for uttering words prejudicial to the king and his state." I can look up the original and maybe together we can decipher the Latin, but when I last looked it didn't seem to me to be terribly informative.
As I read the history of the 1470s, at any rate, it looks to me as if Clarence was up to his neck the whole time in schemes to supplant Edward IV; the precontract can't explain that.
So I'm afraid I'm not convinced that Clarence knew.

Marie, I have just spoken to Pam Benstead and she says that she doesn't think that Joanna would mind if I e-mail her to ask for a copy. They don't have one in the Worcestershire Branch. Incidentally apparently Joanna is in the PG programme on Wednesday. I will e-mail her and let you know what she says.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > >
> > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie:
> > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks very much for that, Hilary. It doesn't say who wrote it, but the interpretation of Cecily's actions in 1483 seems straight out of Mike Jones' "Bosworth 1485".
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/neville.htm
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 12:49
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> I missed that. Is the article still available, and if so can you give me a link?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'? 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> > Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > > H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > > >
> > > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, Edward IV tried to ensure the succession by getting people to swear to crown his son, didn't he? Or am I imagining that? It had worked when Edward III did it for Richard of Bordeaux, whose legitimacy was also impugned in some quarters, though with less reason. EIV just didn't have the courage to tell people why and get them to swear to ignore the precontract, and it was this that enabled people to set aside their oaths to Edward V - that they'd made them without knowledge of the facts.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  I agree he couldn't regularise the marriage with EW but, knowing Edward, he could clarify the succession (it had been tossed around in the fourteenth century). If the debate was brought into the open Edward would have the opportunity to quash rumours and opponents then - that's what I'd have said to Edward had I been EW and known. Or I might have said, go after those who know and make sure they are literally silenced. So why let Stillington out? Why not send widow Mowbray to a convent on the death of her husband? No. I don't think EW knew. As we've said before, the secret was only dangerous whilst it remained one and there was a possibility of Edward dying before his son's majority, which he did. It's an interesting question as to whether it would ever have emerged had Edward V been of age when he succeeded.
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:07
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> > would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> > before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> > Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > > until he was expired...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> >
> > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > >
> > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > >
> > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > >
> > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > >
> > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > >
> > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > >
> > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Dear Ms Jones
Thank you for your enquiry.
Do you mean the section on Cecily Neville on our Citizenship website? If so, that was a collaboration between several staff (some of whom have now left). I think the text was based heavily on work on late medieval elite women, principally by Joanna Laynesmith (which subsequently emerged as her Last Medieval Queens book in 2004) and Anne Crawford (such as Letters of the Queens of England, and Letters of Medieval Noblewomen). I remember doing some of the work myself, and at the time was probably most interested in Cecily because of conversations with Mike Jones's in preparation of his book Bosworth 1485 which took a revisionist view of Cecily's role in Yorkist politics.
Yours sincerely
Sean Cunningham
Medieval and Early Modern Records
 
 
From the horse's mouth - H. I recall some of this also came from Anne Wroe and Ian Arthurson (both on Warbeck as you know) 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:56
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 


Thanks very much for that, Hilary. It doesn't say who wrote it, but the interpretation of Cecily's actions in 1483 seems straight out of Mike Jones' "Bosworth 1485".
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/citizen_subject/neville.htm
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 12:49
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> I missed that. Is the article still available, and if so can you give me a link?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I think it must have been Carol who didn't. Were you around when we wrote to Sean Cunningham of the NA about their article on Cis implying that she and her servants were liasing with EW and Margaret of Burgundy about the 'princes'?à
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 10:57
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> > à
> >
> > Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > > H. (who is still plucking up courageÃ’â¬aàto finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose!Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > > >
> > > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, thanks ever so much. And now I have a reason to watch that programme on Wednesday.
Marie


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, I have just spoken to Pam Benstead and she says that she doesn't think that Joanna would mind if I e-mail her to ask for a copy. They don't have one in the Worcestershire Branch. Incidentally apparently Joanna is in the PG programme on Wednesday. I will e-mail her and let you know what she says.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, I do have a copy, thanks; it is very good. But there is much more on Cecily in the dissertation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marie, Laynesmith also puts a lot about Cecily in 'Late Medieval Queens', including implying that she was closer to Anne than EW (no surprise there). I can't find a Kennington reference but I haven't dug that far. If you haven't read it, it is a very good but scholarly book - ie what I call a 'dipper' rather than an entertaining read like TWQ:)
> > > H. (who is still plucking up courage to finish watching last week's episode of the above, let alone move on)
> > > PS What did they do with Margaret, send her to the stake? And they obviously couldn't afford a Louis XI, or get anyone with a long enough nose! 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 1:15
> > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you? It would be really lovely to have that item replaced, but it is a bit embarrassing to tell her it's been lost.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marie, Joanna is connected to the Worcestershire Branch, I might be able to get in touch with her through Pam Benstead.
> > > >
> > > > I expect that you will watch tonight's WQ, just be prepared to lose the will to live. It is so ridiculous to be quite funny.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But how's this for a suggestion? According to my notes on Cecily, in 1472 she built a new chapel at her manor of Kennington (I'm sure this comes from Joanna Laynesmith's MA thesis on Cecily, which I once borrowed out from the Society library but which was no longer there when I took over the papers library). Kennington is just half a mile from the spot on the south bank of the Thames that is immediately opposite Westminster Palace. So it is possible (I'll go no further) that Cecily was either at Kennington or her city home of Baynards Castle in May 1472, and that Anne maybe stayed with her there until the wedding.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Spot on - you've said it much more eloquently! If Edward I could get away with scrapping primogeniture then Edward IV's revelation, had he made it, was much more 'conservative' I'd have thought and who would dare oppose?


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 22:01
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

Well, Edward IV tried to ensure the succession by getting people to swear to crown his son, didn't he? Or am I imagining that? It had worked when Edward III did it for Richard of Bordeaux, whose legitimacy was also impugned in some quarters, though with less reason. EIV just didn't have the courage to tell people why and get them to swear to ignore the precontract, and it was this that enabled people to set aside their oaths to Edward V - that they'd made them without knowledge of the facts.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  I agree he couldn't regularise the marriage with EW but, knowing Edward, he could clarify the succession (it had been tossed around in the fourteenth century). If the debate was brought into the open Edward would have the opportunity to quash rumours and opponents then - that's what I'd have said to Edward had I been EW and known. Or I might have said, go after those who know and make sure they are literally silenced. So why let Stillington out? Why not send widow Mowbray to a convent on the death of her husband? No. I don't think EW knew. As we've said before, the secret was only dangerous whilst it remained one and there was a possibility of Edward dying before his son's majority, which he did. It's an interesting question as to whether it would ever have emerged had Edward V been of age when he succeeded.
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:07
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> > would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> > before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> > Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > > until he was expired...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely. I seem to recall the upper orders writhed with spies. Stillington supposedly had so many bouts of ill health it would be easy to say he'd succombed.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 22:03
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> >
> > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > >
> > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > >
> > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > >
> > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > >
> > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 147677 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > >
> > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > >
> > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

That's nice...Ive always thought George has badly, badly been misunderstood :0) But wasn't George more intent on accusing Edward of being illigitimate rather than a bigamist? Do we know if George actually ever did say Edwards marriage was invalid.Mancini wrote "The Queen then remembered the insults and the calumnies with which she had been approached namely that she was not the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring would never come to the throne unless the DoC were removed and this she easily persuaded the the King......" Could Mancini have got the facts slightly wrong and that EW was worried that if her husband was illigitimate her son would never come to the throne.

I've never heard of the Leslau theory until now...lets hope PG hasn't heard of it either....God willing...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that Richard didn't know. I like to think that Clarence tried to protect him.
>  
> I'm surprised that PG hasn't picked up the Leslau theory that EB's death was faked and that she lived on to the 1490s protected by her sister. That is after having a son by Edward in 1461. Can anything be more PG than the latter?
>  
> It is strange that perhaps one of the best parts of this story has been ignored by PG, but I shouldn't mention that in case she's looking in.
>  
> H (Who is chickening out of viewing TWQ again this evening)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
>
> Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
>
> Round and round we go...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> >
> > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> >
> > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476â€"77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> >
> > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> >
> > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> >
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Possibly they were gambling on Stillington kicking the bucket before Edward did...maybe Edward had squeezed assurances out of Stillington that he would not speak up....and did it matter much ...to Stillington...as long as Edward was alive? He must have been mortified when Edward died comparatively youngish...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> > >
> > > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > > >
> > > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > > >
> > > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > > >
> > > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > > >
> > > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > > >
> > > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > > >
> > > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Eileen,
I've a soft spot for Clarence too, but I have no illusions about his character. Before his arrest he was going round accusing Edward of:-
a) being a bastard
b) poisoning people; and
c) framing Thomas Burdet.
Is it really possible he could have known about the precontract and kept it quiet out of respect for Edward's feelings?
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> That's nice...Ive always thought George has badly, badly been misunderstood :0) But wasn't George more intent on accusing Edward of being illigitimate rather than a bigamist? Do we know if George actually ever did say Edwards marriage was invalid.Mancini wrote "The Queen then remembered the insults and the calumnies with which she had been approached namely that she was not the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring would never come to the throne unless the DoC were removed and this she easily persuaded the the King......" Could Mancini have got the facts slightly wrong and that EW was worried that if her husband was illigitimate her son would never come to the throne.
>
> I've never heard of the Leslau theory until now...lets hope PG hasn't heard of it either....God willing...Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > There is no doubt in my mind that Richard didn't know. I like to think that Clarence tried to protect him.
> >  
> > I'm surprised that PG hasn't picked up the Leslau theory that EB's death was faked and that she lived on to the 1490s protected by her sister. That is after having a son by Edward in 1461. Can anything be more PG than the latter?
> >  
> > It is strange that perhaps one of the best parts of this story has been ignored by PG, but I shouldn't mention that in case she's looking in.
> >  
> > H (Who is chickening out of viewing TWQ again this evening)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:11
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> >
> > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> >
> > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > >
> > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > >
> > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476â€"77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > >
> > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > >
> > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Or Stillington did not witness the marriage as claimed by Commines, but merely drafted Titulus Regius as recorded by Henry VII's council. But, honestly, it all looks to me as though EW was taken entirely by surprise - and that would mean that Clarence didn't know because Clarence was not the soul of discretion.
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Possibly they were gambling on Stillington kicking the bucket before Edward did...maybe Edward had squeezed assurances out of Stillington that he would not speak up....and did it matter much ...to Stillington...as long as Edward was alive? He must have been mortified when Edward died comparatively youngish...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > > > >
> > > > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > > > >
> > > > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476–77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:



 
They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
Marie

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > until he was expired...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
> > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Sorry, that should be '...to marry Katherine Swinford?>'


________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>

 
Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


 
They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
Marie

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > until he was expired...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
> > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

This time next year, thanks to JA-H, we will know a lot more about Clarence.
----- Original Message -----
From: EILEEN BATES
To:
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding



That's nice...Ive always thought George has badly, badly been misunderstood :0) But wasn't George more intent on accusing Edward of being illigitimate rather than a bigamist? Do we know if George actually ever did say Edwards marriage was invalid.Mancini wrote "The Queen then remembered the insults and the calumnies with which she had been approached namely that she was not the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring would never come to the throne unless the DoC were removed and this she easily persuaded the the King......" Could Mancini have got the facts slightly wrong and that EW was worried that if her husband was illigitimate her son would never come to the throne.

I've never heard of the Leslau theory until now...lets hope PG hasn't heard of it either....God willing...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that Richard didn't know. I like to think that Clarence tried to protect him.
> Â
> I'm surprised that PG hasn't picked up the Leslau theory that EB's death was faked and that she lived on to the 1490s protected by her sister. That is after having a son by Edward in 1461. Can anything be more PG than the latter?
> Â
> It is strange that perhaps one of the best parts of this story has been ignored by PG, but I shouldn't mention that in case she's looking in.
> Â
> H (Who is chickening out of viewing TWQ again this evening)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 21:11
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
> Â
>
>
> Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
>
> Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
>
> Round and round we go...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> >
> > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> >
> > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476â?"77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> >
> > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> >
> > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> >
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Now this is a Jones (Hilary) crackpot theory. We know Stillington loved money and possessions (must get back to him but needed a break). Suppose, just suppose that someone (Morton, Buckingham?) persuaded him to approach Richard and endorse the Eleanor story by saying he was there. There could have been a rumour that Edward had had an affair with EB that no-one could confirm or deny. Hence the silence of her sister. Stillington tells Richard. Richard being a good, religious, trusting bloke, believes him and the whole process of removing the young 'king' gets under way. Two more heirs of the House of York disposed of and Buckingham setting himself up for a nice position in government. Hastings, doesn't believe it, gets in with the wrong folk, Richard thinks he's disloyal and he gets the chop. Another supporter down. Richard and his little heir remain between Lancaster and the Crown. Just after the Coronation in a fit of anger (for which I believe he
was known) Buckingham has a row with Richard (probably over more power) and reveals that he is responsible for Richard being where he is and that the Stillington story is a concoction. What can Richard do? He can't go back, he can't say it was all a dupe. Buckingham would indeed be the 'most untrue creature' and take flight to the opposition. The rest is history playing into Tudor's hands.
 
I don't discount the Buckingham/MB connection. She was his aunt and they did meet several times over the years.
 
As I say, just a Jones crackpot theory.   


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 23:17
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

Or Stillington did not witness the marriage as claimed by Commines, but merely drafted Titulus Regius as recorded by Henry VII's council. But, honestly, it all looks to me as though EW was taken entirely by surprise - and that would mean that Clarence didn't know because Clarence was not the soul of discretion.
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Possibly they were gambling on Stillington kicking the bucket before Edward did...maybe Edward had squeezed assurances out of Stillington that he would not speak up....and did it matter much ...to Stillington...as long as Edward was alive? He must have been mortified when Edward died comparatively youngish...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > > > >
> > > > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > > > >
> > > > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 147677 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

He got a papal dispensation. There's a little piece about it in one of the Ricardian Bulletins from a year or two back.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> > would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> > before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> > Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > > until he was expired...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good question! The Pope does seem to have given regular dispensations for priests (yes) to marry women who'd lived with them for several years so long as they remained 'virgins' :) No doubt they had to officially farm out their children to siblings to raise?


________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 7:00
Subject: Re: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


 
They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
Marie

--- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > until he was expired...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > >
> > > Tamara
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > >
> > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
> > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

But nothing happens to Stillington for perjuring himself in order to bring down a king? To me, Stillington was a time server, nothing worse. How do we know he died possessed of great riches?
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Now this is a Jones (Hilary) crackpot theory. We know Stillington loved money and possessions (must get back to him but needed a break). Suppose, just suppose that someone (Morton, Buckingham?) persuaded him to approach Richard and endorse the Eleanor story by saying he was there. There could have been a rumour that Edward had had an affair with EB that no-one could confirm or deny. Hence the silence of her sister. Stillington tells Richard. Richard being a good, religious, trusting bloke, believes him and the whole process of removing the young 'king' gets under way. Two more heirs of the House of York disposed of and Buckingham setting himself up for a nice position in government. Hastings, doesn't believe it, gets in with the wrong folk, Richard thinks he's disloyal and he gets the chop. Another supporter down. Richard and his little heir remain between Lancaster and the Crown. Just after the Coronation in a fit of anger (for which I believe he
> was known) Buckingham has a row with Richard (probably over more power) and reveals that he is responsible for Richard being where he is and that the Stillington story is a concoction. What can Richard do? He can't go back, he can't say it was all a dupe. Buckingham would indeed be the 'most untrue creature' and take flight to the opposition. The rest is history playing into Tudor's hands.
>  
> I don't discount the Buckingham/MB connection. She was his aunt and they did meet several times over the years.
>  
> As I say, just a Jones crackpot theory.   
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 23:17
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> Or Stillington did not witness the marriage as claimed by Commines, but merely drafted Titulus Regius as recorded by Henry VII's council. But, honestly, it all looks to me as though EW was taken entirely by surprise - and that would mean that Clarence didn't know because Clarence was not the soul of discretion.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly they were gambling on Stillington kicking the bucket before Edward did...maybe Edward had squeezed assurances out of Stillington that he would not speak up....and did it matter much ...to Stillington...as long as Edward was alive? He must have been mortified when Edward died comparatively youngish...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476â€"77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I wasn't aware of that, but it would be a different thing. The priests had not committed adultery because they couldn't marry; and if the women were to remain virgins then it seems that they hadn't fornicated either (at least, not officially).
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Good question! The Pope does seem to have given regular dispensations for priests (yes) to marry women who'd lived with them for several years so long as they remained 'virgins' :) No doubt they had to officially farm out their children to siblings to raise?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 7:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>  
> They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> > would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> > before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> > Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > > until he was expired...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Because he left several valuable manors in London which Reggie Bray and MB went out of their way to acquire from his heirs - Marylebone, Tyburn and others, plus a big house in Chiswick which was passed to MB. I'm still trying to find how and when he got them; I think in the late 1470s. We know he got stuff in Yorks by inheritance and that's fine but where did the rest come from? Compare these possessions to the will of his predecessor and they are indeed large, plus the fact that you needed a dispensation from the Pope to possess property on this scale as a clergyman. We know Morton did well, but he's another matter.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 10:14
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 


But nothing happens to Stillington for perjuring himself in order to bring down a king? To me, Stillington was a time server, nothing worse. How do we know he died possessed of great riches?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Now this is a Jones (Hilary) crackpot theory. We know Stillington loved money and possessions (must get back to him but needed a break). Suppose, just suppose that someone (Morton, Buckingham?) persuaded him to approach Richard and endorse the Eleanor story by saying he was there. There could have been a rumour that Edward had had an affair with EB that no-one could confirm or deny. Hence the silence of her sister. Stillington tells Richard. Richard being a good, religious, trusting bloke, believes him and the whole process of removing the young 'king' gets under way. Two more heirs of the House of York disposed of and Buckingham setting himself up for a nice position in government. Hastings, doesn't believe it, gets in with the wrong folk, Richard thinks he's disloyal and he gets the chop. Another supporter down. Richard and his little heir remain between Lancaster and the Crown. Just after the Coronation in a fit of anger (for which I
believe he
> was known) Buckingham has a row with Richard (probably over more power) and reveals that he is responsible for Richard being where he is and that the Stillington story is a concoction. What can Richard do? He can't go back, he can't say it was all a dupe. Buckingham would indeed be the 'most untrue creature' and take flight to the opposition. The rest is history playing into Tudor's hands.
>  
> I don't discount the Buckingham/MB connection. She was his aunt and they did meet several times over the years.
>  
> As I say, just a Jones crackpot theory.   
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 23:17
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> Or Stillington did not witness the marriage as claimed by Commines, but merely drafted Titulus Regius as recorded by Henry VII's council. But, honestly, it all looks to me as though EW was taken entirely by surprise - and that would mean that Clarence didn't know because Clarence was not the soul of discretion.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly they were gambling on Stillington kicking the bucket before Edward did...maybe Edward had squeezed assurances out of Stillington that he would not speak up....and did it matter much ...to Stillington...as long as Edward was alive? He must have been mortified when Edward died comparatively youngish...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> > > > >
> > > > > Tamara
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476â¬"77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Which does endorse one thing that fat Henry claimed, which was the degree of corruption and double standards in the Catholic Church at that time. 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 10:17
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding

 

I wasn't aware of that, but it would be a different thing. The priests had not committed adultery because they couldn't marry; and if the women were to remain virgins then it seems that they hadn't fornicated either (at least, not officially).
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Good question! The Pope does seem to have given regular dispensations for priests (yes) to marry women who'd lived with them for several years so long as they remained 'virgins' :) No doubt they had to officially farm out their children to siblings to raise?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 7:00
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
> Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>  
> They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> > would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> > before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> > Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > > until he was expired...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If it is that easy (no doubt money changed hands) then the remedy was in Edward IV's hands - I can't think why he didn't make the effort to deal with it.  Obviously, he expected to live until his son was an adult, but even so, it was reckless in the extreme - unless he thought that Richard's loyalty to him would continue and his brother would support his son as king, despite the shadow over his legitimacy.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrokte:
He got a papal dispensation. There's a little piece about it in one of the Ricardian Bulletins from a year or two back.

Marie

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, how was John of Gaunt able then, the marry Katherine Swinford?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> They could have silenced those who knew, but they couldn't have done anything to regularise their marriage without coming clean and applying for a papal dispensation because a widower was not permitted to marry a woman with whom he had committed adultery.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Maria Torres <ejbronte@> wrote:
> >
> > That's my guess: if she had known before I think much more definite steps
> > would have been taken to protect her and young Edward's positions way
> > before the death of Edward IV. Especially if, as seems to be the case,
> > Edward IV was declining for a measurable period of time.
> >
> > Maria
> > ejbronte@
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward
> > > would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out
> > > until he was expired...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the
> > > fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of
> > > course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting
> > > -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > >
> > > > Tamara
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous
> > > contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages
> > > were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the
> > > protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later
> > > coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in
> > > the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for
> > > anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time
> > > had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB
> > > marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have
> > > been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was
> > > legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying
> > > is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does
> > > constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are
> > > running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does
> > > turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the
> > > paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was
> > > illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager
> > > Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector,
> > > making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > > <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being
> > > he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106)
> > > argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a
> > > "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old
> > > marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that
> > > marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the
> > > couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in
> > > other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in
> > > large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward
> > > and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus
> > > Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth
> > > Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards
> > > their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning
> > > of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement
> > > prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It
> > > isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior
> > > marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the
> > > ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access
> > > unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're
> > > a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back
> > > Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on
> > > the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help
> > > of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the
> > > wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and
> > > their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard
> > > (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was
> > > accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with
> > > her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by
> > > the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was
> > > making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they
> > > only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is
> > > absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's
> > > household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent
> > > to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate
> > > that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her
> > > parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a
> > > mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of
> > > course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne
> > > remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in
> > > sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were
> > > her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can
> > > tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't
> > > even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

William "Waste all", Maquiss Berkeley, had property in Marylebone inherited from the FitzAlans via his Mowbray mother.

He may well have sold estates in London to fund his "thriftless lifestyle", and its possible that this may have been the source of the transfer.

He deliberately disinherited his brother and heir Maurice (who'd married beneath him), so he evidently cared little for the family landed property (other than as a source of ready cash).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Berkeley,_1st_Marquess_of_Berkeley

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45438&strquery=bray

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Because he left several valuable manors in London which Reggie Bray and MB went out of their way to acquire from his heirs - Marylebone, Tyburn and others, plus a big house in Chiswick which was passed to MB. I'm still trying to find how and when he got them; I think in the late 1470s. We know he got stuff in Yorks by inheritance and that's fine but where did the rest come from? Compare these possessions to the will of his predecessor and they are indeed large, plus the fact that you needed a dispensation from the Pope to possess property on this scale as a clergyman. We know Morton did well, but he's another matter.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013, 10:14
> Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
>
>  
>
>
> But nothing happens to Stillington for perjuring himself in order to bring down a king? To me, Stillington was a time server, nothing worse. How do we know he died possessed of great riches?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now this is a Jones (Hilary) crackpot theory. We know Stillington loved money and possessions (must get back to him but needed a break). Suppose, just suppose that someone (Morton, Buckingham?) persuaded him to approach Richard and endorse the Eleanor story by saying he was there. There could have been a rumour that Edward had had an affair with EB that no-one could confirm or deny. Hence the silence of her sister. Stillington tells Richard. Richard being a good, religious, trusting bloke, believes him and the whole process of removing the young 'king' gets under way. Two more heirs of the House of York disposed of and Buckingham setting himself up for a nice position in government. Hastings, doesn't believe it, gets in with the wrong folk, Richard thinks he's disloyal and he gets the chop. Another supporter down. Richard and his little heir remain between Lancaster and the Crown. Just after the Coronation in a fit of anger (for which I
> believe he
> > was known) Buckingham has a row with Richard (probably over more power) and reveals that he is responsible for Richard being where he is and that the Stillington story is a concoction. What can Richard do? He can't go back, he can't say it was all a dupe. Buckingham would indeed be the 'most untrue creature' and take flight to the opposition. The rest is history playing into Tudor's hands.
> >  
> > I don't discount the Buckingham/MB connection. She was his aunt and they did meet several times over the years.
> >  
> > As I say, just a Jones crackpot theory.   
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013, 23:17
> > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> >
> >  
> >
> > Or Stillington did not witness the marriage as claimed by Commines, but merely drafted Titulus Regius as recorded by Henry VII's council. But, honestly, it all looks to me as though EW was taken entirely by surprise - and that would mean that Clarence didn't know because Clarence was not the soul of discretion.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly they were gambling on Stillington kicking the bucket before Edward did...maybe Edward had squeezed assurances out of Stillington that he would not speak up....and did it matter much ...to Stillington...as long as Edward was alive? He must have been mortified when Edward died comparatively youngish...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And, if EW knew about the precontract, and if Stillington had witnessed/ performed it, why would the Woodvilles not have taken steps to silence him?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Also Richard was going along with the arrangements for Edwards Coronation...as you say Tamara...why did he not take immediate action as soon as he heard about Edward's death...?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Exactly. Richard's actions aren't those of a man who knew all along -- if he'd known all along he wouldn't have been on the Scottish border when Edward IV died, he'd have been in or as near London as possible so he could have forestalled Rivers and Dorset, who started issuing Council orders on EV's behalf almost before EIV had assumed room temperature -- despite EIV's clear orders that Richard alone would be Protector in the event of EIV's untimely death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Speaking of which, the idea propounded by Lancastrians that Richard somehow bent the Council to his evil will, instead of allowing Stillington et al to present the evidence, is hilarious. Not when a large chunk of them were Southerners!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trouble is with that scenario I would have expected Richard to have found out. But from what we know about the matter he does seem to have been in the dark about it until enlightened after Edward's death...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having said that, and after reading Secret Queen I do agree that it looks as if some of EB's family knew about the marriage particularly her sister.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Round and round we go...Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's a very good question. It depends on how much (and how early on) Edward would have confided such things to her.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JA-H suspects she definitely knew by 1476-77, because that's when (per Mancini) George found out and threatened her and Edward with the information:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "For fifteen years or so there had been no sign that the Duke of Clarence had any knowledge of the Talbot marriage, but in about 1476â€"77 he not only appears to have acquired such knowledge, but he also, very unwisely, allowed that fact to become apparent. As a result, Elizabeth Woodville took fright. Mancini records that she came to fear both that her own marriage was invalid, and that her son would never succeed to the throne unless Clarence was removed."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (Ashdown-Hill, John (2011-08-26). Eleanor the Secret Queen: The Woman Who put Richard III on the Throne (p. 153). The History Press. Kindle Edition.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He also states that the Talbots likely knew, as Eleanor's sister Elizabeth wasn't as excited as one would expect over her own daughter Anne's betrothal to Richard of Shrewsbury, EW's younger son -- and Elizabeth Talbot's friends the Pastons were downright alarmed (though the Pastons had a number of Lancastrians among them, did they not?). Marrying her daughter to the second heir to the throne should have had Lizzie in transports.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wonder when she actually found out? I wouldn't have thought that Edward would have told her unless his hand was forced....Maybe she didn't find out until he was expired...Eileen
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It occurs to me that this is probably why EW didn't put up quite the fuss one thinks she might have -- she knew that the game was up. (Of course, the Tudor folk say she was bought off, which is, erm, interesting -- they lionize her two boys, but think the worst of EW herself.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, JA-H has nailed it about canon law. Either Edward's previous contract was binding, which is surely proven correct, or secret marriages were not allowed. It wouldn't look good for EW and her offspring either way.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Well, secret marriages were allowed, BUT they didn't enjoy the protection given to public marriages in the case of an impediment later coming to light. That is the nub of it. If Edward had married Elizabeth in the the Church recommended, ie after publication of the banns calling for anyone who knew of an impediment to come forward, and nobody at the time had said "he can't marry her, he's already married", then when the EB marriage came to light the legitimacy of Elizabeth's children would have been protected because she'd tried her best to make sure the marriage was legal. But that's not what she had done. What the Church rules were saying is: "We accept that a promise privately exchanged between two people does constitute a marriage, but we don't like people doing it because they are running the risk that one of them is not free to marry, so if that does turn out to be the case, then it's tough."
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Similarly his latest theory, when the book arrives, is about the paternity of Edmund "Tudor". If his father was Somerset then he was illegitimate. If his father was Owain then a 1427-8 statute bars Dowager Queens from remarrying without permission from the King or Protector, making him illegitimate. Stuffed either way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:13 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard and Anne's Wedding
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a pity, Marie. About PMK making it all up, that is. Being he's supposed to be a respectable historian and all (being male).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That reminds me - JA-H in *Eleanor the Secret Queen* (page 106) argues that rather than call Edward's arrangement with Eleanor Talbot a "precontract" for marriage, it should rightly be called just a plain old marriage with no qualifiers whatsoever. His rationale for this is that marriage at that time didn't require public banns or even a priest - if the couple said they were married, they were married. ("Common law marriage" in other words.) The Church recognized these marriages but only grudgingly, in large part in order to avoid consequences such as manifested with Edward and Eleanor's marriage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How does that sound to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tamara,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes it was a marriage; it says so plain and square in Titulus Regius. And it was a precontract too - once Edward had 'married' Elizabeth Woodville, that is. The confusion is all due to historians (and afterwards their readers, through no fault of their own) misunderstanding the meaning of the term precontract. Generally they think it is some sort of agreement prior to contracting marriage - an engagement or something of that sort. It isn't. As I think John makes clear, it's merely a legal term for the prior marriage in a bigamy case. There's a good article about it by the ecclesiastical historian Henry Kelly in one of the old Ricardians.
> > > > > > > > > > > > By the by, did someone say old Ricardians are difficult to access unless you've been a member for donkeys years? Not at all so long as you're a current member. If you can afford to buy, most are for sale from the Back Issues person. If not Just email the Barton Papers Librarian. Details on the inside back cover of the Bulletin!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tamara
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Marie!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it's probably much more likely that Richard (with the help of older sister Margaret) talked to George and got him to agree to the wedding and the partitioning in early March, and so Richard and Anne (and their respective mothers) went ahead and had Anne stay with Richard (chastely, obviously) at Middleham pre-marriage? (Being that it was accepted practice for the noble underage wife or wife-to-be to stay with her mother-in-law's household.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I say this because Paul Murray Kendall has R&A at Middleham by the late spring of 1472 (presumably late May).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marie replies:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm really sorry to have to disillusion you, Tamara, but PMK was making it up. He assumed there was no dispensation awaited and that they only had to get Easter over with before they could marry. There is absolutely no evidence for Anne being in the North in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is unlikely that Anne lived chastely in Richard's household until the dispensation arrived. Wives-to-be were not usually sent to the bridegroom's house unless they were wards. In order to demonstrate that they were not being coerced, the bride traditionally married from her parents' home. In the case of Middleham there would not have been a mother-in-law on hand to supervise either, and Anne's own mother, of course, was still in sanctuary on the south coast. My guess is that Anne remained in London until she and Richard were married - not necessarily in sanctuary, perhaps, once George had given his consent although if I were her I would not have trusted him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we place Cicely at Middleham at that time?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marie:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No - nor at any time during her adult life. So far as we can tell, Richard had to do all the visiting. And as far as I'm aware we can't even place Richard at Middleham in May 1472.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>