Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 16:35:17
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 19:51:49
No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there's an
instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there's an
instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 21:04:10
I think I know who you mean;)
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there's an
instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there's an
instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 21:09:34
Hi Marion,
I'm afraid you probably read it in a novel, or as a mere suggestion in one of those romantic biographies that is desperate to have Henry and Elizabeth fall in love at first sight. There was no advantage to Henry in getting Elizabeth pregnant without a valid dispensation in the hand first because the offspring just had to be legitimate.
Marie
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
>
>
>
I'm afraid you probably read it in a novel, or as a mere suggestion in one of those romantic biographies that is desperate to have Henry and Elizabeth fall in love at first sight. There was no advantage to Henry in getting Elizabeth pregnant without a valid dispensation in the hand first because the offspring just had to be legitimate.
Marie
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
>
>
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 21:12:21
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
> announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there’s an
> instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
>
> Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
>
> JudyÂ
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
Yup, but so far as we know there was no such betrothal, and indeed Henry seems to have done all he could to delay (or avoid?) marrying Elizabeth. With the final dispensation not sorted till two days before the wedding, there could have been no valid union earlier.
Marie
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
> Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
>
>
>
> Â
> I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish.   Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
> announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there’s an
> instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
>
> Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
>
> JudyÂ
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
Yup, but so far as we know there was no such betrothal, and indeed Henry seems to have done all he could to delay (or avoid?) marrying Elizabeth. With the final dispensation not sorted till two days before the wedding, there could have been no valid union earlier.
Marie
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
> Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
>
>
>
> Â
> I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish.   Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 21:27:37
Okay, I give in. Here's a new thought.
That second dispensation (as we now know it was) issued two days before the marriage is odd because it just addresses the same 4th degree consanguinity as the 1484 dispensation. BUT with it are a lot of depositions from people claiming to have known the couple for x number of years, and verifying that the marriage and/or the consanguinity had been discussed in the past, with either Edward IV, or such motley folks as Archbishop Neville, the Bishop of Worcester or the Duchess of Buckingham; and a couple of the witnesses state that Elizabeth has not been "rapta" (ie forced, abducted or raped) but loves Henry and wants to marry him. None of these witnesses, by the way, was a member of her own family.
Now, if you put this together with the fact that after Bosworth Elizabeth had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's household - not her own mother's as Vergil would have us believe - it is possible that Henry had had his wicked way with her (trusting in the 1484 dispensation as enabling them to marry if she proved to be pregnant) and that rumours werhad leaked out that she had been raped. This sort of situation would have placed an impediment of force (raptus) in the way of the marriage, and it may be this that the new dispensation was really meant to address. Even after they were married the Pope had to issue an order to forbid people to impugn the marriage, but there is no hint given as to what exactly was being said.
So, okay, maybe she could have been pregnant with Arthur - but Henry really should have found some excuse for summoning the Earl of Oxford to Winchester in good time.
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
> > announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there’s an
> > instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
> >
> > Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
>
> Yup, but so far as we know there was no such betrothal, and indeed Henry seems to have done all he could to delay (or avoid?) marrying Elizabeth. With the final dispensation not sorted till two days before the wedding, there could have been no valid union earlier.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
> > Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish.   Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
That second dispensation (as we now know it was) issued two days before the marriage is odd because it just addresses the same 4th degree consanguinity as the 1484 dispensation. BUT with it are a lot of depositions from people claiming to have known the couple for x number of years, and verifying that the marriage and/or the consanguinity had been discussed in the past, with either Edward IV, or such motley folks as Archbishop Neville, the Bishop of Worcester or the Duchess of Buckingham; and a couple of the witnesses state that Elizabeth has not been "rapta" (ie forced, abducted or raped) but loves Henry and wants to marry him. None of these witnesses, by the way, was a member of her own family.
Now, if you put this together with the fact that after Bosworth Elizabeth had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's household - not her own mother's as Vergil would have us believe - it is possible that Henry had had his wicked way with her (trusting in the 1484 dispensation as enabling them to marry if she proved to be pregnant) and that rumours werhad leaked out that she had been raped. This sort of situation would have placed an impediment of force (raptus) in the way of the marriage, and it may be this that the new dispensation was really meant to address. Even after they were married the Pope had to issue an order to forbid people to impugn the marriage, but there is no hint given as to what exactly was being said.
So, okay, maybe she could have been pregnant with Arthur - but Henry really should have found some excuse for summoning the Earl of Oxford to Winchester in good time.
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
> > announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there’s an
> > instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
> >
> > Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
>
> Yup, but so far as we know there was no such betrothal, and indeed Henry seems to have done all he could to delay (or avoid?) marrying Elizabeth. With the final dispensation not sorted till two days before the wedding, there could have been no valid union earlier.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
> > Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish.   Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-25 23:27:03
Thanks for coming to our assistance, Marie. And I find your "new thought" intriguing :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
Okay, I give in. Here's a new thought.
That second dispensation (as we now know it was) issued two days before the marriage is odd because it just addresses the same 4th degree consanguinity as the 1484 dispensation. BUT with it are a lot of depositions from people claiming to have known the couple for x number of years, and verifying that the marriage and/or the consanguinity had been discussed in the past, with either Edward IV, or such motley folks as Archbishop Neville, the Bishop of Worcester or the Duchess of Buckingham; and a couple of the witnesses state that Elizabeth has not been "rapta" (ie forced, abducted or raped) but loves Henry and wants to marry him. None of these witnesses, by the way, was a member of her own family.
Now, if you put this together with the fact that after Bosworth Elizabeth had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's household - not her own mother's as Vergil would have us believe - it is possible that Henry had had his wicked way with her (trusting in the 1484 dispensation as enabling them to marry if she proved to be pregnant) and that rumours werhad leaked out that she had been raped. This sort of situation would have placed an impediment of force (raptus) in the way of the marriage, and it may be this that the new dispensation was really meant to address. Even after they were married the Pope had to issue an order to forbid people to impugn the marriage, but there is no hint given as to what exactly was being said.
So, okay, maybe she could have been pregnant with Arthur - but Henry really should have found some excuse for summoning the Earl of Oxford to Winchester in good time.
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
> > announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, thereâ¬"s an
> > instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
> >
> > Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
>
> Yup, but so far as we know there was no such betrothal, and indeed Henry seems to have done all he could to delay (or avoid?) marrying Elizabeth. With the final dispensation not sorted till two days before the wedding, there could have been no valid union earlier.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
> > Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish.   Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
Okay, I give in. Here's a new thought.
That second dispensation (as we now know it was) issued two days before the marriage is odd because it just addresses the same 4th degree consanguinity as the 1484 dispensation. BUT with it are a lot of depositions from people claiming to have known the couple for x number of years, and verifying that the marriage and/or the consanguinity had been discussed in the past, with either Edward IV, or such motley folks as Archbishop Neville, the Bishop of Worcester or the Duchess of Buckingham; and a couple of the witnesses state that Elizabeth has not been "rapta" (ie forced, abducted or raped) but loves Henry and wants to marry him. None of these witnesses, by the way, was a member of her own family.
Now, if you put this together with the fact that after Bosworth Elizabeth had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's household - not her own mother's as Vergil would have us believe - it is possible that Henry had had his wicked way with her (trusting in the 1484 dispensation as enabling them to marry if she proved to be pregnant) and that rumours werhad leaked out that she had been raped. This sort of situation would have placed an impediment of force (raptus) in the way of the marriage, and it may be this that the new dispensation was really meant to address. Even after they were married the Pope had to issue an order to forbid people to impugn the marriage, but there is no hint given as to what exactly was being said.
So, okay, maybe she could have been pregnant with Arthur - but Henry really should have found some excuse for summoning the Earl of Oxford to Winchester in good time.
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
> > announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, thereâ¬"s an
> > instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
> >
> > Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
>
> Yup, but so far as we know there was no such betrothal, and indeed Henry seems to have done all he could to delay (or avoid?) marrying Elizabeth. With the final dispensation not sorted till two days before the wedding, there could have been no valid union earlier.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
> > Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> > I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish.   Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-26 00:00:38
Could be, Stephen... :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I think I know who you mean;)
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there's an
instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I think I know who you mean;)
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
No, not outlandish, Marion. Maybe I'm crazy (OK, don't everyone disagree at once... :-), but I have some recollection in my weedy old brain that once a formal betrothal was made, consummation was considered OK, since the couple were essentially married (hence the pre-contractof Edward and Eleanor was a full-fledged marriage under canon law and probably consummated). Somewhere, I have a link to somebody's dissertation on medieval and early Renaissance marriages. If I find it, I'll post it. ["One type of marriage is the de verba future. One partner
announces, "I will marry thee," and, upon consummation, there's an
instantly binding contract formed between the two." I took this from somewhere, though not verbatim, and since I'm not writing non-fiction, I failed to include a citation...but I don't think I pulled this out of my own imagination....]
Ah, but I could be wrong. Unlike PG, I only "channel" the past on very rare occasions.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me says that he would like to try the goods before purchase. Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone. Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always had a reason for everything.
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-27 10:38:50
What was the point of marrying a woman who couldn't conceive? He
needed an heir... (Look what a lot of bother that caused in the next
generation!)
IIRC, later on and considerably further down the social scale, you
only got married once a baby was on the way. Until life got more
hidebound and bureaucratic in the nineteenth century, it wasn't
necessary to jump through hoops for the sake of it. The point of
marriage was the passing on of property to the next generation, so why
bother if there wasn't a next generation to pass it on to?
Best wishes
Christine
Quoting marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>:
> I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not
> long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part
> of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me
> says that he would like to try the goods before purchase.
> Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not
> outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a
> friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone.
> Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it
> was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always
> had a reason for everything.
>
>
>
>
needed an heir... (Look what a lot of bother that caused in the next
generation!)
IIRC, later on and considerably further down the social scale, you
only got married once a baby was on the way. Until life got more
hidebound and bureaucratic in the nineteenth century, it wasn't
necessary to jump through hoops for the sake of it. The point of
marriage was the passing on of property to the next generation, so why
bother if there wasn't a next generation to pass it on to?
Best wishes
Christine
Quoting marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>:
> I read somewhere cannot remember where that Henry visited E O Y not
> long after be had taken the throne and was not a gentleman, one part
> of me thinks he would be to careful to do so, but another part of me
> says that he would like to try the goods before purchase.
> Therefore, her getting pregnant before the marriage is not
> outlandish. Saying that I had my daughter 3 weeks early and a
> friends children were both 35 weeks so its different for everyone.
> Prehaps he did take advantage and she was only caught out because it
> was her first child. We will probably never know, but Henry always
> had a reason for everything.
>
>
>
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-27 11:19:59
--- In , Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
>
> What was the point of marrying a woman who couldn't conceive? He
> needed an heir... (Look what a lot of bother that caused in the next
> generation!)
>
> IIRC, later on and considerably further down the social scale, you
> only got married once a baby was on the way. Until life got more
> hidebound and bureaucratic in the nineteenth century, it wasn't
> necessary to jump through hoops for the sake of it. The point of
> marriage was the passing on of property to the next generation, so why
> bother if there wasn't a next generation to pass it on to?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
That was never custom, not in England at any rate. A considerable number of brides were pregnant when they married, but it was always a minority and it is probable that most girls didn't have sex until they had a promise of marriage.
Marie
>
>
> What was the point of marrying a woman who couldn't conceive? He
> needed an heir... (Look what a lot of bother that caused in the next
> generation!)
>
> IIRC, later on and considerably further down the social scale, you
> only got married once a baby was on the way. Until life got more
> hidebound and bureaucratic in the nineteenth century, it wasn't
> necessary to jump through hoops for the sake of it. The point of
> marriage was the passing on of property to the next generation, so why
> bother if there wasn't a next generation to pass it on to?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
That was never custom, not in England at any rate. A considerable number of brides were pregnant when they married, but it was always a minority and it is probable that most girls didn't have sex until they had a promise of marriage.
Marie
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-27 15:42:33
Marie,
In an earlier post you mentioned that, because the legality of the marriage
between Henry and EoY depended on the second dispensation, it was most
unlikely that anything that could produce an heir (how's *that* for
allusion?) would be done prior to receiving that second dispensation.
My question is: Wouldn't the awaited-for dispensation have covered the
situation? And if not, why? Or was it a question of not knowing if there was
even going to be a dispensation and not wanting to run the risks involved if
the dispensation *didn't* arrive?
If it was the last (not arriving at all), couldn't a later dispensation
"regularize" the marriage? And any children, or at least any born *before*
the second dispensation arrived?
Finally, do you think the need for that second dispensation would explain
the delay in Henry and EoY getting married? Or most of it, anyway.
Doug
In an earlier post you mentioned that, because the legality of the marriage
between Henry and EoY depended on the second dispensation, it was most
unlikely that anything that could produce an heir (how's *that* for
allusion?) would be done prior to receiving that second dispensation.
My question is: Wouldn't the awaited-for dispensation have covered the
situation? And if not, why? Or was it a question of not knowing if there was
even going to be a dispensation and not wanting to run the risks involved if
the dispensation *didn't* arrive?
If it was the last (not arriving at all), couldn't a later dispensation
"regularize" the marriage? And any children, or at least any born *before*
the second dispensation arrived?
Finally, do you think the need for that second dispensation would explain
the delay in Henry and EoY getting married? Or most of it, anyway.
Doug
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-27 17:40:39
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie,
>
> In an earlier post you mentioned that, because the legality of the marriage
> between Henry and EoY depended on the second dispensation, it was most
> unlikely that anything that could produce an heir (how's *that* for
> allusion?) would be done prior to receiving that second dispensation.
> My question is: Wouldn't the awaited-for dispensation have covered the
> situation? And if not, why?
Hi Doug.
Yes, it would; provided they were able to marry legally before the child was born, it would automatically be legitimate.
Marie
Or was it a question of not knowing if there was
> even going to be a dispensation and not wanting to run the risks involved if
> the dispensation *didn't* arrive?
Yes, exactly.
Marie
> If it was the last (not arriving at all), couldn't a later dispensation
> "regularize" the marriage? And any children, or at least any born *before*
> the second dispensation arrived?
It could, if the Pope could be persuaded. But it wasn't simply a matter of paying your money and getting your bespoke dispensation like buying an ice cream (double 99 with raspeberry sauce and sprinkles, or whatever). The Vatican was supposed to weigh up the situation and decide whether you deserved to have the rules waived for you - ie where lay the greater good? Heads of state had to be very, very careful because enemy heads of state (including, in the case of England, would-be heads of state in their own country) would be lobbying the Pope to say no.
Marie
> Finally, do you think the need for that second dispensation would explain
> the delay in Henry and EoY getting married? Or most of it, anyway.
Maybe. But the second dispensation is a conundrum in itself because in terms of the obvious impediments it didn't add anything at all to the first. There was no reason why they could not have married on the strength of the 1484 dispensation in September or October 1485, and then have a double coronation. Indeed, the heralds seem to have assumed that this is what Henry would do because they began amending the 'device' for Richard and Anne's coronation for another double coronation. In fact, Henry does not seem to have been in a hurry to make Elizabeth his wife, which is unsurprising if he had not been able to establish that both her brothers were dead. The Portuguese sources in fact claim that he tried to put himself forward in place of Richard as a husband for Prince Joanna. It was not until a very disgruntled parliament petitioned him in December to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth that he assented to do so. Politically, he would now have found it difficult to get out of marrying her, so I'm not convinced he would have been waiting to see if she got pregnant.
One reason for his delay, and getting a replacement dispensation, might be that the first dispensation had never reached its destination, but I don't believe this for several reasons:-
1) There had been plenty of time since Bosworth to send to Rome again.
2) All these depositions are unusual; it looks more like the record of a church court than a 'petitio' for a dispensation.
3) The fact that Henry and Elizabeth's proxies only went to the papal legate with their witnesses, and got granted the dispensation, two days before the wedding strikes me as odder still. The preparations for the marriage must have begun well before that date.
Something, it seems to me, had happened at the last minute to make Henry and his advisors decide they needed to get official papal acceptance of Elizabeth's willingness for the marriage. So far we've really been concentrating on Henry, but Elizabeth was a real person and would have had her own feelings too. It might be supposed by Henry's enemies that she would be unwilling to marry Henry for the same reason that he would have been unwilling to marry her - ie in case one of her brothers was still alive. And her mother and her half-brother Dorset seem to have stopped supporting Tudor in 1484/5. If Henry had placed Elizabeth with her own mother, and said mother and half-brother had been happy to escort her to church to marry Henry, then I suspect there would have been no gossip. But in fact she had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's London house, which would potentially have made the whole thing look like an abduction. My belief is that it was in order to prevent the marriage later being annulled as forced that Henry got the papal legate to interview all those 'witnesses'. Whatever it was all about, it was clearly important as when he became Archbishop of Canterbury Morton had the whole lengthy text written up in his register - I've seen it with my own eyes.
Anyway, it seems to me there are grounds for suspicion about the real willingness of Elizabeth and her family. The legate did not see the royal couple themselves, but only proxies whom they had (theoretically) chosen, and there was not a single Woodville amongst the witnesses called to provide evidence in favour of Elizabeth's love for Henry, her willingness for the marriage and that there had been previous discussions about such a match during Edward IV's reign.
Perhaps I'm letting my imagination run away with me, but to me the whole thing smells fishy even without the business of Arthur's date of conception.
Marie
>
>
> Marie,
>
> In an earlier post you mentioned that, because the legality of the marriage
> between Henry and EoY depended on the second dispensation, it was most
> unlikely that anything that could produce an heir (how's *that* for
> allusion?) would be done prior to receiving that second dispensation.
> My question is: Wouldn't the awaited-for dispensation have covered the
> situation? And if not, why?
Hi Doug.
Yes, it would; provided they were able to marry legally before the child was born, it would automatically be legitimate.
Marie
Or was it a question of not knowing if there was
> even going to be a dispensation and not wanting to run the risks involved if
> the dispensation *didn't* arrive?
Yes, exactly.
Marie
> If it was the last (not arriving at all), couldn't a later dispensation
> "regularize" the marriage? And any children, or at least any born *before*
> the second dispensation arrived?
It could, if the Pope could be persuaded. But it wasn't simply a matter of paying your money and getting your bespoke dispensation like buying an ice cream (double 99 with raspeberry sauce and sprinkles, or whatever). The Vatican was supposed to weigh up the situation and decide whether you deserved to have the rules waived for you - ie where lay the greater good? Heads of state had to be very, very careful because enemy heads of state (including, in the case of England, would-be heads of state in their own country) would be lobbying the Pope to say no.
Marie
> Finally, do you think the need for that second dispensation would explain
> the delay in Henry and EoY getting married? Or most of it, anyway.
Maybe. But the second dispensation is a conundrum in itself because in terms of the obvious impediments it didn't add anything at all to the first. There was no reason why they could not have married on the strength of the 1484 dispensation in September or October 1485, and then have a double coronation. Indeed, the heralds seem to have assumed that this is what Henry would do because they began amending the 'device' for Richard and Anne's coronation for another double coronation. In fact, Henry does not seem to have been in a hurry to make Elizabeth his wife, which is unsurprising if he had not been able to establish that both her brothers were dead. The Portuguese sources in fact claim that he tried to put himself forward in place of Richard as a husband for Prince Joanna. It was not until a very disgruntled parliament petitioned him in December to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth that he assented to do so. Politically, he would now have found it difficult to get out of marrying her, so I'm not convinced he would have been waiting to see if she got pregnant.
One reason for his delay, and getting a replacement dispensation, might be that the first dispensation had never reached its destination, but I don't believe this for several reasons:-
1) There had been plenty of time since Bosworth to send to Rome again.
2) All these depositions are unusual; it looks more like the record of a church court than a 'petitio' for a dispensation.
3) The fact that Henry and Elizabeth's proxies only went to the papal legate with their witnesses, and got granted the dispensation, two days before the wedding strikes me as odder still. The preparations for the marriage must have begun well before that date.
Something, it seems to me, had happened at the last minute to make Henry and his advisors decide they needed to get official papal acceptance of Elizabeth's willingness for the marriage. So far we've really been concentrating on Henry, but Elizabeth was a real person and would have had her own feelings too. It might be supposed by Henry's enemies that she would be unwilling to marry Henry for the same reason that he would have been unwilling to marry her - ie in case one of her brothers was still alive. And her mother and her half-brother Dorset seem to have stopped supporting Tudor in 1484/5. If Henry had placed Elizabeth with her own mother, and said mother and half-brother had been happy to escort her to church to marry Henry, then I suspect there would have been no gossip. But in fact she had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's London house, which would potentially have made the whole thing look like an abduction. My belief is that it was in order to prevent the marriage later being annulled as forced that Henry got the papal legate to interview all those 'witnesses'. Whatever it was all about, it was clearly important as when he became Archbishop of Canterbury Morton had the whole lengthy text written up in his register - I've seen it with my own eyes.
Anyway, it seems to me there are grounds for suspicion about the real willingness of Elizabeth and her family. The legate did not see the royal couple themselves, but only proxies whom they had (theoretically) chosen, and there was not a single Woodville amongst the witnesses called to provide evidence in favour of Elizabeth's love for Henry, her willingness for the marriage and that there had been previous discussions about such a match during Edward IV's reign.
Perhaps I'm letting my imagination run away with me, but to me the whole thing smells fishy even without the business of Arthur's date of conception.
Marie
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-27 18:38:13
I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not.
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie,
> >
> > In an earlier post you mentioned that, because the legality of the marriage
> > between Henry and EoY depended on the second dispensation, it was most
> > unlikely that anything that could produce an heir (how's *that* for
> > allusion?) would be done prior to receiving that second dispensation.
> > My question is: Wouldn't the awaited-for dispensation have covered the
> > situation? And if not, why?
>
>
> Hi Doug.
> Yes, it would; provided they were able to marry legally before the child was born, it would automatically be legitimate.
> Marie
>
>
> Or was it a question of not knowing if there was
> > even going to be a dispensation and not wanting to run the risks involved if
> > the dispensation *didn't* arrive?
>
> Yes, exactly.
> Marie
>
>
> > If it was the last (not arriving at all), couldn't a later dispensation
> > "regularize" the marriage? And any children, or at least any born *before*
> > the second dispensation arrived?
>
>
> It could, if the Pope could be persuaded. But it wasn't simply a matter of paying your money and getting your bespoke dispensation like buying an ice cream (double 99 with raspeberry sauce and sprinkles, or whatever). The Vatican was supposed to weigh up the situation and decide whether you deserved to have the rules waived for you - ie where lay the greater good? Heads of state had to be very, very careful because enemy heads of state (including, in the case of England, would-be heads of state in their own country) would be lobbying the Pope to say no.
> Marie
>
> > Finally, do you think the need for that second dispensation would explain
> > the delay in Henry and EoY getting married? Or most of it, anyway.
>
>
> Maybe. But the second dispensation is a conundrum in itself because in terms of the obvious impediments it didn't add anything at all to the first. There was no reason why they could not have married on the strength of the 1484 dispensation in September or October 1485, and then have a double coronation. Indeed, the heralds seem to have assumed that this is what Henry would do because they began amending the 'device' for Richard and Anne's coronation for another double coronation. In fact, Henry does not seem to have been in a hurry to make Elizabeth his wife, which is unsurprising if he had not been able to establish that both her brothers were dead. The Portuguese sources in fact claim that he tried to put himself forward in place of Richard as a husband for Prince Joanna. It was not until a very disgruntled parliament petitioned him in December to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth that he assented to do so. Politically, he would now have found it difficult to get out of marrying her, so I'm not convinced he would have been waiting to see if she got pregnant.
>
> One reason for his delay, and getting a replacement dispensation, might be that the first dispensation had never reached its destination, but I don't believe this for several reasons:-
> 1) There had been plenty of time since Bosworth to send to Rome again.
> 2) All these depositions are unusual; it looks more like the record of a church court than a 'petitio' for a dispensation.
> 3) The fact that Henry and Elizabeth's proxies only went to the papal legate with their witnesses, and got granted the dispensation, two days before the wedding strikes me as odder still. The preparations for the marriage must have begun well before that date.
>
> Something, it seems to me, had happened at the last minute to make Henry and his advisors decide they needed to get official papal acceptance of Elizabeth's willingness for the marriage. So far we've really been concentrating on Henry, but Elizabeth was a real person and would have had her own feelings too. It might be supposed by Henry's enemies that she would be unwilling to marry Henry for the same reason that he would have been unwilling to marry her - ie in case one of her brothers was still alive. And her mother and her half-brother Dorset seem to have stopped supporting Tudor in 1484/5. If Henry had placed Elizabeth with her own mother, and said mother and half-brother had been happy to escort her to church to marry Henry, then I suspect there would have been no gossip. But in fact she had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's London house, which would potentially have made the whole thing look like an abduction. My belief is that it was in order to prevent the marriage later being annulled as forced that Henry got the papal legate to interview all those 'witnesses'. Whatever it was all about, it was clearly important as when he became Archbishop of Canterbury Morton had the whole lengthy text written up in his register - I've seen it with my own eyes.
>
> Anyway, it seems to me there are grounds for suspicion about the real willingness of Elizabeth and her family. The legate did not see the royal couple themselves, but only proxies whom they had (theoretically) chosen, and there was not a single Woodville amongst the witnesses called to provide evidence in favour of Elizabeth's love for Henry, her willingness for the marriage and that there had been previous discussions about such a match during Edward IV's reign.
>
> Perhaps I'm letting my imagination run away with me, but to me the whole thing smells fishy even without the business of Arthur's date of conception.
>
> Marie
>
Marie
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie,
> >
> > In an earlier post you mentioned that, because the legality of the marriage
> > between Henry and EoY depended on the second dispensation, it was most
> > unlikely that anything that could produce an heir (how's *that* for
> > allusion?) would be done prior to receiving that second dispensation.
> > My question is: Wouldn't the awaited-for dispensation have covered the
> > situation? And if not, why?
>
>
> Hi Doug.
> Yes, it would; provided they were able to marry legally before the child was born, it would automatically be legitimate.
> Marie
>
>
> Or was it a question of not knowing if there was
> > even going to be a dispensation and not wanting to run the risks involved if
> > the dispensation *didn't* arrive?
>
> Yes, exactly.
> Marie
>
>
> > If it was the last (not arriving at all), couldn't a later dispensation
> > "regularize" the marriage? And any children, or at least any born *before*
> > the second dispensation arrived?
>
>
> It could, if the Pope could be persuaded. But it wasn't simply a matter of paying your money and getting your bespoke dispensation like buying an ice cream (double 99 with raspeberry sauce and sprinkles, or whatever). The Vatican was supposed to weigh up the situation and decide whether you deserved to have the rules waived for you - ie where lay the greater good? Heads of state had to be very, very careful because enemy heads of state (including, in the case of England, would-be heads of state in their own country) would be lobbying the Pope to say no.
> Marie
>
> > Finally, do you think the need for that second dispensation would explain
> > the delay in Henry and EoY getting married? Or most of it, anyway.
>
>
> Maybe. But the second dispensation is a conundrum in itself because in terms of the obvious impediments it didn't add anything at all to the first. There was no reason why they could not have married on the strength of the 1484 dispensation in September or October 1485, and then have a double coronation. Indeed, the heralds seem to have assumed that this is what Henry would do because they began amending the 'device' for Richard and Anne's coronation for another double coronation. In fact, Henry does not seem to have been in a hurry to make Elizabeth his wife, which is unsurprising if he had not been able to establish that both her brothers were dead. The Portuguese sources in fact claim that he tried to put himself forward in place of Richard as a husband for Prince Joanna. It was not until a very disgruntled parliament petitioned him in December to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth that he assented to do so. Politically, he would now have found it difficult to get out of marrying her, so I'm not convinced he would have been waiting to see if she got pregnant.
>
> One reason for his delay, and getting a replacement dispensation, might be that the first dispensation had never reached its destination, but I don't believe this for several reasons:-
> 1) There had been plenty of time since Bosworth to send to Rome again.
> 2) All these depositions are unusual; it looks more like the record of a church court than a 'petitio' for a dispensation.
> 3) The fact that Henry and Elizabeth's proxies only went to the papal legate with their witnesses, and got granted the dispensation, two days before the wedding strikes me as odder still. The preparations for the marriage must have begun well before that date.
>
> Something, it seems to me, had happened at the last minute to make Henry and his advisors decide they needed to get official papal acceptance of Elizabeth's willingness for the marriage. So far we've really been concentrating on Henry, but Elizabeth was a real person and would have had her own feelings too. It might be supposed by Henry's enemies that she would be unwilling to marry Henry for the same reason that he would have been unwilling to marry her - ie in case one of her brothers was still alive. And her mother and her half-brother Dorset seem to have stopped supporting Tudor in 1484/5. If Henry had placed Elizabeth with her own mother, and said mother and half-brother had been happy to escort her to church to marry Henry, then I suspect there would have been no gossip. But in fact she had been placed in Margaret Beaufort's London house, which would potentially have made the whole thing look like an abduction. My belief is that it was in order to prevent the marriage later being annulled as forced that Henry got the papal legate to interview all those 'witnesses'. Whatever it was all about, it was clearly important as when he became Archbishop of Canterbury Morton had the whole lengthy text written up in his register - I've seen it with my own eyes.
>
> Anyway, it seems to me there are grounds for suspicion about the real willingness of Elizabeth and her family. The legate did not see the royal couple themselves, but only proxies whom they had (theoretically) chosen, and there was not a single Woodville amongst the witnesses called to provide evidence in favour of Elizabeth's love for Henry, her willingness for the marriage and that there had been previous discussions about such a match during Edward IV's reign.
>
> Perhaps I'm letting my imagination run away with me, but to me the whole thing smells fishy even without the business of Arthur's date of conception.
>
> Marie
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-27 22:33:23
Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
>
> What was the point of marrying a woman who couldn't conceive? He
> needed an heir... (Look what a lot of bother that caused in the next
> generation!)
>
> IIRC, later on and considerably further down the social scale, you
> only got married once a baby was on the way. Until life got more
> hidebound and bureaucratic in the nineteenth century, it wasn't
> necessary to jump through hoops for the sake of it. The point of
> marriage was the passing on of property to the next generation, so why bother if there wasn't a next generation to pass it on to?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
Carol responds:
The whole point of Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York was to keep a promise to his Woodville/dissident Yorkist followers (who would never have supported a pseudo-Lancastrian with an extremely weak claim otherwise). They were supposed to be a union of the Houses of York and Lancaster, however feeble that claim seems to us. If he had ravished and rejected her because she didn't conceive, he'd have had a much worse rebellion that the Battle of Stoke on his hands.
Henry was, to all appearances, reluctant to marry her in any case (probably because legitimizing her meant legitimizing her brothers, who might still be alive and whose claim in those circumstances would be better than his). For all those reasons, as well as for the ones that Marie listed, I think it very unlikely that Henry would consummate the marriage based on a nonexistent betrothal (de verbo agreement). As for all those assertions Marie mentioned that EoY loved Henry and wanted to marry him, it's interesting that none of them came from her or her family. Whether they were intended to counter rumors or rape or rumors that she loved her dead uncle, I take them with a grain of salt.
What I want to know is what Edward IV was thinking if he really did discuss the marriage as the depositions claim. Wasn't that a lie, too? The 1484 dispensation postdated Buckingham's Rebellion, IIRC, and certainly had nothing to do with Edward IV's wishes.
Carol
>
>
> What was the point of marrying a woman who couldn't conceive? He
> needed an heir... (Look what a lot of bother that caused in the next
> generation!)
>
> IIRC, later on and considerably further down the social scale, you
> only got married once a baby was on the way. Until life got more
> hidebound and bureaucratic in the nineteenth century, it wasn't
> necessary to jump through hoops for the sake of it. The point of
> marriage was the passing on of property to the next generation, so why bother if there wasn't a next generation to pass it on to?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
Carol responds:
The whole point of Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York was to keep a promise to his Woodville/dissident Yorkist followers (who would never have supported a pseudo-Lancastrian with an extremely weak claim otherwise). They were supposed to be a union of the Houses of York and Lancaster, however feeble that claim seems to us. If he had ravished and rejected her because she didn't conceive, he'd have had a much worse rebellion that the Battle of Stoke on his hands.
Henry was, to all appearances, reluctant to marry her in any case (probably because legitimizing her meant legitimizing her brothers, who might still be alive and whose claim in those circumstances would be better than his). For all those reasons, as well as for the ones that Marie listed, I think it very unlikely that Henry would consummate the marriage based on a nonexistent betrothal (de verbo agreement). As for all those assertions Marie mentioned that EoY loved Henry and wanted to marry him, it's interesting that none of them came from her or her family. Whether they were intended to counter rumors or rape or rumors that she loved her dead uncle, I take them with a grain of salt.
What I want to know is what Edward IV was thinking if he really did discuss the marriage as the depositions claim. Wasn't that a lie, too? The 1484 dispensation postdated Buckingham's Rebellion, IIRC, and certainly had nothing to do with Edward IV's wishes.
Carol
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-28 17:10:12
Marie wrote:
"I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was
very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the
couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that
they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It
just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not."
Doug here:
So any "delay" in Henry's marriage to EoY might best be explanied by the
wait for the dispensation rather than any reluctance on Henry's part? If
Henry and EoY went ahead and married, without that second dispensation in
hand, the legality of the marriage would depend entirely on the future
receipt of the dispensation allowing the marriage which might, or more
importantly might not, ever be received.
Without that second dispensation then, any children resulting from Henry's
marriage to EoY would be illegitimate, which would put the spanking new
Tudor "dynasty" right smack in the same place the Yorkists were: *who* was
the legitimate heir!
Would that last be correct or is it too "what if-ing"?
Doug
"I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was
very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the
couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that
they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It
just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not."
Doug here:
So any "delay" in Henry's marriage to EoY might best be explanied by the
wait for the dispensation rather than any reluctance on Henry's part? If
Henry and EoY went ahead and married, without that second dispensation in
hand, the legality of the marriage would depend entirely on the future
receipt of the dispensation allowing the marriage which might, or more
importantly might not, ever be received.
Without that second dispensation then, any children resulting from Henry's
marriage to EoY would be illegitimate, which would put the spanking new
Tudor "dynasty" right smack in the same place the Yorkists were: *who* was
the legitimate heir!
Would that last be correct or is it too "what if-ing"?
Doug
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-28 17:41:26
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the premature birth for Arthur. IIRC EofY had a subsequent premature birth. Given the issues surrounding the birth of EIV, do we know if Cecily had similar problems with her due dates? Was Edward her first child? If so, might that contribute to his not arriving 'on time'?
________________________________
________________________________
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-28 18:03:31
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion regarding the premature birth for Arthur. IIRC EofY had a subsequent premature birth. Â Given the issues surrounding the birth of EIV, do we know if Cecily had similar problems with her due dates? was Edward her first child? If so, might that contribute to his not arriving 'on time'?
Carol responds:
Edward was either the second or the third child. The first son was Henry ("Lord Harry" in the famous rhyme ("Richard liveth yet"), if I recall correctly). He died in childhood. Edward's sister Anne was also older, born in 1439. Some secondary sources list the first child as Joan (died in childhood or infancy), but neither the rhyme nor William of Worcester mentions her. She may be the invention of
Alison Weir! Regardless, Edward was not the first child.
We know nothing about Cecily's due dates, only the amount of time between births.
Carol
>
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion regarding the premature birth for Arthur. IIRC EofY had a subsequent premature birth. Â Given the issues surrounding the birth of EIV, do we know if Cecily had similar problems with her due dates? was Edward her first child? If so, might that contribute to his not arriving 'on time'?
Carol responds:
Edward was either the second or the third child. The first son was Henry ("Lord Harry" in the famous rhyme ("Richard liveth yet"), if I recall correctly). He died in childhood. Edward's sister Anne was also older, born in 1439. Some secondary sources list the first child as Joan (died in childhood or infancy), but neither the rhyme nor William of Worcester mentions her. She may be the invention of
Alison Weir! Regardless, Edward was not the first child.
We know nothing about Cecily's due dates, only the amount of time between births.
Carol
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-28 18:11:53
Thanks Carol.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion regarding the premature birth for Arthur. IIRC EofY had a subsequent premature birth. Â Given the issues surrounding the birth of EIV, do we know if Cecily had similar problems with her due dates? was Edward her first child? If so, might that contribute to his not arriving 'on time'?
Carol responds:
Edward was either the second or the third child. The first son was Henry ("Lord Harry" in the famous rhyme ("Richard liveth yet"), if I recall correctly). He died in childhood. Edward's sister Anne was also older, born in 1439. Some secondary sources list the first child as Joan (died in childhood or infancy), but neither the rhyme nor William of Worcester mentions her. She may be the invention of
Alison Weir! Regardless, Edward was not the first child.
We know nothing about Cecily's due dates, only the amount of time between births.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion regarding the premature birth for Arthur. IIRC EofY had a subsequent premature birth. Â Given the issues surrounding the birth of EIV, do we know if Cecily had similar problems with her due dates? was Edward her first child? If so, might that contribute to his not arriving 'on time'?
Carol responds:
Edward was either the second or the third child. The first son was Henry ("Lord Harry" in the famous rhyme ("Richard liveth yet"), if I recall correctly). He died in childhood. Edward's sister Anne was also older, born in 1439. Some secondary sources list the first child as Joan (died in childhood or infancy), but neither the rhyme nor William of Worcester mentions her. She may be the invention of
Alison Weir! Regardless, Edward was not the first child.
We know nothing about Cecily's due dates, only the amount of time between births.
Carol
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-28 18:28:27
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was
> very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the
> couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that
> they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It
> just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not."
>
> Doug here:
> So any "delay" in Henry's marriage to EoY might best be explanied by the
> wait for the dispensation rather than any reluctance on Henry's part?
No, I've obviously not been very clear. There was nothing wrong with the first dispensation, so Henry could quite easily have married Elizabeth as soon as she came south. Henry had evidently got the wedding preparations underway BEFORE getting the second dispensation. As I said, the second dispensation - coming as it does only two days before the wedding - looks like a last-minute change of plan. As I said, it dispensed the same impediment of consanguinity as the frst dispensation. The difference lies in the depositions from witnesses assuring the papal rep. that Elizabeth was willing, and insinuating (without actually stating) that her father had also favoured this match. What we have, it seems to me, is an attempt to counter objections being raised after the announcement of the marriage (you know - "If anyone should know of any impediment"...) that there was indeed an impediment, and it was that Elizabeth had been snatched from her own family and was being forced into marrying Tudor.
Marie
If
> Henry and EoY went ahead and married, without that second dispensation in
> hand, the legality of the marriage would depend entirely on the future
> receipt of the dispensation allowing the marriage which might, or more
> importantly might not, ever be received.
They had the first dispensation, that mustn't be forgotten. But not having the accusations of force formally investigated and rejected by the Church (which is, in my view, what the second dispensation was all about) would have left the way open for the marriage to annulled at the behest of Henry's political enemies on said grounds of force - or even set aside by parliament like Edward IV's marriage. It was not uncommon for the relevant local bishop to be asked to establish that a bride was not being forced before ratifying the papal dispensation, and what was happening here was something similar, I think.
Marie
> Without that second dispensation then, any children resulting from Henry's
> marriage to EoY would be illegitimate, which would put the spanking new
> Tudor "dynasty" right smack in the same place the Yorkists were: *who* was
> the legitimate heir!
> Would that last be correct or is it too "what if-ing"?
> Doug
>
It's not too "what-iffing", I think, but you've over-simplified it. Before the 1484 dispensation was found, the wait for a dispensation was often given by historians as an excuse for Henry's delay in marrying Elizabeth. That argument no longer holds. What was going on was rather more complicated. It seems to me there is evidence that Henry put off marrying Elizabeth for other reasons, and in the end went ahead only when forced to by Parliament.
Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
I suspect another factor leading to suspicions of force was that maybe (and here I am speculating) Elizabeth Woodville did not want the marriage to go ahead. The evidence suggests she did not know her sons were dead, so why on earth would she wish to set her sons and her daughter against each other dynastically in this way? If Elizabeth's relatives were still eager for the match, why were none of them asked to give evidence to the papal legate? If Elizabeth Woodville had agreed to this marriage during Richard's reign, why is this not mentioned amongst all these pages of depositions?
I really think the political realities at the start of Henry VII's reign were far murkier than we have been led to believe.
Marie
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was
> very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the
> couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that
> they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It
> just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not."
>
> Doug here:
> So any "delay" in Henry's marriage to EoY might best be explanied by the
> wait for the dispensation rather than any reluctance on Henry's part?
No, I've obviously not been very clear. There was nothing wrong with the first dispensation, so Henry could quite easily have married Elizabeth as soon as she came south. Henry had evidently got the wedding preparations underway BEFORE getting the second dispensation. As I said, the second dispensation - coming as it does only two days before the wedding - looks like a last-minute change of plan. As I said, it dispensed the same impediment of consanguinity as the frst dispensation. The difference lies in the depositions from witnesses assuring the papal rep. that Elizabeth was willing, and insinuating (without actually stating) that her father had also favoured this match. What we have, it seems to me, is an attempt to counter objections being raised after the announcement of the marriage (you know - "If anyone should know of any impediment"...) that there was indeed an impediment, and it was that Elizabeth had been snatched from her own family and was being forced into marrying Tudor.
Marie
If
> Henry and EoY went ahead and married, without that second dispensation in
> hand, the legality of the marriage would depend entirely on the future
> receipt of the dispensation allowing the marriage which might, or more
> importantly might not, ever be received.
They had the first dispensation, that mustn't be forgotten. But not having the accusations of force formally investigated and rejected by the Church (which is, in my view, what the second dispensation was all about) would have left the way open for the marriage to annulled at the behest of Henry's political enemies on said grounds of force - or even set aside by parliament like Edward IV's marriage. It was not uncommon for the relevant local bishop to be asked to establish that a bride was not being forced before ratifying the papal dispensation, and what was happening here was something similar, I think.
Marie
> Without that second dispensation then, any children resulting from Henry's
> marriage to EoY would be illegitimate, which would put the spanking new
> Tudor "dynasty" right smack in the same place the Yorkists were: *who* was
> the legitimate heir!
> Would that last be correct or is it too "what if-ing"?
> Doug
>
It's not too "what-iffing", I think, but you've over-simplified it. Before the 1484 dispensation was found, the wait for a dispensation was often given by historians as an excuse for Henry's delay in marrying Elizabeth. That argument no longer holds. What was going on was rather more complicated. It seems to me there is evidence that Henry put off marrying Elizabeth for other reasons, and in the end went ahead only when forced to by Parliament.
Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
I suspect another factor leading to suspicions of force was that maybe (and here I am speculating) Elizabeth Woodville did not want the marriage to go ahead. The evidence suggests she did not know her sons were dead, so why on earth would she wish to set her sons and her daughter against each other dynastically in this way? If Elizabeth's relatives were still eager for the match, why were none of them asked to give evidence to the papal legate? If Elizabeth Woodville had agreed to this marriage during Richard's reign, why is this not mentioned amongst all these pages of depositions?
I really think the political realities at the start of Henry VII's reign were far murkier than we have been led to believe.
Marie
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales - a c
2013-07-28 19:43:28
--- In , mariewalsh2003 > >
> > Marie wrote:
> Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
Marie adds:
What I meant was that it was not canonically necessary for the bride's family to be willing - only her own consent was required - but it WAS necessary that she should NOT marry from the household of her abductor. She could have been given into Cecily's care, but maybe Cecily wasn't playing ball either - who knows?
Given that Henry must have had Elizabeth brought south by an armed escort, he was on quite shaky ground so far as appearances were concerned even if Elizabeth herself was willing.
> > Marie wrote:
> Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
Marie adds:
What I meant was that it was not canonically necessary for the bride's family to be willing - only her own consent was required - but it WAS necessary that she should NOT marry from the household of her abductor. She could have been given into Cecily's care, but maybe Cecily wasn't playing ball either - who knows?
Given that Henry must have had Elizabeth brought south by an armed escort, he was on quite shaky ground so far as appearances were concerned even if Elizabeth herself was willing.
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales - a c
2013-07-28 20:42:13
Has anyone included Tydder's reluctance to immediately marry Elizabeth of York in a List of Reasons Why the Tower Lads May Have Survived Their Uncle?
If not, it should be included IMO.
Tamara
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
>
> Marie adds:
> What I meant was that it was not canonically necessary for the bride's family to be willing - only her own consent was required - but it WAS necessary that she should NOT marry from the household of her abductor. She could have been given into Cecily's care, but maybe Cecily wasn't playing ball either - who knows?
> Given that Henry must have had Elizabeth brought south by an armed escort, he was on quite shaky ground so far as appearances were concerned even if Elizabeth herself was willing.
>
If not, it should be included IMO.
Tamara
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 > >
> > > Marie wrote:
> > Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
>
> Marie adds:
> What I meant was that it was not canonically necessary for the bride's family to be willing - only her own consent was required - but it WAS necessary that she should NOT marry from the household of her abductor. She could have been given into Cecily's care, but maybe Cecily wasn't playing ball either - who knows?
> Given that Henry must have had Elizabeth brought south by an armed escort, he was on quite shaky ground so far as appearances were concerned even if Elizabeth herself was willing.
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-28 23:22:58
Elizabeth preferring to remain a bastard over marrying Henry is a fascinating possibility, and this discussion is riveting. Like peering behind the scenes to see what might have gone on before MB and her beloved son could begin rewriting history.
~Weds
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was
> > very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the
> > couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that
> > they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It
> > just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > So any "delay" in Henry's marriage to EoY might best be explanied by the
> > wait for the dispensation rather than any reluctance on Henry's part?
>
>
> No, I've obviously not been very clear. There was nothing wrong with the first dispensation, so Henry could quite easily have married Elizabeth as soon as she came south. Henry had evidently got the wedding preparations underway BEFORE getting the second dispensation. As I said, the second dispensation - coming as it does only two days before the wedding - looks like a last-minute change of plan. As I said, it dispensed the same impediment of consanguinity as the frst dispensation. The difference lies in the depositions from witnesses assuring the papal rep. that Elizabeth was willing, and insinuating (without actually stating) that her father had also favoured this match. What we have, it seems to me, is an attempt to counter objections being raised after the announcement of the marriage (you know - "If anyone should know of any impediment"...) that there was indeed an impediment, and it was that Elizabeth had been snatched from her own family and was being forced into marrying Tudor.
> Marie
>
>
> If
> > Henry and EoY went ahead and married, without that second dispensation in
> > hand, the legality of the marriage would depend entirely on the future
> > receipt of the dispensation allowing the marriage which might, or more
> > importantly might not, ever be received.
>
> They had the first dispensation, that mustn't be forgotten. But not having the accusations of force formally investigated and rejected by the Church (which is, in my view, what the second dispensation was all about) would have left the way open for the marriage to annulled at the behest of Henry's political enemies on said grounds of force - or even set aside by parliament like Edward IV's marriage. It was not uncommon for the relevant local bishop to be asked to establish that a bride was not being forced before ratifying the papal dispensation, and what was happening here was something similar, I think.
> Marie
>
>
> > Without that second dispensation then, any children resulting from Henry's
> > marriage to EoY would be illegitimate, which would put the spanking new
> > Tudor "dynasty" right smack in the same place the Yorkists were: *who* was
> > the legitimate heir!
> > Would that last be correct or is it too "what if-ing"?
> > Doug
> >
>
> It's not too "what-iffing", I think, but you've over-simplified it. Before the 1484 dispensation was found, the wait for a dispensation was often given by historians as an excuse for Henry's delay in marrying Elizabeth. That argument no longer holds. What was going on was rather more complicated. It seems to me there is evidence that Henry put off marrying Elizabeth for other reasons, and in the end went ahead only when forced to by Parliament.
> Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
> I suspect another factor leading to suspicions of force was that maybe (and here I am speculating) Elizabeth Woodville did not want the marriage to go ahead. The evidence suggests she did not know her sons were dead, so why on earth would she wish to set her sons and her daughter against each other dynastically in this way? If Elizabeth's relatives were still eager for the match, why were none of them asked to give evidence to the papal legate? If Elizabeth Woodville had agreed to this marriage during Richard's reign, why is this not mentioned amongst all these pages of depositions?
> I really think the political realities at the start of Henry VII's reign were far murkier than we have been led to believe.
> Marie
>
~Weds
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > "I ought to have added that applying for a dispensation retrospectively was
> > very much frowned on. It could be refused, and even if it weren't, the
> > couple were likely to be given a penance. This was often a stipulation that
> > they stopped cohabiting for a full year. A bit humiliating for a monarch. It
> > just isn't the way diplomatic marriages were gone about. Absolutely not."
> >
> > Doug here:
> > So any "delay" in Henry's marriage to EoY might best be explanied by the
> > wait for the dispensation rather than any reluctance on Henry's part?
>
>
> No, I've obviously not been very clear. There was nothing wrong with the first dispensation, so Henry could quite easily have married Elizabeth as soon as she came south. Henry had evidently got the wedding preparations underway BEFORE getting the second dispensation. As I said, the second dispensation - coming as it does only two days before the wedding - looks like a last-minute change of plan. As I said, it dispensed the same impediment of consanguinity as the frst dispensation. The difference lies in the depositions from witnesses assuring the papal rep. that Elizabeth was willing, and insinuating (without actually stating) that her father had also favoured this match. What we have, it seems to me, is an attempt to counter objections being raised after the announcement of the marriage (you know - "If anyone should know of any impediment"...) that there was indeed an impediment, and it was that Elizabeth had been snatched from her own family and was being forced into marrying Tudor.
> Marie
>
>
> If
> > Henry and EoY went ahead and married, without that second dispensation in
> > hand, the legality of the marriage would depend entirely on the future
> > receipt of the dispensation allowing the marriage which might, or more
> > importantly might not, ever be received.
>
> They had the first dispensation, that mustn't be forgotten. But not having the accusations of force formally investigated and rejected by the Church (which is, in my view, what the second dispensation was all about) would have left the way open for the marriage to annulled at the behest of Henry's political enemies on said grounds of force - or even set aside by parliament like Edward IV's marriage. It was not uncommon for the relevant local bishop to be asked to establish that a bride was not being forced before ratifying the papal dispensation, and what was happening here was something similar, I think.
> Marie
>
>
> > Without that second dispensation then, any children resulting from Henry's
> > marriage to EoY would be illegitimate, which would put the spanking new
> > Tudor "dynasty" right smack in the same place the Yorkists were: *who* was
> > the legitimate heir!
> > Would that last be correct or is it too "what if-ing"?
> > Doug
> >
>
> It's not too "what-iffing", I think, but you've over-simplified it. Before the 1484 dispensation was found, the wait for a dispensation was often given by historians as an excuse for Henry's delay in marrying Elizabeth. That argument no longer holds. What was going on was rather more complicated. It seems to me there is evidence that Henry put off marrying Elizabeth for other reasons, and in the end went ahead only when forced to by Parliament.
> Given that he now had to marry Elizabeth, his having placed her in his mother's household posed a problem. This was exactly the sort of situation that normally led to claims of forced marriage. Henry should really have sent her back to her mother, or placed her in sanctuary, so that people could see she was willing - and, preferably, that her family were willing too, although this was not canonically necessary.
> I suspect another factor leading to suspicions of force was that maybe (and here I am speculating) Elizabeth Woodville did not want the marriage to go ahead. The evidence suggests she did not know her sons were dead, so why on earth would she wish to set her sons and her daughter against each other dynastically in this way? If Elizabeth's relatives were still eager for the match, why were none of them asked to give evidence to the papal legate? If Elizabeth Woodville had agreed to this marriage during Richard's reign, why is this not mentioned amongst all these pages of depositions?
> I really think the political realities at the start of Henry VII's reign were far murkier than we have been led to believe.
> Marie
>
Re: Premature Birth for Arthur Prince of Wales
2013-07-29 15:15:23
Marie wrote:
"No, I've obviously not been very clear. There was nothing wrong with the
first dispensation, so Henry could quite easily have married Elizabeth as
soon as she came south. Henry had evidently got the wedding preparations
underway BEFORE getting the second dispensation. As I said, the second
dispensation - coming as it does only two days before the wedding - looks
like a last-minute change of plan. As I said, it dispensed the same
impediment of consanguinity as the frst dispensation. The difference lies in
the depositions from witnesses assuring the papal rep. that Elizabeth was
willing, and insinuating (without actually stating) that her father had also
favoured this match. What we have, it seems to me, is an attempt to counter
objections being raised after the announcement of the marriage (you know -
"If anyone should know of any impediment"...) that there was indeed an
impediment, and it was that Elizabeth had been snatched from her own family
and was being forced into marrying Tudor."
Doug here:
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding! I'd completely missed that,
because EoY had been moved into Henry's/MB's household, any marriage between
her and Henry could *appear* to be forced, whether it was or not. Odd
though, that neither MB or Henry either thought of it or made arrangements
to prevent such a claim beforehand.
However, by waiting on the arrival of the second dispensation, Henry was
insuring that any of his children with EoY would be beyond a doubt
legitimate. Then, as long as Henry survived to pass the throne on to his
heir, there would be no question about that heir's *legal* right to
inherit.
Which could also go a long way in insuring whether his heir retained the
throne. Well-documented legal possession would make it just that much harder
to justify any opposition.
Thanks again!
Doug
"No, I've obviously not been very clear. There was nothing wrong with the
first dispensation, so Henry could quite easily have married Elizabeth as
soon as she came south. Henry had evidently got the wedding preparations
underway BEFORE getting the second dispensation. As I said, the second
dispensation - coming as it does only two days before the wedding - looks
like a last-minute change of plan. As I said, it dispensed the same
impediment of consanguinity as the frst dispensation. The difference lies in
the depositions from witnesses assuring the papal rep. that Elizabeth was
willing, and insinuating (without actually stating) that her father had also
favoured this match. What we have, it seems to me, is an attempt to counter
objections being raised after the announcement of the marriage (you know -
"If anyone should know of any impediment"...) that there was indeed an
impediment, and it was that Elizabeth had been snatched from her own family
and was being forced into marrying Tudor."
Doug here:
Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding! I'd completely missed that,
because EoY had been moved into Henry's/MB's household, any marriage between
her and Henry could *appear* to be forced, whether it was or not. Odd
though, that neither MB or Henry either thought of it or made arrangements
to prevent such a claim beforehand.
However, by waiting on the arrival of the second dispensation, Henry was
insuring that any of his children with EoY would be beyond a doubt
legitimate. Then, as long as Henry survived to pass the throne on to his
heir, there would be no question about that heir's *legal* right to
inherit.
Which could also go a long way in insuring whether his heir retained the
throne. Well-documented legal possession would make it just that much harder
to justify any opposition.
Thanks again!
Doug
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.