Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was found is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dispensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

"No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers." Does this remind us of someone or something? Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:04, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since? Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

Private and research study purposes.Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.Criticism and news reporting.Incidental inclusion.Copies and lending by librarians.Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since? Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation

I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

 Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8.    Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since?   Sandra =^..^=   From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation    

I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how  do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

 

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly  after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat  Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Here's mine in note form, rather longer & less coherent as I re-read most of the book. Ignore it if it comes across as clutter! Checking dispensations for the marriage of Gloucester & Anne Neville for private research & study, lending for educational purposes: Unions between partners within up to 4 degrees of kinship banned, i.e. descended from a common great-grandparent. Known as consanguinity. Unions between partners related by a relative's marriage/intercourse, where the latter became one flesh & their in-laws became relatives. Called affinity. Church could abrogate a marriage that broke these conditions & declare its offspring illegitimate but royalty & nobility often intermarried so were able to obtain dispensations from papal penitentiary Clarence & Isabel Neville first cousins once removed, related in second degree, her great-grandmother was his great-aunt, both descended from Edward III. Edward IV obstructed Warwick, father to Isabel & Anne, in his application for a dispensation; Warwick got the king's own agent to apply on his behalf, & also a licence for them to marry in Calais where he, Warwick, was captain. Anne N now sister-in-law, sister according to rule on affinity, to Clarence, the King & Queen, dukes & duchesses of Burgundy, Exeter & Suffolk. [NB Gloucester not mentioned in this list. Kept back for dramatic effect?] Warwick rebelled against Edward IV, planned a marriage for Anne N with Edward of Lancaster as part of deal with Queen /Margaret of Anjou. After their engagement Anne & Edward L found to be related in the fourth degree, marriage delayed till Warwick's army defeated Edward IV. Fiancés shared a great-great-grandfather, John of Gaunt. So  3 dispensations applied for: 1] for them to marry 2] if they had married, being aware of this relationship or not, to remain married anyway & be absolved 3] any offspring to be legitimate First 2 redundant, 3rd one had Anne's diocese of birth wrong, so another dispensation obtained from patriarch of Jerusalem aka Bishop of Bayeux. Finally married on 13/12/1470 at Amboise. Anne then widowed at battle of Tewkesbury. Number of impediments to marriage of Gloucester & Anne: Related in same degree as Clarence & Isabel had been. Edward of Lancaster first cousin to them both They were brother in law & sister in law, i.e brother & sister by affinity in 1st degree due to Clarence/Isabel marriage. They knew this yet flouted it which was sinful in the eyes of contemporaries. Dispensation applied for to cover impediments in 3rd & 4th degrees of affinity. Granted 22/04/1472. Found in registers of papal penitentiary according to text. Gloucester & E of Lancaster both great-grandsons of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome. Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less likely to be granted anyway. Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester & Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer 1472. Act of June 1474 settled Anne's inheritance, made provision for divorce/nullity of their marriage. Gloucester to retain Anne's lands if marriage was annulled. So dispensation for 1st/2nd degrees not yet obtained. No certainty one would be granted. Maybe it was never requested. Perhaps Clarence wanted the nullity provision inserted in 1474 so that on Gloucester's death Clarence's children would inherit the lands. Undispensed impediments not widely known at time. Gloucester's marriage never queried in his lifetime. In modern times it is seen as invalid. Anticipating a dispensation & marrying before its arrival quite common for royalty. Exceptional not to apply for one at all. Gloucester less committed to Anne than she to him. Crowland on Christmas 1484: it was said by many that the king was applying his mind in every way to contacting a marriage with Elizabeth [of York] either after the death of the queen, or by means of a divorce for which he believed he had sufficient grounds. Divorce can only be from a living wife so idea of it must be earlier than when Anne's death was close. No son & heir to protect by then, no likelihood of Anne conceiving, no need to hang on to her lands as he had crown lands, so divorce contemplated. Elizabeth of York apparently willing to marry the King despite monumental impediments, incestuous relationship. Councillors dissuaded the king. Death of Anne made divorce unnecessary anyway. Ugh. Jan.
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 22:57
Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
Here's a not-detailed summary of Hicks' understanding of the papal dispensation(s) and what he thinks was lacking. To him, Richard and Anne needed dispensations for the following:
1. Related the same as Isabel and Clarence, in the 2nd degree (first cousins once removed), and twice in the 4th degree (Anne's great-grandmother was Richard's great-aunt, and both were descendants of Edward III.)
2. Further distant tie created by Anne's 1st marriage to Edward Prince of Wales. 3. Connection by the marriage of Clarence to Isabel which created Anne and Richard brother-in-law and sister-in-law, related in 1st degree of affinity (i.e., in 15th-century relationships, this meant Richard was Anne's brother and Anne was Richard's siste). The dispensation of 22 April 1472 was to dispense impediments in the 3rd (sic -- not sure what this relationship was, but the dispensation we know about covered it) and 4th degrees of affinity. A "declaratory letter" was also issued. So, to summarize, Hicks argues that Richard and Anne were not only related in the third and fourth degree (for which they did obtain a dispensation), they were also related in the first degree because of the previous marriage of Clarence and Isabel, which made them brother and sister. Hicks claims Richard never obtained a dispensation for the brother/sister degree, so Richard allegedly locked Anne into an incestuous marriage and covered his behind through parliamentary act so that he could keep Anne's lands/property if the invalid marriage was ever discovered and dissolved. This, and the accusation that Richard was intending to marry Elizabeth (Hicks glows off the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain, implying by his silence they weren't begun until after Anne's death) is the basis of Hicks' argument that: 1. Richard and Anne's marriage was never valid. 2. Richard was a "serial incestor" (Hicks' description) -- among other things.
~Weds

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote: My understanding is that we are permitted to copy no more than 5% of a publication - and are not seeking to breach this. ----- Original Message ----- From: wednesday.mac@... To: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:12 PM Subject: RE: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation
Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds


--- In , <> wrote: Marie responds, Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright? How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph? This is from a guide to copyright law: "8. Acts that are allowed Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are: Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)" I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view. Marie --- In , <> wrote: "No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers."
Does this remind us of someone or something?
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:04, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since? Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.
Sent from my iPad On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Marie responds, I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of! Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister. I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage. This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote. Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas! Marie --- In , <> wrote: So Michael Hicks claims that Richard/Anne's marriage wasn't valid, that they were short one dispensation. I think I remember this being rebutted ea rlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks? Thanks. ~Weds -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Marie responds,

Will do. This is greatly appreciated. But I probably won't be able to pick it up now for a couple of weeks as I am leaving for hols lunchtime.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie responds,

Will do. This is greatly appreciated. But I probably won't be able to pick it up now for a couple of weeks as I am leaving for hols lunchtime.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie replies,

Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.

1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.

2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.

3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).

In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.

Me signing off.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie adds

Wednesday, that is a fine summary - thanks very much . Don't worry about emailing me the scan.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Sandra wrote:

" More importantly (to me), I thought there was always an agreement of some sort during childhood, that Richard and Anne would marry, and it was broken when she was taken away and forced' to marry Edward of Lancaster. So...if Richard and Anne were as good as betrothed, or actually were betrothed, that would not only predate Edward of Lancaster, but might predate George and Isabel as well? Which couple then could be deemed to be the ones committing incest'? Might Isabel's marriage have been invalid, not Anne's?"

Marie quick response:

Lots of points here. First we need to be careful to use betrothal in its canonical sense, not in the loose sense often employed by historians. A plan by a girl's parents to marry her off to so-and-so did not constitute a betrothal and in no way put her under obligation. There would only be a betrothal that meant something if Richard and Anne and/or George and Isabel had themselves exchanged words of consent for the future, and even then this would be voided by subsequent marriage to someone else. Also, words of marriage (never mind betrothal) exchanged by children under the age of consent (12 for a girl, 14 for a boy) could be renounced once the age of consent was reached.

Secondly, there really, really was no bar at all to two sets of siblings marrying. George and Isabel's marriage can have had no effect on the validity of Richard and Anne's, and vice versa. It was not incest; this is a product of Michael Hicks' fevered imagination.

Sandra wrote:

"Of course, if George and Isabel had a betrothal' at the same time as Richard and Anne, my musings come to nothing. And it would all depend upon how binding such an early betrothal/s could be. There would presumably not have been any consummation, given the ages, but that aside, how formal were such betrothals? If Richard and Anne subsequently stated they considered their first betrothal to be valid, and that they wished to proceed accordingly, did that make the betrothal sound? And if there had been such an early betrothal, might dispensation have been sought back then, to be on the safe side?"

Marie responds,

Perhaps read my previous posts again, Sandra. Unless Richard and Anne had themselves exchanged a proper promise for the future ("I will marry thee"), which seems unlikely, then there was no betrothal (ie no plighting of troth). Had they done so, however, it would have been voided by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster so they would then have needed to start again.

That a dispensation would have been sought "back then" is precisely what I have been arguing. There needn't have been a betrothal for this to occur. Indeed, they couldn't have made a binding promise to marry until the impediments had been cleared out of the way. It just seems daft to assume that Warwick would have gone through all that secret diplomacy at the Vatican - something like two years of it - all for a dispensation for just Isabel's marriage. Richard wouldn't have needed to consent for a dispensation to be issued for him to marry Anne; it was not an obligation to marry and could be applied for by either side independently.

Certainly there was no sex before Anne married Edward of L. Had there been, then her dispensation to marry Edward would also have included an impediment of affinity!

Can I just put in a plea before I go that people read my article in the Ricardian (Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce') and ignore Michael Hicks' claims, which are completely misleading. I think my article can be downloaded from the list of Ricardians on the Society website now, but if not it is also available in the Files section of this forum.

Bye all,

Marie

Sandra wrote:

"We speak of how willing Anne may or may not have been to marry Richard (and vice versa), but how willing were Isabel and George? Did both sisters love/want the York brothers who became their husband? And vice versa?"

Marie responds:

There's a big gulf in social atitudes between the 15th and 21st centuries. When we hear of forced marriage we tend to think of parental force or pressure. When members of the 15th landed classes talked of forced marriages, they tended to think of dastardly rogues on the making seducing their daughters and carrying them off to marry them for their money, or worse still actually highway-robbing them and trying to talk/theaten them into marriage from imprisonment. Common law had already gone some way to outlawing this sort of ungentlemanly behaviour, but it really wasn't the same thing as the canon law definition of "raptus" or forced marriage although the two overlapped.

Clarence, who (as the Milanese Ambassador observed in the same sentence) wanted to keep all of Warwick's inheritance for himself. was thinking of the dastardly rogue type of forced marriage. That Isabel might have had to be persuaded a bit before agreeing to marry him would not have crossed his mind s a problem. nor would it have been, provided only the normal verbal persuasion was used, and not too much to have swayed someone "of constant mind". Had she been beaten up or threatened with death, that would have been another matter entirely. Being 'in love' wasn't necessary to informed consent.

I'm just wondering now whether, once his attempt to get Richard and Anne canonically divorced had failed, Clarence wouldn't have tried to exert pressure on Edward to get Richard and Anne's children classified as bastards in common law for the purposes of inheritance. I bet that's what he'd have done if he'd ever become king, at any rate.

Marie

//snip//

"2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular."

//snip//

Marie replies,

Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.

1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.

2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.

3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).

In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.

Me signing off.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Would that Hicks did the thorough research that you have done Marie.

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was found is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dispensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie replies,

Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.

1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.

2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.

3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't  have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).

In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.

Me signing off.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

 Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8.    Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly  after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat  Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie - I am completely sympathetic to your unhappiness.  The Society has funded & published some very good scholarship on subjects relevant to Richard's life & time, & then hidden the work away in a journal that is not sufficiently visible to convince mainstream historians or their students. I have an academic appointment at a large research university in the US, that is also well known for its libraries & library school (item #1 in the microfilm collection is the umpteen thousand reels of the Burney collection of English newspapers with broadsides & newspapers going back to the time of the English Civil War. There are numerous online databases available to me, including EEBO (early English books online which claims to include images of every page of 125,000 books published in England & her colonies before 1700), etc etc, but I don't have access to the Ricardian, other than as the Society begins to put them on-line.  So if the Society has aimed at influencing main-stream historians & through them the general public, I'd say it's a long way from its goal. 
I could ramble on, but it might be wisest to stop here.
A J

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:30 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Marie replies,

Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.

1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.

2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.

3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't  have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).

In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.

Me signing off.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

 Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8.    Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly  after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat  Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

I'll make sure not to read any Hicks then!
He's right off the list.

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 10:30
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation

Marie replies,Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.Me signing off.Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Here's a not-detailed summary of Hicks' understanding of the papal dispensation(s) and what he thinks was lacking. To him, Richard and Anne needed dispensations for the following:

1. Related the same as Isabel and Clarence, in the 2nd degree (first cousins once removed), and twice in the 4th degree (Anne's great-grandmother was Richard's great-aunt, and both were descendants of Edward III.)

2. Further distant tie created by Anne's 1st marriage to Edward Prince of Wales.

3. Connection by the marriage of Clarence to Isabel which created Anne and Richard brother-in-law and sister-in-law, related in 1st degree of affinity (i.e., in 15th-century relationships, this meant Richard was Anne's brother and Anne was Richard's siste).

The dispensation of 22 April 1472 was to dispense impediments in the 3rd (sic -- not sure what this relationship was, but the dispensation we know about covered it) and 4th degrees of affinity. A "declaratory letter" was also issued.

So, to summarize, Hicks argues that Richard and Anne were not only related in the third and fourth degree (for which they did obtain a dispensation), they were also related in the first degree because of the previous marriage of Clarence and Isabel, which made them brother and sister. Hicks claims Richard never obtained a dispensation for the brother/sister degree, so Richard allegedly locked Anne into an incestuous marriage and covered his behind through parliamentary act so that he could keep Anne's lands/property if the invalid marriage was ever discovered and dissolved.

This, and the accusation that Richard was intending to marry Elizabeth (Hicks glows off the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain, implying by his silence they weren't begun until after Anne's death) is the basis of Hicks' argument that:

1. Richard and Anne's marriage was never valid.
2. Richard was a "serial incestor" (Hicks' description) -- among other things.

~Weds



On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
My understanding is that we are permitted to copy no more than 5% of a publication - and are not seeking to breach this. ----- Original Message ----- From: wednesday.mac@... To: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:12 PM Subject: RE: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation
Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds




--- In , <> wrote:

Marie responds, Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright? How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph? This is from a guide to copyright law: "8. Acts that are allowed Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are: Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)" I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view. Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

"No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers."
Does this remind us of someone or something?
Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:04, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since? Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Marie responds, I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of! Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister. I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage. This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote. Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas! Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

So Michael Hicks claims that Richard/Anne's marriage wasn't valid, that they were short one dispensation.

I think I remember this being rebutted ea rlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks?

Thanks.
~Weds


--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

As Marie has pointed out Hicks is wrong on several points. But misunderstanding consanguinity (which he should have understood) isn't as bad as this glaring error

Sandra wrote:

" More importantly (to me), I thought there was always an agreement of some sort during childhood, that Richard and Anne would marry, and it was broken when she was taken away and forced' to marry Edward of Lancaster. So...if Richard and Anne were as good as betrothed, or actually were betrothed, that would not only predate Edward of Lancaster, but might predate George and Isabel as well? Which couple then could be deemed to be the ones committing incest'? Might Isabel's marriage have been invalid, not Anne's?"

Marie quick response:

Lots of points here. First we need to be careful to use betrothal in its canonical sense, not in the loose sense often employed by historians. A plan by a girl's parents to marry her off to so-and-so did not constitute a betrothal and in no way put her under obligation. There would only be a betrothal that meant something if Richard and Anne and/or George and Isabel had themselves exchanged words of consent for the future, and even then this would be voided by subsequent marriage to someone else. Also, words of marriage (never mind betrothal) exchanged by children under the age of consent (12 for a girl, 14 for a boy) could be renounced once the age of consent was reached.

Secondly, there really, really was no bar at all to two sets of siblings marrying. George and Isabel's marriage can have had no effect on the validity of Richard and Anne's, and vice versa. It was not incest; this is a product of Michael Hicks' fevered imagination.

Sandra wrote:

"Of course, if George and Isabel had a betrothal' at the same time as Richard and Anne, my musings come to nothing. And it would all depend upon how binding such an early betrothal/s could be. There would presumably not have been any consummation, given the ages, but that aside, how formal were such betrothals? If Richard and Anne subsequently stated they considered their first betrothal to be valid, and that they wished to proceed accordingly, did that make the betrothal sound? And if there had been such an early betrothal, might dispensation have been sought back then, to be on the safe side?"

Marie responds,

Perhaps read my previous posts again, Sandra. Unless Richard and Anne had themselves exchanged a proper promise for the future ("I will marry thee"), which seems unlikely, then there was no betrothal (ie no plighting of troth). Had they done so, however, it would have been voided by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster so they would then have needed to start again.

That a dispensation would have been sought "back then" is precisely what I have been arguing. There needn't have been a betrothal for this to occur. Indeed, they couldn't have made a binding promise to marry until the impediments had been cleared out of the way. It just seems daft to assume that Warwick would have gone through all that secret diplomacy at the Vatican - something like two years of it - all for a dispensation for just Isabel's marriage. Richard wouldn't have needed to consent for a dispensation to be issued for him to marry Anne; it was not an obligation to marry and could be applied for by either side independently.

Certainly there was no sex before Anne married Edward of L. Had there been, then her dispensation to marry Edward would also have included an impediment of affinity!

Can I just put in a plea before I go that people read my article in the Ricardian (Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce') and ignore Michael Hicks' claims, which are completely misleading. I think my article can be downloaded from the list of Ricardians on the Society website now, but if not it is also available in the Files section of this forum.

Bye all,

Marie

To be fair Hicks (says she ducking rotten tomatoes) isn't the only one to get it wrong. Wilkinson says Richard's 'dark secret' is that he flouted collateral consanguinity by marrying the sister of his brother's wife. But in fact, as I read it, that only applies to marrying your sibling's widow/widower, like Henry VIII, not sisters marrying brothers, which has always been quite common. She even goes a step further by saying that Warwick wouldn't have sought a dispensation for Richard to marry Anne at the same time as one for Isabel and George, because he intended George to inherit it all. Actually that's not uncommon; until very recently the eldest did inherit all and the others relied on his generosity.  I have to say I do wonder if any of this would have affected Richard's reputation anyway had he not been accused of killing two kids? Everything else is part of the witch hunt to prove he was always a wicked person. Until the big mystery is solved (if ever) we will always struggle with this.  H
From: "tandjules@..." <tandjules@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 1:52
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
  As Marie has pointed out Hicks is wrong on several points.  But misunderstanding consanguinity (which he should have understood) isn't as bad as this glaring error   "Number of impediments to marriage of Gloucester & Anne:Edward of Lancaster first cousin to them both" That is just flat out wrong and a ridiculous error for a "historian" to make.  IMHOI seriously wonder how on earth he came up w/ that whopper.  Ed of L certainly had no Neville, Beauchamp or York blood that would have made him a first cousin of either. --- In , <> wrote: Here's mine in note form, rather longer & less coherent as I re-read most of the book.  Ignore it if it comes across as clutter!    Checking dispensations for the marriage of Gloucester & Anne Neville for private research & study, lending for educational purposes:                 Unions between partners within up to 4 degrees of kinship banned, i.e. descended from a common great-grandparent. Known as consanguinity.                 Unions between partners related by a relative's marriage/intercourse, where the latter became one flesh & their in-laws became relatives. Called affinity. Church could abrogate a marriage that broke these conditions & declare its offspring illegitimate but royalty & nobility often intermarried so were able to obtain dispensations from papal penitentiary Clarence & Isabel Neville first cousins once removed, related in second degree, her great-grandmother was his great-aunt, both descended from Edward III.  Edward IV obstructed Warwick, father to Isabel & Anne, in his application for a dispensation; Warwick got the king's own agent to apply on his behalf, & also a licence for them to marry in Calais where he, Warwick, was captain. Anne N now sister-in-law, sister according to rule on affinity, to Clarence, the King & Queen, dukes & duchesses of Burgundy, Exeter & Suffolk. [NB Gloucester not mentioned in this list. Kept back for dramatic effect?] Warwick rebelled against Edward IV, planned a marriage for Anne N with Edward of Lancaster as part of deal with Queen /Margaret of Anjou.  After their engagement Anne & Edward L found to be related in the fourth degree, marriage delayed till Warwick's army defeated Edward IV. Fiancés shared a great-great-grandfather, John of Gaunt. So  3 dispensations applied for: 1] for them to marry 2] if they had married, being aware of this relationship or not, to remain married anyway & be absolved 3] any offspring to be legitimate First 2 redundant, 3rd one had Anne's diocese of birth wrong, so another dispensation obtained from patriarch of Jerusalem aka Bishop of Bayeux. Finally married on 13/12/1470 at Amboise. Anne then widowed at battle of Tewkesbury. Number of impediments to marriage of Gloucester & Anne: Related in same degree as Clarence & Isabel had been. Edward of Lancaster first cousin to them both They were brother in law & sister in law, i.e brother & sister by affinity in 1st degree due to Clarence/Isabel marriage. They knew this yet flouted it which was sinful in the eyes of contemporaries. Dispensation applied for to cover impediments in 3rd & 4th degrees of affinity. Granted 22/04/1472. Found in registers of papal penitentiary according to text.                 Gloucester & E of Lancaster both great-grandsons of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome. Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less likely to be granted anyway. Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester & Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer 1472. Act of June 1474 settled Anne's inheritance, made provision for divorce/nullity of their marriage. Gloucester to retain Anne's lands if marriage was annulled.   So dispensation for 1st/2nd degrees not yet obtained. No certainty one would be granted. Maybe it was never requested. Perhaps Clarence wanted the nullity provision inserted in 1474 so that on Gloucester's death Clarence's children would inherit the lands. Undispensed impediments not widely known at time. Gloucester's marriage never queried in his lifetime. In modern times it is seen as invalid.  Anticipating a dispensation & marrying before its arrival quite common for royalty. Exceptional not to apply for one at all. Gloucester less committed to Anne than she to him. Crowland on Christmas 1484: it was said by many that the king was applying his mind in every way to contacting a marriage with Elizabeth [of York] either after the death of the queen, or by means of a divorce for which he believed he had sufficient grounds. Divorce can only be from a living wife so idea of it must be earlier than when Anne's death was close. No son & heir to protect by then, no likelihood of Anne conceiving, no need to hang on to her lands as he had crown lands, so divorce contemplated.  Elizabeth of York apparently willing to marry the King despite monumental impediments, incestuous relationship. Councillors dissuaded the king. Death of Anne made divorce unnecessary anyway. Ugh. Jan.    
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 22:57
Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
  Here's a not-detailed summary of Hicks' understanding of the papal dispensation(s) and what he thinks was lacking. To him, Richard and Anne needed dispensations for the following:
1. Related the same as Isabel and Clarence, in the 2nd degree (first cousins once removed), and twice in the 4th degree (Anne's great-grandmother was Richard's great-aunt, and both were descendants of Edward III.)
2. Further distant tie created by Anne's 1st marriage to Edward Prince of Wales. 3. Connection by the marriage of Clarence to Isabel which created Anne and Richard brother-in-law and sister-in-law, related in 1st degree of affinity (i.e., in 15th-century relationships, this meant Richard was Anne's brother and Anne was Richard's siste). The dispensation of 22 April 1472 was to dispense impediments in the 3rd (sic -- not sure what this relationship was, but the dispensation we know about covered it) and 4th degrees of affinity. A "declaratory letter" was also issued. So, to summarize, Hicks argues that Richard and Anne were not only related in the third and fourth degree (for which they did obtain a dispensation), they were also related in the first degree because of the previous marriage of Clarence and Isabel, which made them brother and sister. Hicks claims Richard never obtained a dispensation for the brother/sister degree, so Richard allegedly locked Anne into an incestuous marriage and covered his behind through parliamentary act so that he could keep Anne's lands/property if the invalid marriage was ever discovered and dissolved. This, and the accusation that Richard was intending to marry Elizabeth (Hicks glows off the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain, implying by his silence they weren't begun until after Anne's death) is the basis of Hicks' argument that: 1. Richard and Anne's marriage was never valid. 2. Richard was a "serial incestor" (Hicks' description) -- among other things.
~Weds

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:   My understanding is that we are permitted to copy no more than 5% of a publication - and are not seeking to breach this. ----- Original Message ----- From: wednesday.mac@... To: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:12 PM Subject: RE: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation
  Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds


--- In , <> wrote:  Marie responds, Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright? How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?   This is from a guide to copyright law: "8.    Acts that are allowed Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are: Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"   I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.   Marie --- In , <> wrote: "No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers."
Does this remind us of someone or something?
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:04, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

  Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since?   Sandra =^..^=   From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation     I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how  do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.
Sent from my iPad On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:   Marie responds, I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly  after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of! Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat  Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister. I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage. This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote. Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas! Marie --- In , <> wrote: So Michael Hicks claims that Richard/Anne's marriage wasn't valid, that they were short one dispensation. I think I remember this being rebutted ea rlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks? Thanks. ~Weds -- Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Someone, I can't remember who now, once told me that from a social history point of view, that "incest was interesting."
I don't think  this was what she, (I think it was a she), meant!

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 10:30
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation

  Marie replies,Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired. 1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly. 2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular. 3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't  have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador). In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.Me signing off.Marie  

--- In , <> wrote:

Here's a not-detailed summary of Hicks' understanding of the papal dispensation(s) and what he thinks was lacking. To him, Richard and Anne needed dispensations for the following:

1. Related the same as Isabel and Clarence, in the 2nd degree (first cousins once removed), and twice in the 4th degree (Anne's great-grandmother was Richard's great-aunt, and both were descendants of Edward III.)

2. Further distant tie created by Anne's 1st marriage to Edward Prince of Wales.

3. Connection by the marriage of Clarence to Isabel which created Anne and Richard brother-in-law and sister-in-law, related in 1st degree of affinity (i.e., in 15th-century relationships, this meant Richard was Anne's brother and Anne was Richard's siste).

The dispensation of 22 April 1472 was to dispense impediments in the 3rd (sic -- not sure what this relationship was, but the dispensation we know about covered it) and 4th degrees of affinity. A "declaratory letter" was also issued.

So, to summarize, Hicks argues that Richard and Anne were not only related in the third and fourth degree (for which they did obtain a dispensation), they were also related in the first degree because of the previous marriage of Clarence and Isabel, which made them brother and sister. Hicks claims Richard never obtained a dispensation for the brother/sister degree, so Richard allegedly locked Anne into an incestuous marriage and covered his behind through parliamentary act so that he could keep Anne's lands/property if the invalid marriage was ever discovered and dissolved.

This, and the accusation that Richard was intending to marry Elizabeth (Hicks glows off the marriage negotiations with Portugal and Spain, implying by his silence they weren't begun until after Anne's death) is the basis of Hicks' argument that:

1. Richard and Anne's marriage was never valid.
2. Richard was a "serial incestor" (Hicks' description) -- among other things.

~Weds



On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
  My understanding is that we are permitted to copy no more than 5% of a publication - and are not seeking to breach this. ----- Original Message ----- From: wednesday.mac@... To: Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:12 PM Subject: RE: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation
  Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds




--- In , <> wrote:

 Marie responds, Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright? How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?   This is from a guide to copyright law: "8.    Acts that are allowed Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are: Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"   I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.   Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

"No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers."
Does this remind us of someone or something?
Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:04, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

  Paraphrase? I am not sure how copyright applies if one quotes from another author's work on a forum, is it actually an infringement? Book reviewers on Amazon seem to have no problem quoting on the works they are reviewing, mine included. I have yet to hear of a court case. You would not be quoting it for your own monetary benefit, or for public distribution, merely for discussion by a private group. I know the difficulty of using pictures and photographs that belong to someone else, but have never hesitated to quote passages in something like an email, making it clear I am quoting someone else's work. Clearly I am not hugely acquainted with the finer points of copyright law, so should I have been fined or locked away long since?   Sandra =^..^=   From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation     I have Hicks in a paperback version of his 2007 book. If I type up relevant bits & mail them to the Forum how  do I avoid the copyright restrictions?! Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 16 Sep 2013, at 12:02, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

  Marie responds, I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly  after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of! Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat  Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister. I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage. This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote. Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas! Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

So Michael Hicks claims that Richard/Anne's marriage wasn't valid, that they were short one dispensation.

I think I remember this being rebutted ea rlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks?

Thanks.
~Weds


--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Fair dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are allowed without infringing copyright. Briefly these are as follows:

Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:

Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

It could be argued that that's what we're doing here--critiquing and analyzing the work at hand.

Marie wrote:

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

Hi, Marie. I take it that you're joking here. Only recognizable phrases would be copyrighted, not individual words, facts, titles, names, or even ideas. But we would probably fit somewhere in the concept of "fair use" or "fair dealing" --which rather desperately needs to be updated to incorporate quotation on the Internet. I think as long as we quote accurately (with alterations indicated by ellipses or square brackets) and cite our source, we're fine.

Carol

Carol, hoping that Marie will find time to post a scathing review of Hicks's revised edition to his Amazon page

AJ  wrote:

Actually, in Ottawa, we can go through the public library - but for books (medieval history/biography) it takes forever. Otherwise, the public library is very good. So far. They do their best, but there are wait lines for the latest best-sellers. And medieval history is not a best-seller. Unless is PG or um - Dan Brown. :D And our city is a very well-educated and reading public. Only, I have this off-radar quirk about medieval history.
From: NICOLE MASIKA <nicolemm_99@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:40:18 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
Minnesota must be ILL heaven :-) We can get things quickly and for free from libraries all over Minnesota, Wisconsin, S Dakota and N. Dakota. As part of the staff making that possible, I know how to make good use of it for my own interests too. Even more exciting, it looks like Twin Cities metro libraries are going to be lending e-books to each other!
Nicole~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy To: From: jfmadore@... Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:49:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation It is in Canada, as well. Funding and all that. "Back in my day" as a working librarian, it was efficient. Our National Library recently actually tried to end ILL (they appear to have backed down from that stance. But.) Funding, etc. Public libraries are willing, but time etc. constraints mean that I can't keep up with books under consideration here. Except with great expenditure via Amazon etc.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:36:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
No I haven't for this, although I have for other projects. It is a fairly daunting task to accomplish interlibrary loan here, & in no way compares to the ease of electronic access, or even to a visit to one of the physical library locations scattered widely across campus.
A J On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:52 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote: AJ wrote:

" <snip> I have an academic appointment at a large research university in the US, that is also well known for its libraries <snip>, but I don't have access to the Ricardian, other than as the Society begins to put them on-line. <snip>" Carol responds: AJ, have you tried interlibrary loan? I know that the University of Arizona, for one, carries the Ricardian--or did when I was there from 1982 to 1998. It also had the Harleian manuscripts and other important Richard-related materials. Carol

I love
On Sep 21, 2013, at 1:10 AM, "JF Madore" <jfmadore@...> wrote:

Actually, in Ottawa, we can go through the public library - but for books (medieval history/biography) it takes forever. Otherwise, the public library is very good. So far. They do their best, but there are wait lines for the latest best-sellers. And medieval history is not a best-seller. Unless is PG or um - Dan Brown. :D And our city is a very well-educated and reading public. Only, I have this off-radar quirk about medieval history.
From: NICOLE MASIKA <nicolemm_99@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:40:18 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
Minnesota must be ILL heaven :-) We can get things quickly and for free from libraries all over Minnesota, Wisconsin, S Dakota and N. Dakota. As part of the staff making that possible, I know how to make good use of it for my own interests too. Even more exciting, it looks like Twin Cities metro libraries are going to be lending e-books to each other!
Nicole~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy To: From: jfmadore@... Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:49:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation It is in Canada, as well. Funding and all that. "Back in my day" as a working librarian, it was efficient. Our National Library recently actually tried to end ILL (they appear to have backed down from that stance. But.) Funding, etc. Public libraries are willing, but time etc. constraints mean that I can't keep up with books under consideration here. Except with great expenditure via Amazon etc.
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 12:36:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
No I haven't for this, although I have for other projects. It is a fairly daunting task to accomplish interlibrary loan here, & in no way compares to the ease of electronic access, or even to a visit to one of the physical library locations scattered widely across campus.
A J On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:52 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote: AJ wrote:

" <snip> I have an academic appointment at a large research university in the US, that is also well known for its libraries <snip>, but I don't have access to the Ricardian, other than as the Society begins to put them on-line. <snip>" Carol responds: AJ, have you tried interlibrary loan? I know that the University of Arizona, for one, carries the Ricardian--or did when I was there from 1982 to 1998. It also had the Harleian manuscripts and other important Richard-related materials. Carol

Yes. Marie Barnfield's comprehensive rebuttal is in Files.

Sandra wrote

" So, it's OK for a man to marry his late wife's sister, but is there any impediment to him marrying his uncle's widow, i.e. his aunt-by-marriage? I'm becoming muddled by this consanguinity/affinity business."

Marie replies:

Hi, I'm back. No, it was *not* okay to marry either your late wife's sister or your uncle's widow.

It was okay to marry your brother's wife's sister, but not your brother's widow. Affinity is an impediment that stops you marrying the relations of your late spouse, that is all.

Marie

Marie replies,

Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.

1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.

2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.

3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).

In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.

Me signing off.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie replies,

I really doubt there would have been a promise between Richard and Anne that was canonically binding: that is not the way things were done. In fact, Wavrin tells a story that Richard and George had a meeting with Warwick at Cambridge which resulted in their being hauled before Edward to explain themselves, and they assured the king that they had not betrothed themselves to Warwick's daughters; Wavrin places this incident very soon after the king's announcement of his own marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, but if there is any truth in the sory it must have occurred quite a bit later than that.

Had there been a betrothal, they couldn't 'resurrect' it in 1472 (ie simply consummate the union without further words of consent) because Anne had in the meantime been married to someone else. The Lancaster marriage would have wiped out any promise of future marriage previously made to any other individual - this was a rule stated in canon law. You could not have two living spouses, you see. So in 1472 they would have had to marry from scratch. Any dispensations previously granted would, however, still have stood. These were two separate matters.

Marie

Sandra wrote:

" More importantly (to me), I thought there was always an agreement of some sort during childhood, that Richard and Anne would marry, and it was broken when she was taken away and forced' to marry Edward of Lancaster. So...if Richard and Anne were as good as betrothed, or actually were betrothed, that would not only predate Edward of Lancaster, but might predate George and Isabel as well? Which couple then could be deemed to be the ones committing incest'? Might Isabel's marriage have been invalid, not Anne's?"

Marie quick response:

Lots of points here. First we need to be careful to use betrothal in its canonical sense, not in the loose sense often employed by historians. A plan by a girl's parents to marry her off to so-and-so did not constitute a betrothal and in no way put her under obligation. There would only be a betrothal that meant something if Richard and Anne and/or George and Isabel had themselves exchanged words of consent for the future, and even then this would be voided by subsequent marriage to someone else. Also, words of marriage (never mind betrothal) exchanged by children under the age of consent (12 for a girl, 14 for a boy) could be renounced once the age of consent was reached.

Secondly, there really, really was no bar at all to two sets of siblings marrying. George and Isabel's marriage can have had no effect on the validity of Richard and Anne's, and vice versa. It was not incest; this is a product of Michael Hicks' fevered imagination.

Sandra wrote:

"Of course, if George and Isabel had a betrothal' at the same time as Richard and Anne, my musings come to nothing. And it would all depend upon how binding such an early betrothal/s could be. There would presumably not have been any consummation, given the ages, but that aside, how formal were such betrothals? If Richard and Anne subsequently stated they considered their first betrothal to be valid, and that they wished to proceed accordingly, did that make the betrothal sound? And if there had been such an early betrothal, might dispensation have been sought back then, to be on the safe side?"

Marie responds,

Perhaps read my previous posts again, Sandra. Unless Richard and Anne had themselves exchanged a proper promise for the future ("I will marry thee"), which seems unlikely, then there was no betrothal (ie no plighting of troth). Had they done so, however, it would have been voided by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster so they would then have needed to start again.

That a dispensation would have been sought "back then" is precisely what I have been arguing. There needn't have been a betrothal for this to occur. Indeed, they couldn't have made a binding promise to marry until the impediments had been cleared out of the way. It just seems daft to assume that Warwick would have gone through all that secret diplomacy at the Vatican - something like two years of it - all for a dispensation for just Isabel's marriage. Richard wouldn't have needed to consent for a dispensation to be issued for him to marry Anne; it was not an obligation to marry and could be applied for by either side independently.

Certainly there was no sex before Anne married Edward of L. Had there been, then her dispensation to marry Edward would also have included an impediment of affinity!

Can I just put in a plea before I go that people read my article in the Ricardian (Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce') and ignore Michael Hicks' claims, which are completely misleading. I think my article can be downloaded from the list of Ricardians on the Society website now, but if not it is also available in the Files section of this forum.

Bye all,

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Wilkinson "even goes a step further by saying that Warwick wouldn't have sought a dispensation for Richard to marry Anne at the same time as one for Isabel and George, because he intended George to inherit it all. Actually that's not uncommon; until very recently the eldest did inherit all and the others relied on his generosity."

Marie replies:

Actually, the rules of inheritance were different where there were no sons. If the man had sons, then the eldest would inherit (ie primogeniture applied), but if he had only daughters (and the estate was not subject the entail) then on his death it would be divided amongst all his daughters. There is no basis for this notion of Wilkinson's, which would have been seen at this period as an unjust disinheritance of the younger daughter, and Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador both refer - albeit in a rather muddled way - to Warwick's intention to marry Richard to Anne.

Marie

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Wilkinson "even goes a step further by saying that Warwick wouldn't have sought a dispensation for Richard to marry Anne at the same time as one for Isabel and George, because he intended George to inherit it all. Actually that's not uncommon; until very recently the eldest did inherit all and the others relied on his generosity."

Marie replies:

Actually, the rules of inheritance were different where there were no sons. If the man had sons, then the eldest would inherit (ie primogeniture applied), but if he had only daughters (and the estate was not subject the entail) then on his death it would be divided amongst all his daughters. There is no basis for this notion of Wilkinson's, which would have been seen at this period as an unjust disinheritance of the younger daughter, and Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador both refer - albeit in a rather muddled way - to Warwick's intention to marry Richard to Anne.

Marie

Marie

--
Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election? Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Sandra wrote

" So, it's OK for a man to marry his late wife's sister, but is there any impediment to him marrying his uncle's widow, i.e. his aunt-by-marriage? I'm becoming muddled by this consanguinity/affinity business."

Marie replies:

Hi, I'm back. No, it was *not* okay to marry either your late wife's sister or your uncle's widow.

It was okay to marry your brother's wife's sister, but not your brother's widow. Affinity is an impediment that stops you marrying the relations of your late spouse, that is all.

Marie

Marie replies,

Oh, so he's not changed a thing. You've no idea how much time and effort went into my research of this subject, and how many time since I've had to explain and re-explain why Hicks was wrong. It's not that I want to brag, but I'm just tired of the whole business. Hicks has been 100% proven wrong yet because he is a writer of popular history books and my article was in an obscure journal (the Ricardian) and because he/ his publishers are happy to go on disseminating an uncorrected version of this nonsense nothing I have written has made any impact. It's like a virus, and I'm just tired.

1) The third and fourth degree affinity dispensed in 1472 (which Hicks thought was complete spoof) was for the affinity ("in-law" relationship) created by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster. Hicks missed that because he calculated the terms of this particular affinity incorrectly.

2) There was *no* first-degree affinity created by George's marriage to Isabel. Affinity was simply a relationship with the blood relatives of a sexual partner. Full stop. There was absoulutely no impediment to multiple marriages between the siblings of two families, and it was very popular.

3) The blood relationships are probably on a separate dispensation altogether, issued in 1469 at the same time as George's; neither has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives. Hicks claims that Warwick was only interested in marrying off Isabel to George, and was planning to worry about Anne afterwards. This, of course, is because he believed that Warwick couldn't have married both of them to the King's brothers (despite suggestions to the contrary by both Wavrin and the Milanese ambassador).

In a nutshell, Hicks did not (does not yet?) understand the impediment of affinity at all.

Incidentally, I seem to recall that Hicks suggested the fact that Cecily was Isabel's godmother might have been an impediment to Richard and Anne's marriage vas well as George and Isabel's: it wouldn't.

Me signing off.

Marie

Marie, could you please email me at wednesday dot mac at gmail dot com so I can send the paraphrase of Hicks without incurring his publisher's wrath?

I've tried to find your email address but can't in this new Yahoo format.

~Weds

Marie responds,

Mmm. What if one were simply to quote the word "and", or two words: "Anne Neville"? Would that be an infringement of copyright?

How about hassling the publishers for permission to quote a specific paragraph?

This is from a guide to copyright law:

"8. Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

I would say use on this forum would be covered by "criticism and news reporting". In other words, in the remote possibility that the publishers took you to court their case would be thrown out. They can't demand more protection than copyright law actually affords. Or, at least, that would be my view.

Marie

Marie responds,

I tried downloading the book out of interest to see if it was the same as the edition I bought shortly after it came out, but all I got was a load of viruses which I have only just managed to get rid of!

Could you possibly quote the passage dealing with the dispensation as it looks as though it may have changed. In the original edition Hicks claimed the 1472 dispensation was fraudulent and didn't relate to any of the impediments between Richard and Anne, andthat Richard had done this deliberately because they wouldn't have been able to get a dispensation for what Hicks thought was the main impediment - ie "incest" due to Richard's brother being married to Anne's sister.

I was actually the person who did all the hard work to demonstrate that Hicks' analysis was wrong (under my Barnfield name). George and Isabel's marriage was no impediment at all, and the dispensation that was fo und is correct for the impediment that had arisen through Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.

It is true that this still does leave us with a missing dispensation for Richard and Anne's blood relationships, but there is in my view nothing sinister about that. Loads of dispensations are missing and we only have Clarence's because Dugdale saw a copy in Warwickshire in the 17thC and noted down the details - no copy has yet turned up in the Vatican Archives.

It seems logical to me that Warwick would have got dispensations for both Isabel and Anne's marriage to the King's brothers whilst he was at it. That would explain why Richard and Anne's dispensation for their blood relationship hasn't turned up (because Clarence's hasn't: they would be together), and it also explains why in 1472 they would have sought a dispensation for just the affinity caused by Lancaster marriage.

This whole "missing dis pensation" fiasco only started as a tentative suggestion by Gairdner in an attempt to explain the "divorce clause" in the 1474 parliamentary division of the Beauchamp estates. The Calendar of Milanese State Papers, which refers to Clarence's accusation that Richard had married Anne by force (which would have invalidated the marriage) had not been published at the time Gairdner wrote.

Anyway, if you could quote or scan to Files the passage in question, it would be fantastic. If Hicks has made changes I would also be keen to see whether he gives any references for his change of ideas!

Marie

Marie replies,

I really doubt there would have been a promise between Richard and Anne that was canonically binding: that is not the way things were done. In fact, Wavrin tells a story that Richard and George had a meeting with Warwick at Cambridge which resulted in their being hauled before Edward to explain themselves, and they assured the king that they had not betrothed themselves to Warwick's daughters; Wavrin places this incident very soon after the king's announcement of his own marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, but if there is any truth in the sory it must have occurred quite a bit later than that.

Had there been a betrothal, they couldn't 'resurrect' it in 1472 (ie simply consummate the union without further words of consent) because Anne had in the meantime been married to someone else. The Lancaster marriage would have wiped out any promise of future marriage previously made to any other individual - this was a rule stated in canon law. You could not have two living spouses, you see. So in 1472 they would have had to marry from scratch. Any dispensations previously granted would, however, still have stood. These were two separate matters.

Marie

Sandra wrote:

" More importantly (to me), I thought there was always an agreement of some sort during childhood, that Richard and Anne would marry, and it was broken when she was taken away and forced' to marry Edward of Lancaster. So...if Richard and Anne were as good as betrothed, or actually were betrothed, that would not only predate Edward of Lancaster, but might predate George and Isabel as well? Which couple then could be deemed to be the ones committing incest'? Might Isabel's marriage have been invalid, not Anne's?"

Marie quick response:

Lots of points here. First we need to be careful to use betrothal in its canonical sense, not in the loose sense often employed by historians. A plan by a girl's parents to marry her off to so-and-so did not constitute a betrothal and in no way put her under obligation. There would only be a betrothal that meant something if Richard and Anne and/or George and Isabel had themselves exchanged words of consent for the future, and even then this would be voided by subsequent marriage to someone else. Also, words of marriage (never mind betrothal) exchanged by children under the age of consent (12 for a girl, 14 for a boy) could be renounced once the age of consent was reached.

Secondly, there really, really was no bar at all to two sets of siblings marrying. George and Isabel's marriage can have had no effect on the validity of Richard and Anne's, and vice versa. It was  not incest; this is a product of Michael Hicks' fevered imagination.

Sandra wrote:

"Of course, if George and Isabel had a betrothal' at the same time as Richard and Anne, my musings come to nothing. And it would all depend upon how binding such an early betrothal/s could be. There would presumably not have been any consummation, given the ages, but that aside, how formal were such betrothals? If Richard and Anne subsequently stated they considered their first betrothal to be valid, and that they wished to proceed accordingly, did that make the betrothal sound? And if there had been such an early betrothal, might dispensation have been sought back then, to be on the safe side?"

Marie responds,

Perhaps read my previous posts again, Sandra. Unless Richard and Anne had themselves exchanged a proper promise for the future ("I will marry thee"), which seems unlikely, then there was no betrothal (ie no plighting of troth). Had they done so, however, it would have been voided by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster so they would then have needed to start again.

That a dispensation would have been sought "back then" is precisely what I have been arguing. There needn't have been a betrothal for this to occur. Indeed, they couldn't have made a binding promise to marry  until the impediments had been cleared out of the way. It just seems daft to assume that Warwick would have gone through all that secret diplomacy at the Vatican - something like two years of it - all for a dispensation for just Isabel's marriage. Richard wouldn't have needed to consent for a dispensation to be issued for him to marry Anne; it was not an obligation to marry and could be applied for by either side independently.

Certainly there was no sex before Anne married Edward of L. Had there been, then her dispensation to marry Edward would also have included an impediment of affinity!

Can I just put in a plea before I go that people read my article in the Ricardian (Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce') and ignore Michael Hicks' claims, which are completely misleading. I think my article can be downloaded from the list of Ricardians on the Society website now, but if not it is also available in the Files section of this forum.

Bye all,

Marie

Marie replies,

AJ, if you are a member you can borrow any 'Ricardian' issue or article from the Barton library, no matter where in the world you live; they can be emailed, with the usual copyright restrictions.

AJ wrote:

Marie replies,

AJ, if you are a member you can borrow any 'Ricardian' issue or article from the Barton library, no matter where in the world you live; they can be emailed, with the usual copyright restrictions.  

David wrote

" "The Lancaster marriage would have wiped out any promise of future marriage previously made to any other individual".

Isn't that the exact same situation alleged to exist between Edward IV / Eleanor Talbot / Elizabeth Wydeville?

How is it that a previous promise of marriage makes one marriage bigamous and therefore invalid, whereas in the hypothetical case in your explanation, the marriage cancels out previous promises?

Surely there must be more to it - a dispensation or something. It must have been very confusing at that time"

Marie replies,

David, the difference is that I had been asked whether, if Richard and Anne had been *betrothed* in the 1460s, they would have needed to marry afresh in the 1470s. This is not the same as the case with Edward Iv and his two alleged secret *marriages*.

There were two ways of completing a marriage back then:-

1) The couple exchanged "words of present consent" (eg "I do marry you"); that formed a complete marriage, and obliged the couple to consummate. You could only get a marriage dissolved on grounds of non-consummation if the man proved to be physically incapable of the job.

2) The couple exchanged a promise to marry in the future. This is what is generally referred to as a betrothal. This could be converted into a binding marriage simply by consummation, but it could equally be dissolved prior to consummation by one party to the agreement simply marrying someone else.

Titulus Regius is clear that Edward and Eleanor were "married and troth plight" (note that word married), and since the inference is very much that Edward made his vows to Eleanor in order to get her to sleep with him, we can assume that they consummated and theirs was therefore a full and indissoluble marriage whether the actual words exchanged were of present or future consent. At any rate, Titulus Regius says it was a marriage. We only have the notion these days that Edward's contract with Eleanor Butler was a mere betrothal because so many historians have misunderstood the meaning of the word precontract, thinking it a synonym for betrothal rather than what it actually is - the legal term for the first marriage in a bigamy case.

There has been no suggestion that Richard and Anne slept together in the 1460s, so even if (as I think highly unlikely) they had clandestinely promised back then to marry each other at some point in the future, Anne's lawful husband in 1470/1 would still have been Edward of Lancaster and not Richard Duke of Gloucester.

I hope this is clear, but if not please shout.

Marie

Marie replies,

I really doubt there would have been a promise between Richard and Anne that was canonically binding: that is not the way things were done. In fact, Wavrin tells a story that Richard and George had a meeting with Warwick at Cambridge which resulted in their being hauled before Edward to explain themselves, and they assured the king that they had not betrothed themselves to Warwick's daughters; Wavrin places this incident very soon after the king's announcement of his own marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, but if there is any truth in the sory it must have occurred quite a bit later than that.

Had there been a betrothal, they couldn't 'resurrect' it in 1472 (ie simply consummate the union without further words of consent) because Anne had in the meantime been married to someone else. The Lancaster marriage would have wiped out any promise of future marriage previously made to any other individual - this was a rule stated in canon law. You could not have two living spouses, you see. So in 1472 they would have had to marry from scratch. Any dispensations previously granted would, however, still have stood. These were two separate matters.

Marie

Sandra wrote:

" More importantly (to me), I thought there was always an agreement of some sort during childhood, that Richard and Anne would marry, and it was broken when she was taken away and forced' to marry Edward of Lancaster. So...if Richard and Anne were as good as betrothed, or actually were betrothed, that would not only predate Edward of Lancaster, but might predate George and Isabel as well? Which couple then could be deemed to be the ones committing incest'? Might Isabel's marriage have been invalid, not Anne's?"

Marie quick response:

Lots of points here. First we need to be careful to use betrothal in its canonical sense, not in the loose sense often employed by historians. A plan by a girl's parents to marry her off to so-and-so did not constitute a betrothal and in no way put her under obligation. There would only be a betrothal that meant something if Richard and Anne and/or George and Isabel had themselves exchanged words of consent for the future, and even then this would be voided by subsequent marriage to someone else. Also, words of marriage (never mind betrothal) exchanged by children under the age of consent (12 for a girl, 14 for a boy) could be renounced once the age of consent was reached.

Secondly, there really, really was no bar at all to two sets of siblings marrying. George and Isabel's marriage can have had no effect on the validity of Richard and Anne's, and vice versa. It was not incest; this is a product of Michael Hicks' fevered imagination.

Sandra wrote:

"Of course, if George and Isabel had a betrothal' at the same time as Richard and Anne, my musings come to nothing. And it would all depend upon how binding such an early betrothal/s could be. There would presumably not have been any consummation, given the ages, but that aside, how formal were such betrothals? If Richard and Anne subsequently stated they considered their first betrothal to be valid, and that they wished to proceed accordingly, did that make the betrothal sound? And if there had been such an early betrothal, might dispensation have been sought back then, to be on the safe side?"

Marie responds,

Perhaps read my previous posts again, Sandra. Unless Richard and Anne had themselves exchanged a proper promise for the future ("I will marry thee"), which seems unlikely, then there was no betrothal (ie no plighting of troth). Had they done so, however, it would have been voided by Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster so they would then have needed to start again.

That a dispensation would have been sought "back then" is precisely what I have been arguing. There needn't have been a betrothal for this to occur. Indeed, they couldn't have made a binding promise to marry until the impediments had been cleared out of the way. It just seems daft to assume that Warwick would have gone through all that secret diplomacy at the Vatican - something like two years of it - all for a dispensation for just Isabel's marriage. Richard wouldn't have needed to consent for a dispensation to be issued for him to marry Anne; it was not an obligation to marry and could be applied for by either side independently.

Certainly there was no sex before Anne married Edward of L. Had there been, then her dispensation to marry Edward would also have included an impediment of affinity!

Can I just put in a plea before I go that people read my article in the Ricardian (Diriment Impediments, Dispensations and Divorce') and ignore Michael Hicks' claims, which are completely misleading. I think my article can be downloaded from the list of Ricardians on the Society website now, but if not it is also available in the Files section of this forum.

Bye all,

Marie

Yes, the library has a copy of every issue from No 1 onwards

Marie

Marie replies,

AJ, if you are a member you can borrow any 'Ricardian' issue or article from the Barton library, no matter where in the world you live; they can be emailed, with the usual copyright restrictions.