Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation

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 earlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks? Thanks. ~Weds

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 --- 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 earlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks? Thanks. ~Weds

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

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

"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

Oh, yes, that dreaded now known or hereafter invented. Talk about a
monstrously arrogant and totally unjust imposition! There was a fuss when it
first reared its ugly head, I remember. I think it should be illegal to put
restrictions on something that has yet to be invented. Where does that
sort of thing end? We might never have had the round wheel if the makers of
square wheels had been able to force this clause on all inventers! I've had it
in contracts as well. Either an author tells publishers to get stuffed, or signs
the dotted line submissively. Well, I'm still not sure if this catch-all'
applies to using small bits for discussion by a private group, but I am prepared
to be corrected. In any form means just that, I suppose. Better safe than
sorry is always the best policy. So, after all that, I can still only suggest
paraphrasing it, by writing Hicks asserts that ... so and so'.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Jan Mulrenan
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne&#39;s
Marriage Dispensation

"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

Under Copyright Law they would have to take a civil legal action against you - would it be worth it for a sentence, unless that sentence was a ground-breaking idea? And you could argue it's for educational purposes, which to an extent this forum is. But to quote huge chunks would be a different thing .... If you're nervous, just paraphrase. Hicks claims etc. Photographs of course are an entirely different thing. H. From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> To: "" <> Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 15:14 Subject: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
"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

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 allowedFair 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

Private and research study purposes? Sounds good to me. We're private and
we're all researching our subject, aren't we?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation

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

Thank you for your support & encouragement.I shall hold my nose & dive in shortly!Jan.Sent from my iPad On 16 Sep 2013, at 17:30, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:


Private and research study purposes? Sounds good to me. We're private and
we're all researching our subject, aren't we?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:18 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation

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

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 allowedFair 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

ÿ
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

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.

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.

And we sometimes think we have problems. I guess "the church" has done away with that. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are cousins of some degree. I guess Diana and Catherine are new blood for the line of cousins.

On Sep 16, 2013, at 6:05 PM, "J MULRENAN" <janmulrenan@...> 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: 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.

It was 10% Stephen but that's been 'repealed'. But I think one could comfortably fit this under the banner of educational ie certainly not for gain - but it seems to have been resolved anyway now. H From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> To:
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 22:28 Subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
ÿ
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

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 --- In , <> wrote: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 allowedFair 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

Have an excellent, relaxing, rewarding time, Marie.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:10 AM
To:
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation

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
--- In ,
<> wrote:
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

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.

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

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. Jan wrote"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."Marie responds:Thus Hicks was looking for a dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't find it. In fact, Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the affinity was in 3rd & 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in April 1472.MarieJane wrote:"Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less likely to be granted anyway." Marie responds:Hicks mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first cousins once removed, but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees (Hicks talks as if each mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each impediment had two arms, ie the number of generations - called degrees - between the common ancestor and the intended groom, and the number between the common ancestor and the intended bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation, so why not Richard and Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most likely because they had got it before Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.The 1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious affinity caused by George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent impediment. Jan wrote"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester & Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer 1472."Marie responds:It would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did marry without the necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.MarieJan wrote"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. " Marie responds:Hicks seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese ambassador's remark at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with Gloucester because Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who had been married to Edward of Lancaster. Forced marriages were null and void, but not even Hicks thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the nail on the head, however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from Clarence's guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked into the detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really had been forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just playing games.MarieMarie --- 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.

Marie, Thank you so much for adding your comments to this for me. Much appreciated & have a good break.Jan. From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 10:50 Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
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. Jan wrote"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."Marie
responds:Thus Hicks was looking for a dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't find it. In fact, Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the affinity was in 3rd & 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in April 1472.MarieJane wrote:"Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less likely to be granted
anyway." Marie responds:Hicks mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first cousins once removed, but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees (Hicks talks as if each mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each impediment had two arms, ie the number of generations - called degrees - between the common ancestor and the intended groom, and the number between the common ancestor and the intended bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation, so why not Richard and Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most likely because they had got it before Anne's
marriage to Edward of Lancaster.The 1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious affinity caused by George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent impediment. Jan wrote"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester & Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer 1472."Marie responds:It would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did marry without the necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.MarieJan wrote"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. " Marie responds:Hicks seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese ambassador's remark at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with Gloucester because Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who had been married to Edward of Lancaster. Forced
marriages were null and void, but not even Hicks thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the nail on the head, however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from Clarence's guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked into the detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really had been forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just playing games.MarieMarie --- 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.

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?
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? 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?
I know, I know, too many ifs and ?s. Blame idle moments during a morning
break for coffee, but once these points strike me, I have to ask those who know
much more than me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation


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.
Jan wrote
"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons
of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."
Marie responds:
Thus Hicks was looking for a
dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't find it. In fact,
Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the affinity was in 3rd
& 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in April
1472.
Marie
Jane wrote:
"Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less
likely to be granted anyway."
Marie
responds:
Hicks
mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first cousins once removed,
but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees (Hicks talks as if each
mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each impediment had two arms,
ie the number of generations - called degrees - between the common ancestor and
the intended groom, and the number between the common ancestor and the intended
bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation, so why not Richard and
Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most likely because they had
got it before Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.
The
1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious affinity caused by
George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent impediment.
Jan wrote
"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester
& Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer
1472."
Marie
responds:
It
would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did marry without the
necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.
Marie
Jan wrote
"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.
"
Marie
responds:
Hicks
seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese ambassador's remark
at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with Gloucester because
Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who had been married to
Edward of Lancaster. Forced marriages were null and void, but not even Hicks
thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the nail on the head,
however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from Clarence's
guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked into the
detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really had been
forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just playing
games.
Marie
Marie
--- 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,
22:57Subject: 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.

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 --- In , <> 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?
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? 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?
I know, I know, too many ifs and ?s. Blame idle moments during a morning
break for coffee, but once these points strike me, I have to ask those who know
much more than me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation


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.
Jan wrote
"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons
of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."
Marie responds:
Thus Hicks was looking for a
dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't find it. In fact,
Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the affinity was in 3rd
& 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in April
1472.
Marie
Jane wrote:
"Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less
likely to be granted anyway."
Marie
responds:
Hicks
mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first cousins once removed,
but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees (Hicks talks as if each
mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each impediment had two arms,
ie the number of generations - called degrees - between the common ancestor and
the intended groom, and the number between the common ancestor and the intended
bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation, so why not Richard and
Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most likely because they had
got it before Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.
The
1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious affinity caused by
George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent impediment.
Jan wrote
"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester
& Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer
1472."
Marie
responds:
It
would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did marry without the
necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.
Marie
Jan wrote
"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.
"
Marie
responds:
Hicks
seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese ambassador's remark
at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with Gloucester because
Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who had been married to
Edward of Lancaster. Forced marriages were null and void, but not even Hicks
thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the nail on the head,
however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from Clarence's
guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked into the
detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really had been
forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just playing
games.
Marie
Marie
--- 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,
22:57Subject: 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.

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 --- In , <> 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?
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? 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?
I know, I know, too many ifs and ?s. Blame idle moments during a morning
break for coffee, but once these points strike me, I have to ask those who know
much more than me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation


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.
Jan wrote
"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons
of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."
Marie responds:
Thus Hicks was looking for a
dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't find it. In fact,
Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the affinity was in 3rd
& 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in April
1472.
Marie
Jane wrote:
"Dispensations needed for relationships in 1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less
likely to be granted anyway."
Marie
responds:
Hicks
mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first cousins once removed,
but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees (Hicks talks as if each
mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each impediment had two arms,
ie the number of generations - called degrees - between the common ancestor and
the intended groom, and the number between the common ancestor and the intended
bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation, so why not Richard and
Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most likely because they had
got it before Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster.
The
1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious affinity caused by
George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent impediment.
Jan wrote
"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as well. Gloucester
& Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early summer
1472."
Marie
responds:
It
would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did marry without the
necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.
Marie
Jan wrote
"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.
"
Marie
responds:
Hicks
seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese ambassador's remark
at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with Gloucester because
Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who had been married to
Edward of Lancaster. Forced marriages were null and void, but not even Hicks
thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the nail on the head,
however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from Clarence's
guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked into the
detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really had been
forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just playing
games.
Marie
Marie
--- 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,
22:57Subject: 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.

ÿ
Marie wrote:
//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//
Doug here:
First off, let me say how disappointed I am to
discover that the work done by members of this Society isn't better known and
regarded. Hicks appears to be so invested in his charges of incest that one
could reasonably doubt he'd even take note of your efforts anyway. Doesn't
excuse others, though!
My query is about your second point: Would a
"first-degree affinity" have prevented George from marrying Anne *after*
Isabel's death (presuming Anne was still unmarried or a widow)? I seem to
recall such marriages, between a widow/er and a brother or sister of the
widow/er's spouse (as the case may have been). Such a marriage *would* have
required a dispensation, wouldn't it? Perhaps that's where Hicks got his
strange idea?
Anyway, don't worry about replying and enjoy
your holiday - it's more important!
Doug

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.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:30 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;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: 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.

Would that Hicks did the thorough research that you have done Marie. --- In , <> 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 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 --- 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 earlier on the list, but does someone know how I might find those posts, or any other source(s) rebutting Hicks? Thanks. ~Weds

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  --- 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.

Thank you so much, Marie, for taking the time to go over this yet again. Your patience is astonishing. I'm frustrated with Hicks' initially saying, "we don't have the sources to prove X," and then he goes on to emphatically state, "even without the sources, it's probable X was so," which thereafter leaps to, "X was so."
He also selectively cites Ricardian and historical material in ways to bolster his claims, and deliberately ignores (Ricardian?) and historical material that would refut his claims. The most brazen example in his *Anne Neville* is his failure to include the fact that plans for the Portuguese marriages between Richard/Juana and Elizabeth of York/Miguel had to have been laid before Anne died, given the speed with which an ambassador was sent to Portugal after Anne died. He mentions the marriage negotiations once, does not cite a date, and presents his "Richard did too want to marry his niece" theory as solid fact.
It's no wonder Ricardians have an uphill climb to prove Richard wasn't what past and present Tudor propagandists said he was. Those coming to Richard this late have little access -- even on a university library level -- to many valuable rebuttals.
Perhaps one day in the future the society will see the wisdom in cobbling together volumes of The Ricardian for sale as ebooks online. For now, though, I've learned to appreciate Marie and the scholars on this list who take the time to explain the complications surrounding Richard and what was written/destroyed around him.
Many thanks.~Weds On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
 
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 JOn 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  --- 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.

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.

Maybe read other things before you tackle any Hicks", though I think it is worth knowing what "the opposition" is saying. My problem when reading his "Anne Neville" is that he points out how attitudes in the C15 were different from our C21 at various times & then judges C15 people's actions by C21 standards anyway. That means he can insinuate that Richard committed statutory rape with Anne because she was 15 at the relevant time. It doesn't suit his argument to raise the case of Edmund Tudor & Margaret Beaufort just then, although he mentions at another point that Henry VII was the product of a marriage to a very young bride. With his "Richard III" I felt he was sniping at recent governments with references to spin doctors & tailoring messages to suit different audiences. So he needs to be read with care despite his raciness!Jan.Sent from my iPad On 17 Sep 2013, at 17:19, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
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.

Thank you Jan.
There is so much information and misinformation as regards Richard, that it is stunning. I will continue my reading of the pro Richard stuff first, and then tackle the opposition.
I am encouraged that it is the pro Ricardian's that have been proved to be correct so far, leaving myth and fable destroyed in their wake.
Perhaps in time as one revelation follows another a truer evaluation will be possible.



------------------------------
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 9:20 PM BST Jan Mulrenan wrote:

>Maybe read other things before you tackle any Hicks", though I think it is worth knowing what "the opposition" is saying. My problem when reading his "Anne Neville" is that he points out how attitudes in the C15 were different from our C21 at various times & then judges C15 people's actions by C21 standards anyway. That means he can insinuate that Richard committed statutory rape with Anne because she was 15 at the relevant time. It doesn't suit his argument to raise the case of Edmund Tudor & Margaret Beaufort just then, although he mentions at another point that Henry VII was the product of a marriage to a very young bride. With his "Richard III" I felt he was sniping at recent governments with references to spin doctors & tailoring messages to suit different audiences.
>So he needs to be read with care despite his raciness!
>Jan.
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On 17 Sep 2013, at 17:19, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
>
>> 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: RE: Richard/Anne'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'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 "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.

Marie, I think my problem is that I trail along behind you, picking up this
and that, which I mull over and then forget where I saw what in the first place.
Not intentional, I promise. I was trailing along the wonky path of a possible
expressed wish by Richard and Anne, as children, to marry when they were able,
i.e. marriage was fully intended. The fact that she was then hauled off to
Edward of Lancaster (I always understood against her will and therefore forced,
although perhaps not to the extent of being bound hand and foot, with a dagger
to her heart!) would surely not alter the fact that she had willingly exchanged
that earlier promise with Richard. If neither of them had ever expressed a wish
to withdraw from that agreement, could it still be resurrected and reinstated? I
bow my head here, because no doubt you have answered this point so many times
you'd like to box my silly ears. Anyway, I promise to shut up about it now. For
the sake of your equilibrium.
I have to add here that your post of 12.32 p.m. Tuesday has only just
reached my Inbox late morning Wednesday 18th, so no doubt you are now away on
your holiday. So, if you don't read this until you're back  I hope you had a
good time.
Sandra
=^..^=.
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:32 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation

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
--- In ,
<> 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?
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? 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?
I know, I know, too many ifs and ?s. Blame idle moments during a morning
break for coffee, but once these points strike me, I have to ask those who know
much more than me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation


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.
Jan wrote
"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons
of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."
Marie
responds:
Thus Hicks was
looking for a dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't
find it. In fact, Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the
affinity was in 3rd & 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in
April 1472.
Marie
Jane wrote:
"Dispensations needed for relationships in
1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less
likely to be granted anyway."
Marie responds:
Hicks mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first
cousins once removed, but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees
(Hicks talks as if each mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each
impediment had two arms, ie the number of generations - called degrees - between
the common ancestor and the intended groom, and the number between the common
ancestor and the intended bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation,
so why not Richard and Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most
likely because they had got it before Anne's marriage to Edward of
Lancaster.
The 1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious
affinity caused by George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent
impediment.
Jan wrote
"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as
well. Gloucester & Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early
summer 1472."
Marie responds:
It would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did
marry without the necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.
Marie
Jan wrote
"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. "
Marie responds:
Hicks seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese
ambassador's remark at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with
Gloucester because Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who
had been married to Edward of Lancaster. Forced marriages were null and void,
but not even Hicks thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the
nail on the head, however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from
Clarence's guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked
into the detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really
had been forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just
playing games.
Marie
Marie
--- 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, 22:57Subject: 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.

Hello Jessie, I think you should read everything you can to get a balanced view. Hicks, Ross, Pollard are/were Professors of medieval history. You might not always like what they say and sometimes they get it wrong but they have a lot more academic credibiltiy than Amy Licence. Hicks on George of Clarence is not at all bad. I'd also recommend Thomas Penn on Henry VII (who does incredibly manage to give a very scholarly but objective view) and Jones and Underwood on Margaret Beaufort. It's important to read where the other side are coming from and to form your own view. One of the problems that the Society has in getting its research published is that of course it's biased, and scholars shun bias - though of course they're usually biased themselves :)
Hilary(apologies for typeface which has suddenly gone mad) From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> To: "" <> Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 17:19 Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
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.

Thank you Hilary, you are, of course, quite right.There is so much confusion and propaganda surrounding Richard that it is hard to get a balanced view. What is important to me is to see the truth, as far as it can be proved. The recent research, and the finding of Richard's skeleton, show what proper scholarly research is capable of, and that is so impressive.I haven't decided yet what I think about Richard, as a whole. The evidence is certainly contradictory, and the addition of humps to
backs on paintings, and the deliberate destroying of documents, (Titulus Regius), is not a pleasant finding,I am very much enjoying my researches, and I am very grateful for the advice I am receiving here. From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 11:44 Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
Hello Jessie, I think you should read everything you can to get a balanced view. Hicks, Ross, Pollard are/were Professors of medieval history. You might not always like what they say and sometimes they get it wrong but they have a lot more academic credibiltiy than Amy Licence. Hicks on George of Clarence is not at all bad. I'd also recommend Thomas Penn on Henry VII (who does incredibly manage to give a very scholarly but objective view) and Jones and Underwood on Margaret Beaufort. It's important to read where the other side are coming from and to form your own view. One of the problems that the Society has in getting its research published is that of course it's biased, and scholars shun bias - though of course they're usually biased themselves
:)
Hilary(apologies for typeface which has suddenly gone mad) From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> To: "" <> Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 17:19 Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
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.

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.

Yes, of course, many people will stumble over what has been billed as Richard's most significant sin/crime and not be able to move on. 
I find personally, I am quite able to live with the answer that we don't know what happened to the "princes." And that there are as many rumors of their survival as there are of their demise at Richard's hands.  (I'll add to the chorus of praise for Annette Carson's work, particularly as she presents & discusses the existing evidence relevant to this question).
For me the real shame is that so many people are distracted by this question that they never come to know Richard's character as a genuinely enlightened monarch, & fail to give him the credit he is due.
A J
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
 
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.

I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly. From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 16:01 Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
Yes, of course, many people will stumble over what has been billed as Richard's most significant sin/crime and not be able to move on.
I find personally, I am quite able to live with the answer that we don't know what happened to the "princes." And that there are as many rumors of their survival as there are of their demise at Richard's hands. (I'll add to the chorus of praise for Annette Carson's work, particularly as she presents & discusses the existing evidence relevant to this question).
For me the real shame is that so many people are distracted by this question that they never come to know Richard's character as a genuinely enlightened monarch, & fail to give him the credit he is due.
A J
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
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.

A 15th-century gossips first two rules to get noticed, and a 21st-century writer's first two rules to get published:1. If it bleeds, it leads. 2. If it's sex, it sells.
~Weds On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
 
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.

Jan wrote: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.Carol responds:Quoting a few paragraphs and citing the source is perfectly acceptable on a forum. Even if you published an article quoting him you would be fine as long as you didn't use more than a small portion (as allowed by the Fair Use provision of the copyright law) or claim it as your own (plagiarism).(I have a PhD in English literature, taught college English for twenty years, and am currently a copyeditor, so I deal with these concerns more often than I would wish!)Carol

--- 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.Carol responds:I just checked British copyright law, which refers to "Fair Use" as "Fair Dealing" and states that passages can be copied (with the author and title properly identified, of course) for purposes of research and private study:"What is fair dealing?Fair
dealing is a term used to describe some limited activities that are
allowed without infringing copyright. Briefly these are as follows:Research and private studyCopying
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:The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.The source of the material is acknowledged.The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people."The only problem is with the last provision (copies available to a
number of people). Nonetheless, this is a private group and I've never
encountered any problems with quoting material not in the public domain.British copyright law also allows teachers and students to quote excerpts for educational use (not quite applicable here) and critics and reviewers to quote excerpts to illustrate the critique or review:"Criticism or reviewQuoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:The work has been made available to the public.The source of the material is acknowledged.The
material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or
assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review."It could be argued that that's what we're doing here--critiquing and analyzing the work at hand.http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others#fair_dealingYou're not distributing the work for your own profit, after all, which is the whole point of copyright law.Carol

Thanks, Carol!Encouraged by Forum posters I have now put my version of Hicks's comments forward & Marie has gone through it.Jan.Sent from my iPad On 18 Sep 2013, at 18:19, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Jan wrote: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.Carol responds:Quoting a few paragraphs and citing the source is perfectly acceptable on a forum. Even if you published an article quoting him you would be fine as long as you didn't use more than a small portion (as allowed by the Fair Use provision of the copyright law) or claim it as your own (plagiarism).(I have a PhD in English literature, taught college English for twenty years, and am currently a copyeditor, so I deal with these concerns more often than I would wish!)Carol

Hello, I'm new here seeking information. Is anyone planning an excursion from the US for the re-interment? Is the society going to be involved in any sort of commemoration, and where/when might that be? I would like to plan a trip from the US. Sorry for interrupting the thread. From: "justcarol67@..."
<justcarol67@...> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 12:19 PM Subject: RE: Re: RE: Richard/Anne's Marriage Dispensation
Jan wrote: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. Carol responds: Quoting a few paragraphs and citing the source is perfectly acceptable on a forum. Even if you published an article quoting him you would be fine as long as you didn't use more than a small portion (as allowed by the Fair Use provision of the copyright law) or claim it as your own (plagiarism). (I have a PhD in English literature, taught college English for twenty years, and am currently a copyeditor, so I deal with these concerns more often than I would wish!) Carol

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

Sandra wrote:
"<snip>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? 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? <snip>"Carol responds:No one but Hicks ever thought that "incest" was involved in Richard's marriage to Anne. The idea would never have occurred to the people of the time.(Richard's supposed intention to marry his niece was a different matter. Even if he had received a papal dispensation, many people would have disapproved of his marrying such a close relation. But, of course, such a marriage was not in his interests and he was planning a very different marriage that was.)The marriage to Anne Neville, love or no love (and I, for one, believe that they at least cared about each other) was very much in the interests of both parties. (Anne's marriage to Edward of Lancaster was only in the interest of Warwick; Margaret of Anjou probably agreed to it only because she needed Warwick as her ally.)Carol, hoping that Marie will find time to post a scathing review of Hicks's revised edition to his Amazon page

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

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

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

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 BellamyTo: From: [email protected]: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:49:57 -0700Subject: 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

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 BellamyTo: 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

Disregard, typing without coffee.

On Sep 21, 2013, at 9:40 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:


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. --- In , <pbain@...> wrote:
Disregard, typing without coffee.

On Sep 21, 2013, at 9:40 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:

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

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 ---In , <> 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.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:30 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;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: 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 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 ---In , <> wrote:
Marie, I think my problem is that I trail along behind you, picking up this
and that, which I mull over and then forget where I saw what in the first place.
Not intentional, I promise. I was trailing along the wonky path of a possible
expressed wish by Richard and Anne, as children, to marry when they were able,
i.e. marriage was fully intended. The fact that she was then hauled off to
Edward of Lancaster (I always understood against her will and therefore forced,
although perhaps not to the extent of being bound hand and foot, with a dagger
to her heart!) would surely not alter the fact that she had willingly exchanged
that earlier promise with Richard. If neither of them had ever expressed a wish
to withdraw from that agreement, could it still be resurrected and reinstated? I
bow my head here, because no doubt you have answered this point so many times
you'd like to box my silly ears. Anyway, I promise to shut up about it now. For
the sake of your equilibrium.
I have to add here that your post of 12.32 p.m. Tuesday has only just
reached my Inbox late morning Wednesday 18th, so no doubt you are now away on
your holiday. So, if you don't read this until you're back  I hope you had a
good time.
Sandra
=^..^=.
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:32 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation

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
--- In ,
<> 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?
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? 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?
I know, I know, too many ifs and ?s. Blame idle moments during a morning
break for coffee, but once these points strike me, I have to ask those who know
much more than me.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:50 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Richard/Anne&#39;s Marriage Dispensation


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.
Jan wrote
"Gloucester& E of Lancaster both great-grandsons
of John of Gaunt, another impediment to overcome."
Marie
responds:
Thus Hicks was
looking for a dispensation for affinity in 3rd & 3rd degrees, and didn't
find it. In fact, Edward of Lancaster was Gaunt's great-great-grandson, so the
affinity was in 3rd & 4th degrees, so does match the dispensation issued in
April 1472.
Marie
Jane wrote:
"Dispensations needed for relationships in
1st & 2nd degrees required but not applied for. Less
likely to be granted anyway."
Marie responds:
Hicks mixing up two separate relationships here. They were first
cousins once removed, but that is consanguinity in 2nd and 3rd degrees
(Hicks talks as if each mention of a degree was a separate impediment, but each
impediment had two arms, ie the number of generations - called degrees - between
the common ancestor and the intended groom, and the number between the common
ancestor and the intended bride) . Clarence and Isabel had got a dispensation,
so why not Richard and Anne? Not mentioned in the 1472 dispensation, but most
likely because they had got it before Anne's marriage to Edward of
Lancaster.
The 1st-degree relationship Hicks talks about is his spurious
affinity caused by George's marriage to Isabel: non-existent
impediment.
Jan wrote
"Marrying when aware of these impediments a sin as
well. Gloucester & Anne married in defiance of canon law, probably in early
summer 1472."
Marie responds:
It would have been a sin, but Hicks has not proved that they did
marry without the necessary dispensations; he has only asserted.
Marie
Jan wrote
"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. "
Marie responds:
Hicks seemingly missed the canonical significance of the Milanese
ambassador's remark at the beginning of 1474 that Clarence was at war with
Gloucester because Gloucester had by force taken to wife his sister-in-law, who
had been married to Edward of Lancaster. Forced marriages were null and void,
but not even Hicks thinks this marriage was actually forced. He does hit the
nail on the head, however, when he observes that Richard's removal of Anne from
Clarence's guardianship came close to medieval notions of abduction. I've looked
into the detail of this, however, and there is no doubt that, unless Anne really
had been forced to marry Richard, Clarence's claim was vexatious. He was just
playing games.
Marie
Marie
--- 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, 22:57Subject: 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.