Legitimacy questions...

I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?

A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.

The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.

So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).

Marie

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?

Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
>

It reads as if the goal of Canon 51 was to stop cosanguinous marriages between persons, not so much just to stop secret marriages. From http://www.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/368/texts/council.html --

d. IV LATERAN COUNCIL , 1215, c. 51.

FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, 1215, c. 51 (=X 4.3.3), in G. Alberigo et al., Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta 258 (3d. ed. 1972)

The 51st canon of the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III (1198-1216)

"Although the prohibition of the conjugal bond has been revoked in the last three degrees, in other degrees we want it strictly observed.(1) Wherefore, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we strictly forbid clandestine marriages, also forbidding any priest from presuming to participate in them. Therefore, extending generally to all places the custom of some places, we decree that when marriages are to be contracted, they shall be proclaimed publicly in the church by the priests, and that an appropriate time be set within which anyone who wishes to and can may bring forward a lawful impediment. Regardless of whether this happens, the same priests shall investigate whether any impediment exists. When a probable conjecture appears against the joining, let the contract expressly be forbidden until it can clearly be established by documentary evidence what ought to be done about it.

"If anyone presumes to enter into this kind of clandestine or interdicted marriage in the forbidden degrees of kinship, even if unknowingly, the progeny born of such marriage shall be deemed illegitimate, having no assistance from the ignorance of their parents, even though those who so contract seem not to be privy to the knowledge or rather pretend ignorance. Similarly, off-spring shall be deemed illegitimate if both parents, knowing of a lawful impediment, despite all interdict, presume to contract in the face of the church.

"Clearly any parish priest who fails to prohibit such unions or any regular priest [i.e., a member of a religious order] who presumes to becomes involved with them ought to be suspended from office for three years and should be more severely punished if the gravity of the fault demands it. And also let a fitting penance be imposed on those who enter into such marriages even if in a permitted degree [of kinship]. Moreover, if anyone maliciously interposes an impediment to a lawful joining, let him not escape ecclesiastical sanction."

1. Lateran IV, c. 50, had reduced the degrees of kinship within which marriage was prohibited from seven to four, i.e. previously marriage had been prohibited among sixth cousins and anyone more closely related; the Council reduced it to third cousins.

Note to the student: The prohibition of clandestine marriage and the concomitant requirement of the publication of banns was repeated in various forms in over thirty pieces of English conciliar legislation and episcopal decrees between 1200 and 1342. Several of these were collected and glossed in his Provinciale by the great English canonist William Lyndwood, who tells us that he finished his work on the Vigil of Pentecost, 1430.

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
>

If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.

Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.

Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.

Marie

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
>

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.
> Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.
> Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?
>
> --- In mailto:, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> > The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> > So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
> >
>

Well yes, the fact that Edward had exchanged vows with Lady Eleanor, albeit clandestinely, (and almost certainly consummated) meant he was already a married man. By the by, I don't know if you've caught earlier discussions on the forum, but a "precontract" was not a medieval term for an engagement as it is usually represented by historians, but was the legal term for the prior contract of marriage in a bigamy case.

I think Richard probably took the throne because there was a dangerous political crisis, with already one or two attempts on his life (ie at Stony Stratford and at the Tower on Friday 13th), and because the revelation of the precontract convinced him that it was not only the only safe thing to do but was also the right thing to do. I personally don't think that in June 1483 he would have considered that not putting forward his own claim would leave the way open to Tudor. I don't think Tudor was on anybody's radar as a serious threat at that time. If Richard hadn't been prepared to take up the offer my guess is that the precontract would have remained a state secret, known about only to the members of the Privy Council and the Woodville family.

But the canonical "double whammy" effect of Edward's two consecutive clandestine marriages is the reason why Titulus Regius stresses the clandestine and profane nature of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth as well as the fact of his precontract to Eleanor Butler. There is also canonical significance in the suggestion in TR that Edward was trapped into marriage by witchcraft because that would have nullified his consent. Had witchcraft been used, in other words, the Woodville marriage would have been invalid on two completely separate grounds.

I totally agree: history does hinge on ticky little points, and it's a huge pity that the majority of historians of the period haven't got to grips with medieval marriage law.

Marie

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.
> Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.
> Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?
>
> --- In mailto:, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> > The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> > So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
> >
>

Does that mean that Bishop Stillington could have been sanctioned for attending or approving a clandestine marriage?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 7:40:23 PM

 

Well yes, the fact that Edward had exchanged vows with Lady Eleanor, albeit clandestinely, (and almost certainly consummated) meant he was already a married man.  By the by, I don't know if you've caught earlier discussions on the forum, but a "precontract" was not a medieval term for an engagement as it is usually represented by historians, but was the legal term for the prior contract of marriage in a bigamy case.

I think Richard probably took the throne because there was a dangerous political crisis, with already one or two attempts on his life (ie at Stony Stratford and at the Tower on Friday 13th), and because the revelation of the precontract convinced him that it was not only the only safe thing to do but was also the right thing to do. I personally don't think that in June 1483 he would have considered that not putting forward his own claim would leave the way open to Tudor. I don't think Tudor was on anybody's radar as a serious threat at that time. If Richard hadn't been prepared to take up the offer my guess is that the precontract would have remained a state secret, known about only to the members of the Privy Council and the Woodville family.

But the canonical "double whammy" effect of Edward's two consecutive clandestine marriages is the reason why Titulus Regius stresses the clandestine and profane nature of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth as well as the fact of his precontract to Eleanor Butler. There is also canonical significance in the suggestion in TR that Edward was trapped into marriage by witchcraft because that would have nullified his consent. Had witchcraft been used, in other words, the Woodville marriage would have been invalid on two completely separate grounds. 

I totally agree: history does hinge on ticky little points, and it's a huge pity that the majority of historians of the period haven't got to grips with medieval marriage law.

Marie

 

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.
> Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.
> Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?
>
> --- In mailto:, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> > The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> > So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
> >
>

Indeed. And that's one reason why I am not convinced that Stillington officiated. There is no solid evidence that his role was any more than drafting Titulus Regius.

For the same reason I am more inclined to believe the claim in TR that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville married in a profane place than the claim made in early 16th century chronicles that they married in a chapel with a priest and a couple of choirboys. There is the report in a document of the 1490s that Dr Eborall had claimed to have married Edward IV to Elizabeth, but I've yet to see the document in question, which is supposedly to be published at some point by the historian who found it, and I'm a little sceptical - I've read quite a few accounts of clandestine marriages and none of them involved a priest, just a couple of lay witnesses who could verify the facts at a later date if need arose. I think it's more likely that attempts were being made after Bosworth to make the Woodville wedding look more respectable than it actually was.

Having said that, of course, if the King demanded of a priest that he perform a secret marriage, it would be hard for him to refuse. But, no, there is no evidence that Stillington got into any trouble with the Archbishop over the Butler marriage, and Henry VII's council recorded only that he had drafted the bill setting out the details of the precontract - which was by then of course held to be a pack of lies; that council entry does not say that Stillington claimed to have witnessed the marriage. We only have that from Commines.

Marie

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

Does that mean that Bishop Stillington could have been sanctioned for attending or approving a clandestine marriage?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 7:40:23 PM

Well yes, the fact that Edward had exchanged vows with Lady Eleanor, albeit clandestinely, (and almost certainly consummated) meant he was already a married man. By the by, I don't know if you've caught earlier discussions on the forum, but a "precontract" was not a medieval term for an engagement as it is usually represented by historians, but was the legal term for the prior contract of marriage in a bigamy case.

I think Richard probably took the throne because there was a dangerous political crisis, with already one or two attempts on his life (ie at Stony Stratford and at the Tower on Friday 13th), and because the revelation of the precontract convinced him that it was not only the only safe thing to do but was also the right thing to do. I personally don't think that in June 1483 he would have considered that not putting forward his own claim would leave the way open to Tudor. I don't think Tudor was on anybody's radar as a serious threat at that time. If Richard hadn't been prepared to take up the offer my guess is that the precontract would have remained a state secret, known about only to the members of the Privy Council and the Woodville family.

But the canonical "double whammy" effect of Edward's two consecutive clandestine marriages is the reason why Titulus Regius stresses the clandestine and profane nature of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth as well as the fact of his precontract to Eleanor Butler. There is also canonical significance in the suggestion in TR that Edward was trapped into marriage by witchcraft because that would have nullified his consent. Had witchcraft been used, in other words, the Woodville marriage would have been invalid on two completely separate grounds.

I totally agree: history does hinge on ticky little points, and it's a huge pity that the majority of historians of the period haven't got to grips with medieval marriage law.

Marie

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.
> Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.
> Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?
>
> --- In mailto:, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> > The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> > So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
> >
>

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present.

Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Interesting. So who knew and who told Richard? It is said that Clarence knew, was the story well known in the family? Did one of the witnesses tell Stillington? Questions, questions.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 9:04:04 PM

 

Indeed. And that's one reason why I am not convinced that Stillington officiated. There is no solid evidence that his role was any more than drafting Titulus Regius.

For the same reason I am more inclined to believe the claim in TR that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville married in a profane place than the claim made in early 16th century chronicles that they married in a chapel with a priest and a couple of choirboys. There is the report in a document of the 1490s that  Dr Eborall had claimed to have married Edward IV to Elizabeth, but I've yet to see the document in question, which is supposedly to be published at some point by the historian who found it, and I'm a little sceptical - I've read quite a few accounts of clandestine marriages and none of them involved a priest, just a couple of lay witnesses who could verify the facts at a later date if need arose. I think it's more likely that attempts were being made after Bosworth to make the Woodville wedding look more respectable than it actually was.

Having said that, of course, if the King demanded of a priest that he perform a secret marriage, it would be hard for him to refuse. But, no, there is no evidence that Stillington got into any trouble with the Archbishop over the Butler marriage, and Henry VII's council recorded only that he had drafted the bill setting out the details of the precontract - which was by then of course held to be a pack of lies; that council entry does not say that Stillington claimed to have witnessed the marriage.  We only have that from Commines.

Marie 

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

Does that mean that Bishop Stillington could have been sanctioned for attending or approving a clandestine marriage?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 7:40:23 PM

 

Well yes, the fact that Edward had exchanged vows with Lady Eleanor, albeit clandestinely, (and almost certainly consummated) meant he was already a married man.  By the by, I don't know if you've caught earlier discussions on the forum, but a "precontract" was not a medieval term for an engagement as it is usually represented by historians, but was the legal term for the prior contract of marriage in a bigamy case.

I think Richard probably took the throne because there was a dangerous political crisis, with already one or two attempts on his life (ie at Stony Stratford and at the Tower on Friday 13th), and because the revelation of the precontract convinced him that it was not only the only safe thing to do but was also the right thing to do. I personally don't think that in June 1483 he would have considered that not putting forward his own claim would leave the way open to Tudor. I don't think Tudor was on anybody's radar as a serious threat at that time. If Richard hadn't been prepared to take up the offer my guess is that the precontract would have remained a state secret, known about only to the members of the Privy Council and the Woodville family.

But the canonical "double whammy" effect of Edward's two consecutive clandestine marriages is the reason why Titulus Regius stresses the clandestine and profane nature of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth as well as the fact of his precontract to Eleanor Butler. There is also canonical significance in the suggestion in TR that Edward was trapped into marriage by witchcraft because that would have nullified his consent. Had witchcraft been used, in other words, the Woodville marriage would have been invalid on two completely separate grounds. 

I totally agree: history does hinge on ticky little points, and it's a huge pity that the majority of historians of the period haven't got to grips with medieval marriage law.

Marie

 

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.
> Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.
> Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?
>
> --- In mailto:, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> > The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> > So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
> >
>

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense. BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women.So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king. Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Hilary,
I have to say how much I like your article on Stillington.

Did your research turn up anything concerning an embassy to Brittany in 1476?

This is reported in Griffiths and Thomas, with a number of references to french articles - particularly one on the right of sanctuary in Saint Malo.

It seems that Francis was tricked into believing that Edward wanted to have Henry Tudor marry Elizabeth of York and have his titles resored (I know he didn't).

Henry was taken as far as Saint Malo before escaping to take refuge in a church. I always think that this incident is more likely to have been the explanation for Stillington's arrest after Bosworth, rather than his involvement in TR.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Fri, Nov 8, 2013 10:17:23 AM

 

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense. BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women.So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king.  Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
  Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Hi Hilary.

Glad we're in agreement about Stillington's role in the precontract. I've been suggesting this consistently on the forum for quite a long time now so you will certainly have 'heard' me say it before. It sort of arose naturally from my reading on clandestine marriages and the entry in Henry VII's first Year Book. I also find that JAH has been a tad too ready to identify things as evidence.

As for women, I don't think you can assume that those who married several times were necessarily being pressured into these repeated marriages. A widow was in theory at least an independent woman and in a position to choose her own man; I'm not saying families never interfered - we know of instances where they did - but generally it was the woman's own choice. Some women preferred widowhood, and others seemed to like being married. Every time they were widowed, as well, they stood to pick up some more dower. For the Logge project I transcribed the will of a Lambeth widow named Maude Underhill who had seen off five husbands. My word, that lady had a lot of gowns and girdles.

As regards Richard's 'cartulary', Wilkinson was presumably drawing on Hicks and Ross. This is actually a series of documents relating to Richard, earlier Neville lords and even the Countess of Warwick which were bound at a later date into a large volume (BL MS Cotton Julius BXII) - ledger size - containing many other things such as the Heralds' Memoir for the early years of Henry VII's reign and even the trial of the Irish Templars. There is nothing unusual in Richard having kept documents relating to property, even very old ones. In fact, every lord had a cartulary. The documents in question are interspersed with others which don't seem as though they really belong, but may have been slipped in as being in some way relevant by the person who collated the volume. I can't claim to have looked at more than a couple of these docs - I was really using the volume for the Heralds' Memoir at the time (could have saved myself the trouble as it's now in print). Some of the documents may have been of more interest to Anne and her mother than they were to Richard (eg the Countess' petition to Parliament from Beaulieu Abbey is included). I do get tired of Hicks always trying to make mountains out of thin air. If someone goes through all my stuff after I'm dead they will also find copies of deeds to properties no longer in the family. Doesn't mean I've got any intention of trying to claim them back.

I've got a complete list of the items in Julius BXII if anyone is interested.

I agree Richard must have worried about his lack of heirs, but his entire position in the here and now rested on his marriage. And also his statements about adultery show how seriously he took the idea of marriage vows.

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense. BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women.So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king. Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

This was much later, and in a different country, but my great great grandmother was widowed in the 1860's, was left considerable property by her father and her husband. She had five children at the time she was widowed. She married a widower whose wife had died in childbirth, and he had three children. They had four children together. She had the choice to remarry, and did choose for herself. I imagine that even in the day of the Plantagenets, wealthy young widows were a step up for some men. Especially if they were upper gentry or minor royals, a rich wife would be a help&&

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:18 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: Legitimacy questions...

Hi Hilary.

Glad we're in agreement about Stillington's role in the precontract. I've been suggesting this consistently on the forum for quite a long time now so you will certainly have 'heard' me say it before. It sort of arose naturally from my reading on clandestine marriages and the entry in Henry VII's first Year Book. I also find that JAH has been a tad too ready to identify things as evidence.

As for women, I don't think you can assume that those who married several times were necessarily being pressured into these repeated marriages. A widow was in theory at least an independent woman and in a position to choose her own man; I'm not saying families never interfered - we know of instances where they did - but generally it was the woman's own choice. Some women preferred widowhood, and others seemed to like being married. Every time they were widowed, as well, they stood to pick up some more dower. For the Logge project I transcribed the will of a Lambeth widow named Maude Underhill who had seen off five husbands. My word, that lady had a lot of gowns and girdles.

As regards Richard's 'cartulary', Wilkinson was presumably drawing on Hicks and Ross. This is actually a series of documents relating to Richard, earlier Neville lords and even the Countess of Warwick which were bound at a later date into a large volume (BL MS Cotton Julius BXII) - ledger size - containing many other things such as the Heralds' Memoir for the early years of Henry VII's reign and even the trial of the Irish Templars. There is nothing unusual in Richard having kept documents relating to property, even very old ones. In fact, every lord had a cartulary. The documents in question are interspersed with others which don't seem as though they really belong, but may have been slipped in as being in some way relevant by the person who collated the volume. I can't claim to have looked at more than a couple of these docs - I was really using the volume for the Heralds' Memoir at the time (could have saved myself the trouble as it's now in print). Some of the documents may have been of more interest to Anne and her mother than they were to Richard (eg the Countess' petition to Parliament from Beaulieu Abbey is included). I do get tired of Hicks always trying to make mountains out of thin air. If someone goes through all my stuff after I'm dead they will also find copies of deeds to properties no longer in the family. Doesn't mean I've got any intention of trying to claim them back.

I've got a complete list of the items in Julius BXII if anyone is interested.

I agree Richard must have worried about his lack of heirs, but his entire position in the here and now rested on his marriage. And also his statements about adultery show how seriously he took the idea of marriage vows.

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense.

BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women.

So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king. Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present.

Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Thanks David - though it may have come unstuck a bit with theories on Prior Ingleby (the Ingleby family itself said he divorced his wife and was treated as dead). I read the bit you refer to but put it on the back burner because there is a lot of info on Stillington post 1470 which warrants further investigation; particularly his West Country connections and how he and his family became so wealthy. From what I read I tend to agree with you . .One thing from my current research may interest you though. I've traced my gentry in the West and East Midlands back to the fourteenth century, particularly their service to Richard II. A lot of them were his personal servants, High Sheriffs, escheators, MPs and their intermarriage forms a huge web spreading down through the fifteenth century and gradually moving south, certainly to just north of London. My gut feeling, and it is just that at the moment, is that the Yorkists lacked a significant presence in these counties - Stafford is a good example. On the other hand, in Warks, they had Clarence, Richard Neville and Edward himself took a personal interest in Coventry after Clarence's death. Quite a lot of these gentry families re-emerge and become servants of H7 (who promoted middle class servants). Also in the Midlands something not often mentioned is the death of Hastings, who patrolled Warks and the East Midlands very well. Twenty years on the throne is not long - just think how close 2000 still seems. Could it be that these families sat it out because there had to be an alternative to weak H6 but when things started to crumble because of dissent between the Woodvilles and the rather unknown Richard they sat back and watched things pan out? It would seem that anyone other than an adult undisputed heir of Edward taking the throne in 1483 would have had an uphill sturggle. A lot more work still to do though. H.

On Friday, 8 November 2013, 12:11, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I have to say how much I like your article on Stillington.

Did your research turn up anything concerning an embassy to Brittany in 1476?

This is reported in Griffiths and Thomas, with a number of references to french articles - particularly one on the right of sanctuary in Saint Malo.

It seems that Francis was tricked into believing that Edward wanted to have Henry Tudor marry Elizabeth of York and have his titles resored (I know he didn't).

Henry was taken as far as Saint Malo before escaping to take refuge in a church. I always think that this incident is more likely to have been the explanation for Stillington's arrest after Bosworth, rather than his involvement in TR.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Fri, Nov 8, 2013 10:17:23 AM

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense. BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women.So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king. Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Hi Marie - I would be interested in the list of items in Julius BXII.  Thanks.
A J

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Hi Hilary.

Glad we're in agreement about Stillington's role in the precontract. I've been suggesting this consistently on the forum for quite a long time now so you will certainly have 'heard' me say it before. It sort of arose naturally from my reading on clandestine marriages and the entry in Henry VII's first Year Book. I also find that JAH has been a tad too ready to identify things as evidence.

 

As for women, I don't think you can assume that those who married several times were necessarily being pressured into these repeated marriages. A widow was in theory at least an independent woman and in a position to choose her own man; I'm not saying families never interfered - we know of instances where they did - but generally it was the woman's own choice. Some women preferred widowhood, and others seemed to like being married. Every time they were widowed, as well, they stood to pick up some more dower. For the Logge project I transcribed the will of a Lambeth widow named Maude Underhill who had seen off five husbands. My word, that lady had a lot of gowns and girdles.

 

As regards Richard's 'cartulary', Wilkinson was presumably drawing on Hicks and Ross. This is actually a series of documents relating to Richard, earlier Neville lords and even the Countess of Warwick which were bound at a later date into a large volume (BL MS Cotton Julius BXII) - ledger size - containing many other things such as the Heralds' Memoir for the early years of Henry VII's reign and even the trial of the Irish Templars. There is nothing unusual in Richard having kept documents relating to property, even very old ones. In fact, every lord had a cartulary. The documents in question are interspersed with others which don't seem as though they really belong, but may have been slipped in as being in some way relevant by the person who collated the volume. I can't claim to have looked at more than a couple of these docs - I was really using the volume for the Heralds' Memoir at the time (could have saved myself the trouble as it's now in print). Some of the documents may have been of more interest to Anne and her mother than they were to Richard (eg the Countess' petition to Parliament from Beaulieu Abbey is included). I do get tired of Hicks always trying to make mountains out of thin air. If someone goes through all my stuff after I'm dead they will also find copies of deeds to properties no longer in the family. Doesn't mean I've got any intention of trying to claim them back.

I've got a complete list of the items in Julius BXII if anyone is interested.

 

I agree Richard must have worried about his lack of heirs, but his entire position in the here and now rested on his marriage. And also his statements about adultery show how seriously he took the idea of marriage vows.

 

Marie

 

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense.  BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women. So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king.  Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
  Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present.  Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Perhaps we should note that Lady Butler was such an "impediment" that Henry Tudor had Titulus Regius supressed/destroyed, so that until after the entire Tudor reign was over and a surviving copy of TR was found, people thought that the common whore Elizabeth Lucy had been the one Edward IV had married, and not Eleanor Butler, the daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury.

I think the matter of Elizabeth of York's bastardy via Titulus Regius mattered a great deal to Henry Tudor, as did the legal claim that her father had been a bigamist. You might want to consider that Henry himself emphasized that he took the throne under right of conquest and didn't want to base his claim on his lineage, so his legitimacy/illegitimacy mattered to him. So shaky was his claim that he had to turn Richard into a monster to justify his occupying the throne.

Tudor's legitimacy also wasn't immaterial to the nobles. He took the throne promising to marry Elizabeth of York, and delayed so long, they had to press him into marrying her. Henry had to unite the houses to help legitimize and solidify his reign. He also had to cover up his bride's legal illegitimacy. Ticky little points, indeed.

I doubt Henry Tudor was on Richard's mind when he was managing the mess Edward IV had left behind. If you trace the chronology of events between Edward's death and Richard's being offered the crown, you'll find Richard was handling each crisis/matter as it arose. Tudor wasn't a matter on his horizon until after his coronation.

~Weds

~Weds

---In , <merriannmclain@...> wrote:

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> If you read that canon again, you will see that it did not make the marriage *automatically* invalid and the children illegitimate. What it did was to forbid couples from making clandestine marriages, and where there was a nullifying impediment (such as consanguinity or bigamy) deprive the ignorant party to the marriage of the protection they would have enjoyed had the marriage been conducted in the proper manner.
> Forbidding clandestine marriages did not make them invalid, it just meant the couple had disobeyed the Church; often a penance was imposed. The references to invalidity and illegitimacy refer to circumstances where there had in addition been an impediment to the couple marrying at all; in these circumstances couples who had married in church were afforded protection that was now to be denied to those who had married clandestinely. For instance, if a woman had innocently married in church, after publication of banns, a man who was secretly already married, then the legitimacy of her children by that marriage would be protected because she had done her best to make sure the marriage was valid. But if she had married the man clandestinely her children would be bastards. This was Elizabeth Woodville's problem - had Edward IV married her properly 'in facie ecclesie' (in the face of the Church), then Edward V would have been legitimate despite the precontract.
> Similarly, if a couple married in church, after banns, but later discovered they were more closely related than the rules allowed, they would usually be granted a retrospective dispensation for that relationship so they could remain man and wife. But if they had married clandestinely they would (post Lateran IV) be refused a dispensation and the marriage would simply be declared void.
> Marie
>
>
> ---In , <merriannmclain@> wrote:
>
> Thank you Marie; however, the Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 51, makes clandestine marriage invalid and the children illegitimate. I know that English law was lenient toward Church law; could this be the source of discontent with Richard? Was the popular view that clandestine was 'good enough'?
>
> --- In mailto:, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > A clandestine marriage wasn't of itself illegal: a marriage required only the exchange of words of consent by the couple; this made a binding match without either priest or witnesses. It was just that the Church discouraged people from marrying clandestinely because without the publicity attending a proper church wedding, with publication of banns, there were danger that there might be an undisclosed impediment to the marriage or that one party to it would later try to deny it had ever happened.
> > The reason that Edward IV's offspring by Elizabeth Woodville were ruled illegitimate was that he had already been clandestinely married to someone else.
> > So if Katherine de Valois had really married Owen Tudor, then Edmund Tudor would have been legitimate. The question mark over Edmund's legitimacy arises from the fact that no evidence of the marriage was ever produced. Indeed, Edmund's very paternity is in dispute because Katherine's previous plan had been to marry Edmund Beaufort (I have no view on Edmund Tudor's paternity because I haven't looked into the problem).
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > ---In mailto:, <merriannmclain@> wrote:
> >
> > I was...well, not reading, just staring at the page and my mind (finally) kicked in: Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were clandestinely married, making Edmund illegitimate by canon law. I cannot seem to find any answer to whether this extends to the next generation in medieval law. Any thoughts?
> >
>

Hi David,

Would you possibly be able to track down these French articles to get the original sources for Henry's trip to Saint-Malo for us? I'm pretty sure the story turns up in Vergil, but I have problems with it.

We're agreed that Edward could not have meant to marry his eldest daughter to Henry Tudor, particularly if this incident took place between the summer of 1475 and the end of 1482, because she was already promised to the Dauphin. But to my mind Edward could not have chosen to trick Duke Francis and HT into thinking he did mean to do so either, because it was absolute public knowledge that Elizabeth and the Dauphin were to be wed; indeed, Edward was careful to include Duke Francis' interests in his deal with Louis in 1475.

I have also read that it was Stillington who went on this mission, but again I would like to know the ultimate source(s) of this information. For instance, do we have a commission for him from Edward IV, or payments for his expenses, or a record in the Breton records of his stay there? As usual, so many questions. (You can imagine what an annoying child I must have been.)

Marie

---In , <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:

Hilary,
I have to say how much I like your article on Stillington.

Did your research turn up anything concerning an embassy to Brittany in 1476?

This is reported in Griffiths and Thomas, with a number of references to french articles - particularly one on the right of sanctuary in Saint Malo.

It seems that Francis was tricked into believing that Edward wanted to have Henry Tudor marry Elizabeth of York and have his titles resored (I know he didn't).

Henry was taken as far as Saint Malo before escaping to take refuge in a church. I always think that this incident is more likely to have been the explanation for Stillington's arrest after Bosworth, rather than his involvement in TR.

Kind regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Legitimacy questions...
Sent: Fri, Nov 8, 2013 10:17:23 AM

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense. BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women.So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king. Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Hi A J,

Sorry for the delay, but when I looked at the contents list I realised at least 60% of it was in Latin. Anyway, I've translated the Latin entries and here it is (the first 15 items in the MS have nothing to do with Richard). I'm also loading the list into the Files section on the website.

This index was emailed to me by the British Library, by the way. It also included folio numbers, but they are not quite correct as the folios have all been renumbered, so I've left them off.

Marie

Richard's Cartulary

16. Sundry grants of Edward IV. and others, by which they confer to his brother Richard D. of Gloucester, divers manors in Cornwall and Kent, and lands and offices in other parts of England

17. Charter of the liberties of the Honour of Richmond, year 24 Henry VI (1446)

18. The wardenship of the west marches granted to Richard E. of Warwick, by Ed. IV

19. An act of Parliament, by which the Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester were authorized to hold and make partition of the lands of Anne Countess of Warwick, mother to their respective wives, as if the said Countess had been dead. With an indenture of a partition actually made by virtue of this act, dated July 20, 14 Ed. IV.

20. A pedigree of the Lord Vaux's family.

21. Office of Under-Sheriff of Cumbria, granted to Richard Duke of Gloucester for term of life. February 18, 14 Ed. IV [1475]

22.. Release of the manor of Middleham, Yorks, with other [propertie]s, made to Ralph Earl of Westmorland, 9 Henry V.

23. Office of Constable of England, granted to Richard Wydevill Earl Ryvers 24 August 7 Edward IV.

24. Revocation and annulment of the process against both Hugh Despencers, father and son; from Parliament Roll of year 20 Richard. And transcript of the judgements of them, sent to/by the justices and barons of England.

25. Knights' fees of Ralph Lord Nevil of his manor of Shirefhoton in Yorkshire.

26. The order of the nobility in their goings and sittings (in Parliament) according to their estates.

27. A short note relating to the marriage and issue of Sir Wm Brandon, Knt.

28. The Lords, as they sat in the Parliament house in Henry VIth's time.

29. A certain writ of the custody and marriage of Richard Fenys, Lord Say, and George Nevill, granted to Richard Duke of Gloucester by King Edward IV.

30. The marriage and issue of Tho. Chandos, and Sir James Foulgia (Foljambe?) of Walton, Knt.

31. Letters patent in which King Edward IV granted the manors of Farley, Heightsbury and Tesfont to Richard Duke of Gloucester.

32. Writ addressed to the escheator on this side of Trent, for delivering the lands and tenements of Hugh le Despenser

33. The part of the Honour of Gloucester belonging to Hugh le Despenser and Eleanor his wife; containing the manors, with the fees and advowsons of churches, and religious houses.

34. The extent of the lands that were of Robert (de Mellent), once Earl of Gloucester, made by Philip de Covel and Richard de Stanes. Year 46 Henry III.

35. Plea between Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, querent, and John de Mowbray, of Axiholme, deforciant, of the castle of Swenesby and the lands of Gowersland in Wales.

36. Charter of King Edward III to William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, and Katherine his wife, of the castle of Sherborne in the county of Dorset, and of many other manors in England. 12th year of the reign.

37. Charter of creation of William de Montagu as Earl of Salisbury, 12 Edward III, as the same king has confirmed. 15th year of the reign.

38. Clauses of an act of Parliament in favour of Alicia Countess of Salisbury: also the act of Parliament for the resumption of Crown Lands. 13 Edw. III. [IV]

39. An act of attainder against Richd and Robt Wells, and Tho. de La Launde. 10 Edw. IV.

40. An act of attainder against John E. of Oxford, and Geo. and Tho. Vere. II Edw. IV.

41. An act for the exchange of the castle and manor of Elwell, for the castle and manor of Ugmore, both in Wales, between Edward IV and Richard D. of Gloucester.

42. Letter of pardon, or rather a grant to Richd D. of Gloucester and Anne his wife.

43. Act of parliament for the manors of Chesterfield, Scarsdale, Bushey, Cottingham and the town of Sardburgh. 12 Edward IV; by inspeximus (official confirmation) dated 8 March in the 15th year of the reign.

44. Inquisition of the forest of Inglewood in the county of Cumberland. 56 Henry III.

45. Charter of King Henry III of the forest: an inspeximus of Edward I  also a perambulation of the forest of Inglewoodl 29th year of the reign.

46. Letters of Richard Duke of Gloucester in which Robert Portington is constituted his attorney.

47. The descent of the family of Seymours.

48. Letters patent of King Edward IV for unpaid fines and fees.

49. Feoffment of the lands of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford of delivery to Richard Duke of Gloucester; 12 Edward IV.

50. Charters regarding the lands of Lord Hungerford.

51. The restitution in blood of Richard E. of Cambridge, and of Alice Countess of Salisbury, I Edw. IV. An inspeximus.

52. Final concord of the manors of Midelham and Shirefhoton made by James Ratcliff knight and Katherine his wife. 20 Edward IV.

53. Final concord between John Pylkington and others, querents, and Ralph Nevil and Isabel his wife, deforciants, of the foresaid manors.

54. Notes concerning the family of Fitz-William.

55. Fragment of a charter of King Edward IV of the manor of Skipton in Yorkshire.

56. Grant of the castle and manor of Chirk and Chirkeland, in the Marches of Wales, and of Wilmington in Kent, to William Stanley knight. 15 Edward IV.

57. Grant of Skpton in Craven to Richard Duke of Gloucester. 15 Edward IV.

58. Notes concerning the families of Charlton and Bourchier.

59. Notes concerning the descents, 1. of Margaret Dss. of Norfolk, daughter of Sir Tho. Brotherton, from King Ethelbright; 2. of Henry I. from Rollo D. of Normandy; 3. of the Countess of Ormond and Lady St. John, from Edmund E. of Lancaster; and, 4. of Sir John Poulett, from Philip K. of France.

60. Valor of rents of Richmondshire. Year 1309.

61. Inquisition post mortem of the lands of Baron Roos, 26 Edward III.

62. Inquisition post mortem of the lands of John Duke of Brittany and Earl of Richmond, 15 Edward III.

63. Inquisition post mortem of the office of pesage of Southampton, made for Thomas de Beauchamp. Earl of Warwick.

64. Five inquisitions of the lands of John Nevil knight of Raby. 12 Richard II.

65. Inspeximus of King Henry.... Charters of Edward III of the castle of Shyrburn and other possessions, granted to William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, and Katherine his wife.

66. Inquisition post mortem of the lands of Ralph Earl of Westmorland, 4 Henry VI.

67. Inquisitions post mortem of the lands of Joan Countess of Westmorland, 19 Henry VI.

68. Inquisition of the lands of Robert de Hungerford, attainted of High Treason, 13 Edward VI [sic].

69. Inquisition of the lands of Ralph Earl of Westmorland, 4 Henry VI.

70. Inquisition of the lands of Henry Beauford, Duke of Somerset, attainted of High Treason. 8 Edward IV.

71. Inquisitions post mortem of the lands of Walter de Hungford, 13 and 18 Edward IV, and of Margaret Lady Botreux, wife of Robert de Hungerford, 18 Edward IV.

72. The descent of the family of Savile: two articles; the latter with a note in the hand of Dr. N. Johnstone. 1679.

73. Fees belonging to the Justice, Steward, &c. of the forest of Galteres.

74. Writ of scire facias, about the fee of £50 belonging to Edmund Earl of Kent. 21 Edward III.

75. Commission of King Edward IV to Richard Duke of Gloucester that he should be his lieutenant general in the expedition against the Scots. 22nd year of the reign.

76. Notes concerning the families of Lacey, Fitz-William, Hugh de Alboniaco, Tateshall, &c.

77. Commission of King Henry VI to hear and determine divers treasons, etc, in the counties of York, Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland.

78. Petition of Anne Countess of Warwick to the Commons in Parliament, concerning the inheritance of the Earldom of Warwick.

79. Petition of Richard D. of Gloucester, and Elizabeth countess of Oxford, to Wm Gray Bp. of Ely, Ld Treasurer: with the answer of the said Bishop, about certain lands: and a mutilated record in Latin concerning the same.

---In , <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

Hi Marie - I would be interested in the list of items in Julius BXII. Thanks.
A J

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary.

Glad we're in agreement about Stillington's role in the precontract. I've been suggesting this consistently on the forum for quite a long time now so you will certainly have 'heard' me say it before. It sort of arose naturally from my reading on clandestine marriages and the entry in Henry VII's first Year Book. I also find that JAH has been a tad too ready to identify things as evidence.

As for women, I don't think you can assume that those who married several times were necessarily being pressured into these repeated marriages. A widow was in theory at least an independent woman and in a position to choose her own man; I'm not saying families never interfered - we know of instances where they did - but generally it was the woman's own choice. Some women preferred widowhood, and others seemed to like being married. Every time they were widowed, as well, they stood to pick up some more dower. For the Logge project I transcribed the will of a Lambeth widow named Maude Underhill who had seen off five husbands. My word, that lady had a lot of gowns and girdles.

As regards Richard's 'cartulary', Wilkinson was presumably drawing on Hicks and Ross. This is actually a series of documents relating to Richard, earlier Neville lords and even the Countess of Warwick which were bound at a later date into a large volume (BL MS Cotton Julius BXII) - ledger size - containing many other things such as the Heralds' Memoir for the early years of Henry VII's reign and even the trial of the Irish Templars. There is nothing unusual in Richard having kept documents relating to property, even very old ones. In fact, every lord had a cartulary. The documents in question are interspersed with others which don't seem as though they really belong, but may have been slipped in as being in some way relevant by the person who collated the volume. I can't claim to have looked at more than a couple of these docs - I was really using the volume for the Heralds' Memoir at the time (could have saved myself the trouble as it's now in print). Some of the documents may have been of more interest to Anne and her mother than they were to Richard (eg the Countess' petition to Parliament from Beaulieu Abbey is included). I do get tired of Hicks always trying to make mountains out of thin air. If someone goes through all my stuff after I'm dead they will also find copies of deeds to properties no longer in the family. Doesn't mean I've got any intention of trying to claim them back.

I've got a complete list of the items in Julius BXII if anyone is interested.

I agree Richard must have worried about his lack of heirs, but his entire position in the here and now rested on his marriage. And also his statements about adultery show how seriously he took the idea of marriage vows.

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense. BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women. So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king. Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present. Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

Marie - thank you so much (will add them to my spreadsheet where I'm trying to store references to primary documents, & when available, transcriptions.  Was there a delay? I certainly didn't notice!
A J.

On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:26 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Hi A J,

 

Sorry for the delay, but when I looked at the contents list I realised at least 60% of it was in Latin. Anyway, I've translated the Latin entries and here it is (the first 15 items in the MS  have nothing to do with Richard). I'm also loading the list into the Files section on the website.

This index was emailed to me by the British Library, by the way. It also included folio numbers, but they are not quite correct as the folios have all been renumbered, so I've left them off.

Marie

 

Richard's Cartulary

16. Sundry grants of Edward IV. and others, by which they confer to his brother Richard D. of Gloucester, divers manors in Cornwall and Kent, and lands and offices in other parts of England

17. Charter of the liberties of the Honour of Richmond, year 24 Henry VI (1446)

18. The wardenship of the west marches granted to Richard E. of Warwick, by Ed. IV

19. An act of Parliament, by which the Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester were authorized to hold and make partition of the lands of Anne Countess of Warwick, mother to their respective wives, as if the said Countess had been dead. With an indenture of a partition actually made by virtue of this act, dated July 20, 14 Ed. IV.

20. A pedigree of the Lord Vaux's family.

21. Office of Under-Sheriff of Cumbria, granted to Richard Duke of Gloucester for term of life. February 18, 14 Ed. IV [1475]

22.. Release of the manor of Middleham, Yorks, with other [propertie]s, made to Ralph Earl of Westmorland, 9 Henry V.

23. Office of Constable of England, granted to Richard Wydevill Earl Ryvers 24 August 7 Edward IV.

24. Revocation and annulment of the process against both Hugh Despencers, father and son; from Parliament Roll of year 20 Richard. And transcript of the judgements of them, sent to/by  the justices and barons of England.

25. Knights' fees of Ralph Lord Nevil of his manor of Shirefhoton in Yorkshire.

26. The order of the nobility in their goings and sittings (in Parliament) according to their estates.

27. A short note relating to the marriage and issue of Sir Wm Brandon, Knt.

28. The Lords, as they sat in the Parliament house in Henry VIth's time.

29. A certain writ of the custody and marriage of Richard Fenys, Lord Say, and George Nevill, granted to Richard Duke of Gloucester by King Edward IV.

30. The marriage and issue of Tho. Chandos, and Sir James Foulgia (Foljambe?) of Walton, Knt.

31. Letters patent in which King Edward IV granted the manors of Farley, Heightsbury and Tesfont to Richard Duke of Gloucester.

32. Writ addressed to the escheator on this side of Trent, for delivering the lands and tenements of Hugh le Despenser

33. The part of the Honour of Gloucester belonging to Hugh le Despenser and Eleanor his wife; containing the manors, with the fees and advowsons of churches, and religious houses.

34. The extent of the lands that were of Robert (de Mellent), once Earl of Gloucester, made by Philip de Covel and Richard de Stanes. Year 46 Henry III.

35. Plea between Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, querent, and John de Mowbray, of Axiholme, deforciant, of the castle of Swenesby and the lands of Gowersland in Wales.

36. Charter of King Edward III to William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, and Katherine his wife, of the castle of Sherborne in the county of Dorset, and of many other manors in England. 12th year of the reign.

37. Charter of creation of William de Montagu as Earl of Salisbury, 12 Edward III, as the same king has confirmed. 15th year of the reign.

38. Clauses of an act of Parliament in favour of Alicia Countess of Salisbury: also the act of Parliament for the resumption of Crown Lands. 13 Edw. III. [IV]

39. An act of attainder against Richd and Robt Wells, and Tho. de La Launde. 10 Edw. IV.

40. An act of attainder against John E. of Oxford, and Geo. and Tho. Vere. II Edw. IV.

41. An act for the exchange of the castle and manor of Elwell, for the castle and manor of Ugmore, both in Wales, between Edward IV and Richard D. of Gloucester.

42. Letter of pardon, or rather a grant to Richd D. of Gloucester and Anne his wife.

43. Act of parliament for the manors of Chesterfield, Scarsdale, Bushey, Cottingham and the town of Sardburgh. 12 Edward IV; by inspeximus (official confirmation) dated 8 March in the 15th year of the reign.

44. Inquisition of the forest of Inglewood in the county of Cumberland. 56 Henry III.

45. Charter of King Henry III of the forest: an inspeximus of Edward I  also a perambulation of the forest of Inglewoodl 29th year of the reign.

46. Letters of Richard Duke of Gloucester in which Robert Portington is constituted his attorney.

47. The descent of the family of Seymours.

48. Letters patent of King Edward IV for unpaid fines and fees.

49. Feoffment of the lands of Elizabeth Countess of Oxford of delivery to Richard Duke of Gloucester; 12 Edward IV.

50. Charters regarding the lands of Lord Hungerford.

51. The restitution in blood of Richard E. of Cambridge, and of Alice Countess of Salisbury, I Edw. IV. An inspeximus.

52. Final concord of the manors of Midelham and Shirefhoton made by James Ratcliff knight and Katherine his wife. 20 Edward IV.

53. Final concord between John Pylkington and others, querents, and Ralph Nevil and Isabel his wife, deforciants, of the foresaid manors.

54. Notes concerning the family of Fitz-William.

55. Fragment of a charter of King Edward IV of the manor of Skipton in Yorkshire.

56. Grant of the castle and manor of Chirk and Chirkeland, in the Marches of Wales, and of Wilmington in Kent, to William Stanley knight. 15 Edward IV.

57. Grant of Skpton in Craven to Richard Duke of Gloucester. 15 Edward IV.

58. Notes concerning the families of Charlton and Bourchier.

59. Notes concerning the descents, 1. of Margaret Dss. of Norfolk, daughter of Sir Tho. Brotherton, from King Ethelbright; 2. of Henry I. from Rollo D. of Normandy; 3. of the Countess of Ormond and Lady St. John, from Edmund E. of Lancaster; and, 4. of Sir John Poulett, from Philip K. of France.

60. Valor of rents of Richmondshire. Year 1309.

61. Inquisition post mortem of the lands of Baron Roos, 26 Edward III.

62. Inquisition post mortem of the lands of John Duke of Brittany and Earl of Richmond, 15 Edward III.

63. Inquisition post mortem of the office of pesage of Southampton, made for Thomas de Beauchamp. Earl of Warwick.

64. Five inquisitions of the lands of John Nevil knight of Raby. 12 Richard II.

65. Inspeximus of King Henry.... Charters of Edward III of the castle of Shyrburn and other possessions, granted to William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, and Katherine his wife.

66. Inquisition post mortem of the lands of Ralph Earl of Westmorland, 4 Henry VI.

67. Inquisitions post mortem of the lands of Joan Countess of Westmorland, 19 Henry VI.

68. Inquisition of the lands of Robert de Hungerford, attainted of High Treason, 13 Edward VI [sic].

69. Inquisition of the lands of Ralph Earl of Westmorland, 4 Henry VI.

70. Inquisition of the lands of Henry Beauford, Duke of Somerset, attainted of High Treason. 8 Edward IV.

71. Inquisitions post mortem of the lands of Walter de Hungford, 13 and 18 Edward IV, and of Margaret Lady Botreux, wife of Robert de Hungerford, 18 Edward IV.

72. The descent of the family of Savile: two articles; the latter with a note in the hand of Dr. N. Johnstone. 1679.

73. Fees belonging to the Justice, Steward, &c. of the forest of Galteres.

74. Writ of scire facias, about the fee of £50 belonging to Edmund Earl of Kent. 21 Edward III.

75. Commission of King Edward IV to Richard Duke of Gloucester that he should be his lieutenant general in the expedition against the Scots. 22nd year of the reign.

76. Notes concerning the families of Lacey, Fitz-William, Hugh de Alboniaco, Tateshall, &c.

77. Commission of King Henry VI to hear and determine divers treasons, etc, in the counties of York, Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland.

78. Petition of Anne Countess of Warwick to the Commons in Parliament, concerning the inheritance of the Earldom of Warwick.

79. Petition of Richard D. of Gloucester, and Elizabeth countess of Oxford, to Wm Gray Bp. of Ely, Ld Treasurer: with the answer of the said Bishop, about certain lands: and a mutilated record in Latin concerning the same.

 

 

 

---In , <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

Hi Marie - I would be interested in the list of items in Julius BXII.  Thanks.
A J

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Hi Hilary.

Glad we're in agreement about Stillington's role in the precontract. I've been suggesting this consistently on the forum for quite a long time now so you will certainly have 'heard' me say it before. It sort of arose naturally from my reading on clandestine marriages and the entry in Henry VII's first Year Book. I also find that JAH has been a tad too ready to identify things as evidence.

 

As for women, I don't think you can assume that those who married several times were necessarily being pressured into these repeated marriages. A widow was in theory at least an independent woman and in a position to choose her own man; I'm not saying families never interfered - we know of instances where they did - but generally it was the woman's own choice. Some women preferred widowhood, and others seemed to like being married. Every time they were widowed, as well, they stood to pick up some more dower. For the Logge project I transcribed the will of a Lambeth widow named Maude Underhill who had seen off five husbands. My word, that lady had a lot of gowns and girdles.

 

As regards Richard's 'cartulary', Wilkinson was presumably drawing on Hicks and Ross. This is actually a series of documents relating to Richard, earlier Neville lords and even the Countess of Warwick which were bound at a later date into a large volume (BL MS Cotton Julius BXII) - ledger size - containing many other things such as the Heralds' Memoir for the early years of Henry VII's reign and even the trial of the Irish Templars. There is nothing unusual in Richard having kept documents relating to property, even very old ones. In fact, every lord had a cartulary. The documents in question are interspersed with others which don't seem as though they really belong, but may have been slipped in as being in some way relevant by the person who collated the volume. I can't claim to have looked at more than a couple of these docs - I was really using the volume for the Heralds' Memoir at the time (could have saved myself the trouble as it's now in print). Some of the documents may have been of more interest to Anne and her mother than they were to Richard (eg the Countess' petition to Parliament from Beaulieu Abbey is included). I do get tired of Hicks always trying to make mountains out of thin air. If someone goes through all my stuff after I'm dead they will also find copies of deeds to properties no longer in the family. Doesn't mean I've got any intention of trying to claim them back.

I've got a complete list of the items in Julius BXII if anyone is interested.

 

I agree Richard must have worried about his lack of heirs, but his entire position in the here and now rested on his marriage. And also his statements about adultery show how seriously he took the idea of marriage vows.

 

Marie

 

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Marie, I do apologise because I can't find the end of this thread but I'm amazed that you agree with what I think about Stillington and you, quite rightly, take it one step further. You see I could find no proof that Stillington made any substantial gains in the early 1460s which could be interpreted as rewards from Edward for keeping silent (sorry to take issue with JAH there). His salary as Keeper of the Privy Seal remained the same as pre-Edward, he gained about one prebendary and his appointment as Bishop of Bath and Wells could have been quite logical given his acquaintance with Beckynton and his contacts in the South West. He was a bright man; Edward was a bright man. I'd have thought Stillington, with his knowledge of and interest in the Law would have been the last person to choose as a witness. I thought someone must have told Stillington, but as you say, he could just have been asked to draft TR because of that very knowledge of the Law. That makes perfect sense.  BTW I'm doing some other research which involves the gentry in the counties north of London. What I find really shocking; and I shouldn't because I really knew; was how middle and upper class women were used as purveyors of wealth (if they were joint heiresses) and for breeding. It's amazing how many I've found who had about three husbands and getting on for twenty children. In fact that seems to be the sole purpose of women. So in that sense Anne and Richard's marriage must have been a disaster. Given the aquisitive side of Richard's nature (our friend Wilkinson draws attention to his cartulary) it is astonishing that he did nothing to secure further heirs. Was it because he loved her too much to put her aside (there would surely be someone who could find a canonical excuse if they needed too as Louis XII did with Jeanne of France) ? Did he blame his increasing scoliosis and see it as a punshment from God? Certainly he must have worried about his lack of heirs long before he became king.  Hilary

On Thursday, 7 November 2013, 22:11, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
  Yep. No witnesses were actually required to make a valid marriage, but if your partner later tried to disown you and marry someone else you would need witnesses to convince a church court that your marriage really had happened; so people usually tried to have at least one witness present.  Marie

---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

One thing J A-H emphasizes, throughout his works, is that marriages of the time did not need a priest, or much in the way of witnesses - though there must have been a few solid ones for Edward's marriage to Eleanor or else the Three Estates wouldn't have believed it. Tamara

merriann wrote:

Ahhhh...thank you for the clarification. So Lady Butler was important only as an 'impediment'. This makes it more likely that Richard took the throne to prevent another Beaufort line, doesn't it? Tudor's legitimacy (or not as the lack of evidence indicates) is immaterial. Thank you, history seems to hinge upon this ticky little points, doesn't it?

merriann

Carol responds:

Tudor's legitimacy (or otherwise) had no bearing on Richard's claim, but Richard certainly regarded him as illegitimate and said so in his proclamation against "Tydder" for "usurp[ing] upon him the name and title of Royal Estate of this realm of England," a claim to which "he hath no manner of interest, right, title, or colour, as every man knoweth, for he is descended of bastard blood both of his father's side, and his mother's side."

http://books.google.com/books?id=jV0TAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%22usurpeth+upon+him%22&source=bl&ots=dXvku07tYt&sig=h2Fl59Z5GS7Kr7yey5OcZO3NuOo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ih-BUp28POOziQKR0oHYCQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22usurpeth%20upon%20him%22&f=false

Tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/lvgh4du

In other words, Richard viewed himself as the legitimate king (as described in Titulus Regius) and viewed the Tydder as a would-be usurper with no shred of a claim. These proclamations almost certainly reflect his real view of the situation.

Tudor's propaganda from about 1484 onward, of course, reflects the opposite view: he is the rightful king and Richard is the usurper. That Tudor's version (whether he believed it himself or not) is the usual view today has more to do with the outcome of Bosworth than with historical truth.


Carol