The Sacrament of Marriage (Catholic)

I've been studying Catholicism in an effort to understand a bit more about where the Catholics of the Middle Ages stood on certain things.

One bit of dogma concerning the Catholic sacrament of marriage jumped out at me: the man and woman being married *marry themselves to each other.* The priest does not marry them per se; he is only a *witness to the marriage.*

So if Stillington was said to have "witnessed" the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler....

~Weds

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

That still holds true today Weds. 'Marrying' someone is performing a legal contract on behalf of the State. In the UK only CofE ministers or Registrars (Celebrants) have the authority to do this. Catholic and Nonconformist religions sometimes have a Registrar present, or have undertaken a course which qualifies them to do this. So everyone at that time would have in theory witnessed rather than performed a marriage. I seem to recall that there's nothing but heresay which says that Stillington claimed to have witnessed it; only that he drew up TR. Marie's good on this. H

On Thursday, 23 January 2014, 1:50, Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
I've been studying Catholicism in an effort to understand a bit more about where the Catholics of the Middle Ages stood on certain things.

One bit of dogma concerning the Catholic sacrament of marriage jumped out at me: the man and woman being married *marry themselves to each other.* The priest does not marry them per se; he is only a *witness to the marriage.*

So if Stillington was said to have "witnessed" the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler....

~Weds

--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

Wednesday wrote:
"I've been studying Catholicism in an effort to understand a bit more about where the Catholics of the Middle Ages stood on certain things.
One bit of dogma concerning the Catholic sacrament of marriage jumped out at me: the man and woman being married *marry themselves to each other.* The priest does not marry them per se; he is only a *witness to the marriage.*

So if Stillington was said to have "witnessed" the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler...."

Doug here: I could easily be mistaken, but I've always understood that "witness" in reference to Bishop Stillington, was more in regards to his standing as to the *validity* of the evidence presented, rather than his actual presence at any ceremony? IOW, the Bishop *was* a winess that, yes, the evidence was true, but he *wasn't* a witness to the event the evidence substantiated. The question would then become *what* type of evidence was presented? And why hasn't it survived... Doug

Why didn't the actual evidence survive? I'd say because someone profited from its destruction. Someone would have been damaged by its survival. So, we follow the power trail. Did anyone else profit but Tudor? (Did any remaining male Woodville profit by TR's destruction, or did it only affect Elizabeth of York and her siblings' legitimacy? Did Elizabeth Woodville profit -- we know ultimately she didn't.)

If Stillington wasn't a witness to the actual ceremony, then what evidence would the Council have found acceptable at the time?

Hearsay isn't admissible to legal courts today; was it then? Because if Stillington didn't witness the ceremony, then he came to Richard with hearsay?

Could Stillington or someone else have presented a list of witnesses to the Butler marriage, or gathered written depositions, or gotten the witnesses to present themselves to the Council?

How did Eleanor's family feel about Richard after TR? Did they support him at Bosworth?

If Stillington was only the bishop who drafted TR, then did Henry Tudor immediately order anyone else arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth who might have contributed evidence to support TR?

Do we have evidence of contemporary wholesale destruction of the records supporting the illegitimization of Edward IV's children and attempted destruction of TR, or can the destruction be traced only to a fire at Westminster decades later?

Would it help (or is it even possible) to make two lists: one of those Henry executed in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and another list of those he hounded or punished as quickly and harshly as he did Stlilington?

~Weds


, <destama@...> wrote:
Wednesday wrote:
"I've been studying Catholicism in an effort to understand a bit more about where the Catholics of the Middle Ages stood on certain things.
One bit of dogma concerning the Catholic sacrament of marriage jumped out at me: the man and woman being married *marry themselves to each other.* The priest does not marry them per se; he is only a *witness to the marriage.*

So if Stillington was said to have "witnessed" the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler...."

Doug here: I could easily be mistaken, but I've always understood that "witness" in reference to Bishop Stillington, was more in regards to his standing as to the *validity* of the evidence presented, rather than his actual presence at any ceremony? IOW, the Bishop *was* a winess that, yes, the evidence was true, but he *wasn't* a witness to the event the evidence substantiated. The question would then become *what* type of evidence was presented? And why hasn't it survived... Doug

ÿ JA-H's most recent tome will be very helpful here in general. As to one particular question: "Would it help (or is it even possible) to make two lists: one of those Henry executed in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and another list of those he hounded or punished as quickly and harshly as he did Stillington?" - the second list consists solely of a West Country father and son plus .......... William Catesby.

----- Original Message ----- From: wednesday.mac@... To: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:28 PM Subject: Re: The Sacrament of Marriage (Catholic)

Why didn't the actual evidence survive? I'd say because someone profited from its destruction. Someone would have been damaged by its survival. So, we follow the power trail. Did anyone else profit but Tudor? (Did any remaining male Woodville profit by TR's destruction, or did it only affect Elizabeth of York and her siblings' legitimacy? Did Elizabeth Woodville profit -- we know ultimately she didn't.)

If Stillington wasn't a witness to the actual ceremony, then what evidence would the Council have found acceptable at the time?

Hearsay isn't admissible to legal courts today; was it then? Because if Stillington didn't witness the ceremony, then he came to Richard with hearsay?

Could Stillington or someone else have presented a list of witnesses to the Butler marriage, or gathered written depositions, or gotten the witnesses to present themselves to the Council?

How did Eleanor's family feel about Richard after TR? Did they support him at Bosworth?

If Stillington was only the bishop who drafted TR, then did Henry Tudor immediately order anyone else arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth who might have contributed evidence to support TR?

Do we have evidence of contemporary wholesale destruction of the records supporting the illegitimization of Edward IV's children and attempted destruction of TR, or can the destruction be traced only to a fire at Westminster decades later?

Would it help (or is it even possible) to make two lists: one of those Henry executed in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and another list of those he hounded or punished as quickly and harshly as he did Stlilington?

~Weds


, <destama@...> wrote:
Wednesday wrote:
"I've been studying Catholicism in an effort to understand a bit more about where the Catholics of the Middle Ages stood on certain things.
One bit of dogma concerning the Catholic sacrament of marriage jumped out at me: the man and woman being married *marry themselves to each other.* The priest does not marry them per se; he is only a *witness to the marriage.*

So if Stillington was said to have "witnessed" the marriage between Edward and Eleanor Butler...."

Doug here: I could easily be mistaken, but I've always understood that "witness" in reference to Bishop Stillington, was more in regards to his standing as to the *validity* of the evidence presented, rather than his actual presence at any ceremony? IOW, the Bishop *was* a winess that, yes, the evidence was true, but he *wasn't* a witness to the event the evidence substantiated. The question would then become *what* type of evidence was presented? And why hasn't it survived... Doug

Wednesday wrote:

"Do we have evidence of contemporary wholesale destruction of the records supporting the illegitimization of Edward IV's children and attempted destruction of TR, or can the destruction be traced only to a fire at Westminster decades later?"

Carol responds:

I posted the description of the repeal of Titulus Regius a few days ago. It says straight out that TR has been removed from the Parliament Rolls and destroyed. It's not just an order for all copies to be burned unread, the actual act itself is also to be destroyed so that all memory of it can be destroyed forever. I also posted a link to the acts of Henry's first Parliament can be read directly.

I'm beginning to wonder whether my grandson is right in telling me to keep my posts short because no one reads long posts!

Carol

Carol earlier:

"I posted the description of the repeal of Titulus Regius a few days ago. <snip>"

Carol again:

Okay, I guess it was a few weeks ago. Maybe you were away at the time, Weds! Anyway, omitting my own commentary, here is the link and the act itself:

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

If you want to read my original commentary, I can link you to it or copy it.

Carol

Yahoo hates me. I'm posting again, painstakingly reformatting so that the whole thing will show up. Those of you who have already read all this, please just skip this post.

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur. [ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus

:

¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King [Henry], atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

Carol

Here's the part that Yahoo keeps snipping:

"The King [Henry], atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

If it doesn't show up properly, just click the link. Meanwhile, I hope the Yahooligans suffer from formatting problems and viruses every day for the rest of their lives!

Carol

I wrote: "Do we have evidence of contemporary wholesale destruction of the records supporting the illegitimization of Edward IV's children and attempted destruction of TR, or can the destruction be traced only to a fire at Westminster decades later?"

Carol responded:

> I posted the description of the repeal of Titulus Regius a few days ago. It says straight out that TR has been removed from the Parliament Rolls and destroyed. It's not just an order for all copies to be burned unread, the actual act itself is also to be destroyed so that all memory of it can be destroyed forever. I also posted a link to the acts of Henry's first Parliament can be read directly.

> I'm beginning to wonder whether my grandson is right in telling me to keep my posts short because no one reads long posts!

I read all your posts, Carol, top to bottom in daily digests from Yahoo. I'm sorry for not clarifying that I was asking when the records were likely destroyed of the proceedings of the Council where Stillington's (or someone else's) evidence was presented regarding Edward IV's bigamy -- during the Tudor reign or in the Westminster fire centuries later? I wasn't asking about the destruction of TR.

I was thinking if HT was set on destroying all evidence of his wife's illegitimacy/TR, then he'd also have to go back and destroy the legal proceedings with the Council that finished by declaring Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. Those records couldn't just be left in the archives, ready to put paid to all his efforts at erasing Richard's right to the throne.

Peace,
Wednesday


--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain

ÿ Wednesday wrote:
"Why didn't the actual evidence survive? I'd say because someone profited from its destruction. Someone would have been damaged by its survival. So, we follow the power trail. Did anyone else profit but Tudor? (Did any remaining male Woodville profit by TR's destruction, or did it only affect Elizabeth of York and her siblings' legitimacy? Did Elizabeth Woodville profit -- we know ultimately she didn't.)
If Stillington wasn't a witness to the actual ceremony, then what evidence would the Council have found acceptable at the time?
Hearsay isn't admissible to legal courts today; was it then? Because if Stillington didn't witness the ceremony, then he came to Richard with hearsay?
Could Stillington or someone else have presented a list of witnesses to the Butler marriage, or gathered written depositions, or gotten the witnesses to present themselves to the Council?
How did Eleanor's family feel about Richard after TR? Did they support him at Bosworth?
If Stillington was only the bishop who drafted TR, then did Henry Tudor immediately order anyone else arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth who might have contributed evidence to support TR?
Do we have evidence of contemporary wholesale destruction of the records supporting the illegitimization of Edward IV's children and attempted destruction of TR, or can the destruction be traced only to a fire at Westminster decades later?
Would it help (or is it even possible) to make two lists: one of those Henry executed in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and another list of those he hounded or punished as quickly and harshly as he did Stlilington?"
Doug here: FWIW, I've always presumed that Stillington produced a deposition, or depositions, and stood witness to their validity. *If* said deposition/s was/were by persons no longer living, that might also explain why Stillington was singled out after Bosworth; not only was he the person who'd drawn up TR for passage by Parliament, he was also the person who vouschafed (another word I've always wanted use!) the veracity of the claims made. Doug

Carol,keep up the good work.I sympathise entirely....I have just spent two days trying to get back online.If it's any consolation you have made me laugh an awful lot with your invocations to the Yahooligans.....I second them emphatically x

--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the part that Yahoo keeps snipping:
>
>
>
> "The King [Henry], atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Com̃ons, in the p̃sent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac͠ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.
> And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.
> And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p̱soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.
> So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.
> And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."
>
>
> http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment
>
>
> If it doesn't show up properly, just click the link. Meanwhile, I hope the Yahooligans suffer from formatting problems and viruses every day for the rest of their lives!
>
>
> Carol
>

Wednesday wrote:

" <snip> I'm sorry for not clarifying that I was asking when the records were likely destroyed of the proceedings of the Council where Stillington's (or someone else's) evidence was presented regarding Edward IV's bigamy -- during the Tudor reign or in the Westminster fire centuries later? I wasn't asking about the destruction of TR.

"I was thinking if HT was set on destroying all evidence of his wife's illegitimacy/TR, then he'd also have to go back and destroy the legal proceedings with the Council that finished by declaring Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid. Those records couldn't just be left in the archives, ready to put paid to all his efforts at erasing Richard's right to the throne."

Carol responds:

Hi, Weds. Sorry if I overreacted. I was very frustrated with Yahoo for mangling the posts, and I also thought that the act would be clearer worded in modern English given that not a soul responded!

Anyway, I would think that with all the emphasis that Henry's Parliament put on destroying the act itself, along with "all coppies and remembraunces," under severe penalties for possession of anything pertaining to TR, that the original testimony would also have been destroyed. There would be no point in destroying the act itself if the testimony that led to its passing were not destroyed along with it. Note the careful suppression of any detail of the content, including the very people legitimized by the bill.

Possibly, the testimony qualifies as a "remembraunce" but I think it probably fits under "all the circumstances and dependants of the same Acte and Bill," which were voided, annulled, and "irrite" (unwritten) along with the bill itself. Since the next paragraph makes clear that "the said Acte, Record, and enrolling" is to be taken out of the Parliament Roll, burned, and utterly destroyed, the testimony, which must have been part of the record, was also destroyed--unread.

Whether that was Parliament's will or Henry's is a vexed question, but I think it was Henry. TR was a lose/lose proposition for him. If it was valid, he had defeated and killed the rightful king, making him a usurper and regicide. If it was invalid, a tissue of false and malicious lies as stated in the bill repealing it, then Edward V was the rightful king. If he was alive, the less said about him the better from Henry's perspective. And it would have been very hard to discuss Titulus Regius without mentioning him (and perhaps stirring up old loyalties). But figuring out what Henry really thought about anything is extremely difficult. It's as if he's wearing that inscrutable death mask and we can't see the man behind it.

Carol

Carol

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

ÿ"[Blank!]"

Carol responds:

Doug, I think your posts are somehow showing up as quoted material, meaning that they don't show up at all unless we hit Reply and the three dots. You might want to copy and paste the post you're responding to before your response. That's what I do (when I'm not in a hurry or being lazy!)

Carol
Wednesday wrote:
"Why didn't the actual evidence survive? I'd say because someone profited from its destruction. Someone would have been damaged by its survival. So, we follow the power trail. Did anyone else profit but Tudor? (Did any remaining male Woodville profit by TR's destruction, or did it only affect Elizabeth of York and her siblings' legitimacy? Did Elizabeth Woodville profit -- we know ultimately she didn't.)
If Stillington wasn't a witness to the actual ceremony, then what evidence would the Council have found acceptable at the time?
Hearsay isn't admissible to legal courts today; was it then? Because if Stillington didn't witness the ceremony, then he came to Richard with hearsay?
Could Stillington or someone else have presented a list of witnesses to the Butler marriage, or gathered written depositions, or gotten the witnesses to present themselves to the Council?
How did Eleanor's family feel about Richard after TR? Did they support him at Bosworth?
If Stillington was only the bishop who drafted TR, then did Henry Tudor immediately order anyone else arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth who might have contributed evidence to support TR?
Do we have evidence of contemporary wholesale destruction of the records supporting the illegitimization of Edward IV's children and attempted destruction of TR, or can the destruction be traced only to a fire at Westminster decades later?
Would it help (or is it even possible) to make two lists: one of those Henry executed in the immediate aftermath of the battle, and another list of those he hounded or punished as quickly and harshly as he did Stlilington?"
Doug here: FWIW, I've always presumed that Stillington produced a deposition, or depositions, and stood witness to their validity. *If* said deposition/s was/were by persons no longer living, that might also explain why Stillington was singled out after Bosworth; not only was he the person who'd drawn up TR for passage by Parliament, he was also the person who vouschafed (another word I've always wanted use!) the veracity of the claims made. Doug