Re: Coronation day - Henry VII/Elizabeth of York's dispensation

Marie wrote: Someone told us on the forum a while back
that the dispensation only came in in December, but I
don't know what our source is for that.

***

Here's what S. B. Chrimes says in "Henry VII," p. 330:

The publication of the Calendar of entries in the
papal registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland,
XIV, 1484-92 (1960) has made accessible documents of
considerable interest. The papal bull of dispensation
from Innocent VIII, dated 2 March 1486 addressed to
Henry and Elizabeth, rehearsed their recent petition,
read before him and the cardinals in consistory, which
had stated that, in order to end the dissensions which
had prevailed between their ancestors of their
respective houses and families of Lancaster and York,
they desired to contract marriage, and have been
entreated by the prelates, nobles, magnates, and
people of the realm to do so, but insamuch as they
were related in the fourth and fifth degrees of
kindred, and perhaps also in the fourth degree of
affinity, they cannot do so without apostolic
dispensation which was now granted.

On 27 March, a further bull was issued, confirming the
dispensation. ... Further, the pope now inhibited
all the inhabitants of the realm from stirring up
fresh disturbances in the matter of the right of
succession, under pain of ipso facto excommunication
and the greater anathema."

***

Nor why, if Henry made it clear he was waiting for the
dis., Parliament was getting so rebellious over the
issue. NOR why, if Elizabeth's mother was really
involved, Tudor hadn't applied to Rome
for it way back in 1484. Morton seems to have been
able to get anything he liked out of the Pope.

***

Apparently Morton didn't ask the Pope for Henry's
dispensation. On p. 66, Chrimes says:

"...To wait for the papal court itself to make the
decree would have been to delay the wedding unduly,
and even as it was the services of the apostolic
delegate to England and Scotland, James, bishop of
Imola, in the matter did not produce a faculty of
dispensation in proper form, after due consideration
of the testimony of eight witnesses, until 16 January.
[footnote 3: Cal. Papal Rg., XIV (1960), 1-2, 14-28]"

Hope this helps!

Marion



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: Someone told us on the forum a while back
> that the dispensation only came in in December, but I
> don't know what our source is for that.
>
> ***
>
> Here's what S. B. Chrimes says in "Henry VII," p. 330:
>
> The publication of the Calendar of entries in the
> papal registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland,
> XIV, 1484-92 (1960) has made accessible documents of
> considerable interest. The papal bull of dispensation
> from Innocent VIII, dated 2 March 1486 addressed to
> Henry and Elizabeth, rehearsed their recent petition,
> read before him and the cardinals in consistory, which
> had stated that, in order to end the dissensions which
> had prevailed between their ancestors of their
> respective houses and families of Lancaster and York,
> they desired to contract marriage, and have been
> entreated by the prelates, nobles, magnates, and
> people of the realm to do so, but insamuch as they
> were related in the fourth and fifth degrees of
> kindred, and perhaps also in the fourth degree of
> affinity, they cannot do so without apostolic
> dispensation which was now granted.
>
> On 27 March, a further bull was issued, confirming the
> dispensation. ... Further, the pope now inhibited
> all the inhabitants of the realm from stirring up
> fresh disturbances in the matter of the right of
> succession, under pain of ipso facto excommunication
> and the greater anathema."
>
> ***
>
> Nor why, if Henry made it clear he was waiting for the
> dis., Parliament was getting so rebellious over the
> issue. NOR why, if Elizabeth's mother was really
> involved, Tudor hadn't applied to Rome
> for it way back in 1484. Morton seems to have been
> able to get anything he liked out of the Pope.
>
> ***
>
> Apparently Morton didn't ask the Pope for Henry's
> dispensation. On p. 66, Chrimes says:
>
> "...To wait for the papal court itself to make the
> decree would have been to delay the wedding unduly,
> and even as it was the services of the apostolic
> delegate to England and Scotland, James, bishop of
> Imola, in the matter did not produce a faculty of
> dispensation in proper form, after due consideration
> of the testimony of eight witnesses, until 16 January.
> [footnote 3: Cal. Papal Rg., XIV (1960), 1-2, 14-28]"
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Marion

Thanks, Marion. That helps a lot. Sorry, I seem to have missed this
message first time round.

So Henry wasn't actually waiting for the dispensation - this cannot
be used as an excuse for the delay. And they married with only a
dispensation produced locally by the papal delegate, which was
obtained just 2 days before the marriage and not ratified in Rome
until 2 months afterwards. I presume that if the provisional
dispenation had not been obtained the wedding would still have gone
ahead - a bit late to cancel by then, I should have thought.
I wonder if a dispensation was even sought before December. Am I the
only person who suspects it wasn't?

Thinking on the hoof, does this perhaps shed some light on what might
have been going on with Richard and anne's dispensation? That Plan A
was to sort out the property disputes with Clarence, then get a
dispensation and marry. Then, apparently (I am happy to discuss my
reasoning on this) late in 1473 Richard gave up and decided on Plan
B: ie to force Clarence's hand by announcing that he was claiming
the lands Anne was due and going ahead with the wedding with or
without Clarence's agreement (possibly married in January 1474, after
Advent and Chgristmas were over). This precipitated Clarence's armed
mayhem, of which we hear from a couple of sources. I suggest George
would also have put pressure on the papal delegate to withold the
dispensation; in this he would appear to have succeeded - hence the
settlement ratified by Parliament in the spring of 1474 had to spell
out that Richard would still keep the lands even if the marriage were
declared invalid, so long as he didn't marry anyone else.
Did Richard and Anne ever get their dispensation? If they did,
shouldn't it too be mentioned in the papal registers?

Marie





>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/

Marie wrote: So Henry wasn't actually waiting for the
dispensation - this cannot be used as an excuse for
the delay. And they married with only a dispensation
produced locally by the papal delegate, which was
obtained just 2 days before the marriage and not
ratified in Rome until 2 months afterwards. I presume
that if the provisional dispenation had not been
obtained the wedding would still have gone ahead - a
bit late to cancel by then, I should have thought. I
wonder if a dispensation was even sought before
December. Am I the only person who suspects it wasn't?

***

No, I'm suspicious of the Tudor version of events in
most cases.

This case seems to justify suspicion. If Henry VII
was thinking about marrying a foreign princess instead
of Elizabeth of York, it would have made sense to
delay asking for a dispensation. If Parliament
pressured Henry VII into keeping his vow to marry
Elizabeth, then the late timing of the dispensation
also makes sense.

***

Thinking on the hoof, does this perhaps shed some
light on what might have been going on with Richard
and anne's dispensation? That Plan A was to sort out
the property disputes with Clarence, then get a
dispensation and marry. Then, apparently (I am happy
to discuss my reasoning on this) ...

***

I'd like to hear your reasoning. Please share it with
us.

***

... late in 1473 Richard gave up and decided on Plan
B: ie to force Clarence's hand by announcing that he
was claiming the lands Anne was due and going ahead
with the wedding with or without Clarence's agreement
(possibly married in January 1474, after
Advent and Christmas were over).

***

I re-read the few references I have at home about
Richard and Anne's marriage.

P.M. Kendall's Richard III says they married in Spring
1472 and were settled at Middleham by late Spring.
Charles Ross' Richard III says there's no evidence to
show when they married, although they may have married
after Easter of 1472.

Has new research shown that Richard and Anne waited
until 1474 to marry?

Ross also wrote that he disagreed with Kendall about
Edward of Middleham's birth date. Kendall gave 1473,
and Ross gave 1476.

***

This precipitated Clarence's armed mayhem, of which we
hear from a couple of sources. I suggest George
would also have put pressure on the papal delegate to
withold the dispensation; in this he would appear to
have succeeded - hence the settlement ratified by
Parliament in the spring of 1474 had to spell
out that Richard would still keep the lands even if
the marriage were declared invalid, so long as he
didn't marry anyone else.

***

I don't understand why Richard agreed not to marry
anyone else. If Clarence had succeeded in cheating
him of Anne, why would he want to cut himself off from
the possibility of remarrying and having legitimate
heirs? To me, that seems like giving Clarence a
double victory.

I have trouble accepting Edward IV's tolerance of
Clarence's greed and intransigence. Richard had
supported Edward through all of his troubles. But
Edward's support of Richard seems lukewarm and
ineffective. Richard had to give up a lot to Clarence
to keep the peace, which didn't last long. They way
Edward favored Clarence seems to have done more harm
than good, IMO.

***

Did Richard and Anne ever get their dispensation? If
they did, shouldn't it too be mentioned in the papal
registers?

***

I wish I had access to reliable copies of the papal
registers. I'd like to know if Richard and Anne got
their dispensation, too.

It seems to me that they must have gotten it.
Wouldn't their enemies would have questioned the
validity of their marriage before Richard's coronation
if they hadn't?

Marion





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: So Henry wasn't actually waiting for the
> dispensation - this cannot be used as an excuse for
> the delay. And they married with only a dispensation
> produced locally by the papal delegate, which was
> obtained just 2 days before the marriage and not
> ratified in Rome until 2 months afterwards. I presume
> that if the provisional dispenation had not been
> obtained the wedding would still have gone ahead - a
> bit late to cancel by then, I should have thought. I
> wonder if a dispensation was even sought before
> December. Am I the only person who suspects it wasn't?
>
> ***
>
> No, I'm suspicious of the Tudor version of events in
> most cases.
>
> This case seems to justify suspicion. If Henry VII
> was thinking about marrying a foreign princess instead
> of Elizabeth of York, it would have made sense to
> delay asking for a dispensation. If Parliament
> pressured Henry VII into keeping his vow to marry
> Elizabeth, then the late timing of the dispensation
> also makes sense.
>
> ***
>
> Thinking on the hoof, does this perhaps shed some
> light on what might have been going on with Richard
> and anne's dispensation? That Plan A was to sort out
> the property disputes with Clarence, then get a
> dispensation and marry. Then, apparently (I am happy
> to discuss my reasoning on this) ...
>
> ***
>
> I'd like to hear your reasoning. Please share it with
> us.
>
> ***
>
> ... late in 1473 Richard gave up and decided on Plan
> B: ie to force Clarence's hand by announcing that he
> was claiming the lands Anne was due and going ahead
> with the wedding with or without Clarence's agreement
> (possibly married in January 1474, after
> Advent and Christmas were over).
>
> ***
>
> I re-read the few references I have at home about
> Richard and Anne's marriage.
>
> P.M. Kendall's Richard III says they married in Spring
> 1472 and were settled at Middleham by late Spring.
> Charles Ross' Richard III says there's no evidence to
> show when they married, although they may have married
> after Easter of 1472.
>
> Has new research shown that Richard and Anne waited
> until 1474 to marry?
>
> Ross also wrote that he disagreed with Kendall about
> Edward of Middleham's birth date. Kendall gave 1473,
> and Ross gave 1476.


>
>>
> I don't understand why Richard agreed not to marry
> anyone else. If Clarence had succeeded in cheating
> him of Anne, why would he want to cut himself off from
> the possibility of remarrying and having legitimate
> heirs? To me, that seems like giving Clarence a
> double victory.
>
> I have trouble accepting Edward IV's tolerance of
> Clarence's greed and intransigence. Richard had
> supported Edward through all of his troubles. But
> Edward's support of Richard seems lukewarm and
> ineffective. Richard had to give up a lot to Clarence
> to keep the peace, which didn't last long. They way
> Edward favored Clarence seems to have done more harm
> than good, IMO.
>
> ***
>
> Did Richard and Anne ever get their dispensation? If
> they did, shouldn't it too be mentioned in the papal
> registers?
>
> ***
>
> I wish I had access to reliable copies of the papal
> registers. I'd like to know if Richard and Anne got
> their dispensation, too.
>
> It seems to me that they must have gotten it.
> Wouldn't their enemies would have questioned the
> validity of their marriage before Richard's coronation
> if they hadn't?
>
> Marion

Hi, Marion.

Just come back from a few days away. Yes, I really think that Hicks &
Co are probably wishfully up a gumtree banging on about Richard &
Anne's own illegal marriage. As you rightly point out, no one at the
time suggested any problem with their marriage or the legitimacy of
Edward of Middleham. And, God knows, Richard had enough enemies.

I wonder if, in their ontinung belief in the phantom 1472 marriage,
they haven't been looking for the dispensation in the worng plae, so
to speak.

Anyway, my reasoning for a later date for the marriage is simply a
summary of the contemporary evidence from the beginning of 1472:

1)The Paston Letters tell us that in February 1472 Edward had
Clarence and Gloucester to Shene to discuss Gloucester's wish to
marry anne. Clarence did concede that they could marry, but that
there would be no division of the Beauchamp estates. Kendal, and
other historians following him (and others before him for all I know)
have assumed that Richard accepted this and married Anne straight
away (or as straight as he could - after Easter). We ricardians have
been reluctant to let go of this idea because it is Vewwy Womantic.
Traditionalists are currently happy with it because it makes the lack
of dispensation hinted at in 1474 sound rather more permanent.

2) June 1473, the Paston Letters, again, tell us that Sir James
Tyrell was taking the Countess of Warwick from Bieulieu Abbey
northwards

3) The Paston Letters again, 6 November 1473, discuss Clarence arming
himself to deal with Gloucester, and the King gathering a force to
keep the two brothers apart. John P gives no reason for Clarence's
spite against Gloucester (suggesting the background was well known)
though he does hint that it may have been at least in part a cover
for some real treason (this coincided with Oxford's activities,
sponsored by Louis XI, and the wording of the letter does suggest
that Paston had in mind a link between the two things).

4) 22 November the Paston Letters tell us it was now hoped that "the
two dukes of Clarence and Gloucester shall be set at one by the award
of the King".

[27 November: start of Advent - prohibited season for marriages]

4) "Anne, youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick, . . was wedded to
Ric. duke of Gloucester. . . in the year of Our Lord M.CCCC.LXXIIII
at Westminster. . . " (Hearne's Fragment)

5) February 1474 (new style), the Milanese ambassador in France wrote
home in rather a muddle with the latest news: "The Duke of Lancaster
[sic], who by force had taken to wife the daughter of the late earl
of Warwick who had been married to the Prince of Wales, was
constantly preparing for war with the Duke of Clarence. Thee latter,
because his brother King Edward had promised him Warwick's country,
did not want the former to have it by reason of his marriage with the
Earl's second daughter."
Now, if that isn't Clarence's own version of events, I don't know
what is - and very interesting under the circumstances that it comes
to us out of France.

[Lent - can look up dates - also prohibited for marriages]

6) Spring 1474: An Act of Parliament ratified the agreement between
the two brothers regarding their wives' inheritance:
"The King. . . hath ordained. .. that Geoege Duke of Clarence and
Isabel his wife, Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne his wife, . . .
shall from henceforth possess, inherit and enjoy, as in the right of
their said wives, all honours [etc]... which were or be belonging to
the said Anne Countess of Warwick. . . as if the said countess were
now naturally dead.. . . And also it is ordained . . . that, if the
said Anne the daughter die, the said Richard Duke of Gloucester her
overliving, that then the same duke have, possess and enjoy for term
of his life all honours [etc]... whatsoever that, by reason of this
Act or otherwise, of right belongeth or belonged to the same Anne.
It is ordained by the said authority that, if the said Richard Duke
of Gloucester and Anne be hereafter divorced, and after the same be
lawfully married, that yet this present Act be to them as good and
valuable as if no such divorce had been had, but as if the same Anne
had continued wife to the said Duke of Gloucester. And, over that, it
is ordained by the said authority that, if the said duke of
Gloucester and Anne hereafter be divorced, and after that he do his
effectual diligence and continual devoir by all convenient and lawful
means to be lawfully married to the said Anne the daughter, and
during the life of the said Anne the daughter he be not married to
any other woman, that yet the said duke of Gloucester shall have and
enjoy as much of the premises as shall apertain to the said
Anne. . . "

7) Regarding Prince Edward's birth:
Rous tells us that at the time of his investiture, Prince Edward was
aged "seven years and a little more" (aetatis septem annorum et parum
ultra). Rous, was, of course, attached to the House of Warwick and
was in a position to know. Vergil, surely less reliable in this
regard, says he was about nine years old in 1483. No one suggested he
was as old as 10 or 11. The earliest extant reference to him comes in
relation to Richard's foundation at Queens' College Cambridge, in a
document dated 10th April 1477.

I am not sure whether to think they married just before Clarence's
outburst of aggression in the autumn of 1473, or after some sort of
agreement with him reached over Christmas. Either way, Hearn's date
of 1474 would seem to be incorrect, as January/ February 1474 our
style would still have been 1473 according to the usual medieval
calculation. The later date for the marriage does make much more
sense of the apparent lack of legal ratification for it in spring
1474; in fact, from that point of view, probably the later the better.

Marie

>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Hello Marie,

You wrote: Just come back from a few days away. Yes, I
really think that Hicks & Co are probably wishfully up
a gumtree banging on about Richard & Anne's own
illegal marriage. As you rightly point out, no one at
the time suggested any problem with their marriage or
the legitimacy of Edward of Middleham. And, God knows,
Richard had enough enemies.

***

It has also occurred to me that Richard could have
learned from watching reactions to Edward's secret
marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. Some might argue
that Richard learned about breaking rules and getting
away with it, but I think he learned that it was best
to marry Anne publicly, in church. Maybe they had a
low-key wedding, but I think it was as legal as they
could make it.

***

I wonder if, in their contining belief in the phantom
1472 marriage, they haven't been looking for the
dispensation in the wrong place, so to speak.

***

That's possible. How do we get someone with access to
papal records to look up a dispensation for Richard
and Anne for us?

***

Anyway, my reasoning for a later date for the marriage
is simply a summary of the contemporary evidence from
the beginning of 1472:

1)The Paston Letters tell us that in February 1472
Edward had Clarence and Gloucester to Shene to discuss
Gloucester's wish to marry Anne. Clarence did concede
that they could marry, but that there would be no
division of the Beauchamp estates. Kendal, and other
historians following him (and others before him for
all I know) have assumed that Richard accepted this
and married Anne straight away (or as straight as he
could - after Easter). We Ricardians have been
reluctant to let go of this idea because it is Vewwy
Womantic.

***

Here's another question that has occurred to me. Did
Anne stay in sanctuary at St. Martin's until she
married Richard? If not, where did she stay?

I realize there may be no surviving evidence to answer
these questions. But I think they're worth asking,
because it affects the reasoning about when Richard
and Anne married.

They way I see it, Richard must have wanted to prevent
Clarence from following up on his abduction effort.
So the sooner he married Anne, the better. He could
be more confident of protecting her at Middleham or
one of his other Yorkshire properties.

Maybe Richard and Anne were willing for her to stay in
sanctuary indefinitely. But it seems to me that as
time passed they'd become more determined to get
married, if only to show Clarence he couldn't get away
with his interference.

I don't yet have a theory about when they married.
Although I think 1472 is possible, I don't see myself
as "Vewwy Womantic." <G>

I'd like to hear others' opinions about the
possibilities.


***

3) The Paston Letters again, 6 November 1473, discuss
Clarence arming himself to deal with Gloucester, and
the King gathering a force to keep the two brothers
apart. John P gives no reason for Clarence's
spite against Gloucester (suggesting the background
was well known)though he does hint that it may have
been at least in part a cover for some real treason
(this coincided with Oxford's activities,
sponsored by Louis XI, and the wording of the letter
does suggest that Paston had in mind a link between
the two things).

***

That's interesting. Apparently Clarence didn't learn
much from Warwick's defeat.

***

4) "Anne, youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick, .
. was wedded to Ric. duke of Gloucester. . . in the
year of Our Lord M.CCCC.LXXIIII
at Westminster. . . " (Hearne's Fragment)

***

That sounds clear and definite. Can you tell us more
about Hearne and Hearne's Fragment?

***



5) February 1474 (new style), the Milanese ambassador
in France wrote home in rather a muddle with the
latest news: "The Duke of Lancaster [sic], who by
force had taken to wife the daughter of the late earl
of Warwick who had been married to the Prince of
Wales, was constantly preparing for war with the Duke
of Clarence. Thee latter, because his brother King
Edward had promised him Warwick's country, did not
want the former to have it by reason of his marriage
with the Earl's second daughter."
Now, if that isn't Clarence's own version of events, I
don't know what is - and very interesting under the
circumstances that it comes to us out of France.

***

I didn't realize there was a calendar shift in the
1470s. Where can I read more about it?

It's good to get the French and Italian versions of
events. Even if they're inaccurate, I think other
points of view help us see things more completely.

***

[Lent - can look up dates - also prohibited for
marriages]

***

Thanks! I'd appreciate that.

***

6) Spring 1474: An Act of Parliament ratified the
agreement between the two brothers regarding their
wives' inheritance: "The King. . . hath ordained. ..
that George Duke of Clarence and Isabel his wife,
Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne his wife, . . .

***

This sounds like Richard and Anne are married, and
their marriage is public and recognized by everyone.

***

... It is ordained by the said authority that, if the
said Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne be hereafter
divorced, and after the same be lawfully married,

***

This sounds like there's doubt about the legality of
their marriage. Maybe they married before getting the
dispensation. Maybe everyone knew the dispensation
was in the pipeline and expected it to arrive sooner
or later.

***

... that yet this present Act be to them as good and
valuable as if no such divorce had been had, but as if
the same Anne had continued wife to the said Duke of
Gloucester. And, over that, it is ordained by the said
authority that, if the said duke of Gloucester and
Anne hereafter be divorced, and after that he do his
effectual diligence and continual devoir by all
convenient and lawful means to be lawfully married to
the said Anne the daughter,

***

This sounds like Richard wants to stay married to
Anne. I don't know whether this is just for the sake
of appearances. But it sounds like Richard wants Anne
as much as he wants her land.

***

and during the life of the said Anne the daughter he
be not married to any other woman, that yet the said
duke of Gloucester shall have and enjoy as much of the
premises as shall apertain to the said Anne. . . "

***

But this sounds unfair to both Richard and Anne, if
Richard's best efforts to remarry her don't succeed.
Richard keeps her land, but he can't remarry or have
legitimate heirs.

Where is Anne supposed to live and what will she live
on, if all of her lands belong to Richard? Does she
have to enter a convent? Can she remarry if she wants
to? Would she be able to remarry without land?

***

7) Regarding Prince Edward's birth: Rous tells us
that at the time of his investiture, Prince Edward was
aged "seven years and a little more" (aetatis septem
annorum et parum ultra). Rous, was, of course,
attached to the House of Warwick and was in a position
to know. Vergil, surely less reliable in this
regard, says he was about nine years old in 1483. No
one suggested he was as old as 10 or 11. The earliest
extant reference to him comes in relation to Richard's
foundation at Queens' College Cambridge, in a
document dated 10th April 1477.

***

I have fuzzy memories of reading an article in The
Ricardian about the possibility that Richard and Anne
had another child that died. I think that theory was
based on the belief that Edward was born in 1473. But
it was guesswork. I'll look up that article when I
get the chance.

***

I am not sure whether to think they married just
before Clarence's outburst of aggression in the autumn
of 1473, or after some sort of agreement with him
reached over Christmas. Either way, Hearn's date
of 1474 would seem to be incorrect, as January/
February 1474 our style would still have been 1473
according to the usual medieval calculation. The later
date for the marriage does make much more sense of the
apparent lack of legal ratification for it in spring
1474; in fact, from that point of view, probably the
later the better.

***

I'm not sure what to think at this point. Is there
any documentary evidence of Anne's whereabouts between
1472 and 1474? Or have most historians assumed Anne
was living at Middleham or one of Richard's other
castles, because they assumed Richard and Anne married
in spring 1472?

Marion










__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

> I am not sure whether to think they married just
> before Clarence's outburst of aggression in the autumn
> of 1473, or after some sort of agreement with him
> reached over Christmas. Either way, Hearn's date
> of 1474 would seem to be incorrect, as January/
> February 1474 our style would still have been 1473
> according to the usual medieval calculation. The later
> date for the marriage does make much more sense of the
> apparent lack of legal ratification for it in spring
> 1474; in fact, from that point of view, probably the
> later the better.

Interesting site for medieval calendar information:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cal/medcal.shtml

L.P.H.,

Ann

Victims and suspects and clues, oh my!

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie,
>
> You wrote: Just come back from a few days away. Yes, I
> really think that Hicks & Co are probably wishfully up
> a gumtree banging on about Richard & Anne's own
> illegal marriage. As you rightly point out, no one at
> the time suggested any problem with their marriage or
> the legitimacy of Edward of Middleham. And, God knows,
> Richard had enough enemies.
>
> ***
>
> It has also occurred to me that Richard could have
> learned from watching reactions to Edward's secret
> marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. Some might argue
> that Richard learned about breaking rules and getting
> away with it, but I think he learned that it was best
> to marry Anne publicly, in church. Maybe they had a
> low-key wedding, but I think it was as legal as they
> could make it.
>
> ***
>
> I wonder if, in their contining belief in the phantom
> 1472 marriage, they haven't been looking for the
> dispensation in the wrong place, so to speak.
>
> ***
>
> That's possible. How do we get someone with access to
> papal records to look up a dispensation for Richard
> and Anne for us?

A good question.

>
> ***
>
> > ***
>
> Here's another question that has occurred to me. Did
> Anne stay in sanctuary at St. Martin's until she
> married Richard? If not, where did she stay?

You won't be surprised to learn that I've been wondering that too.
I've not yet come across any reference to her whereabouts during this
period. Needless to say, she would need to be kept out of Clarence's
way. She doesn't seem to have joined her mother in Beaulieu, or the
Paston Letters would have talked of the two of them being taken north
together. The fact that "Hearne" says they married at Westminster
suggests to me she remained in London, perhaps being moved to
Westminster Sanctuary, which may have been a more suitable
environment than St Martins. Hearne's Fragment was not actually
written by a Hearne - he was the editor. It's a bit of an early 16th
century chronicle covering the late 15th century, though apparently
written from memory. I've often seen it quoted but have never seen
the whole thing. Full title (from refs in Hammond & Sutton's 'Road to
Bosworth' is: Thomas Hearne (ed)., A Remarkable Fragment of an Old
English Chronicle", Oxford 1715

I think it woud be useful to draw up a timeline for 1471 to 1474,
incorporating every source available, and see how it looks. Quite a
big job, though.

There was no change of calendar in the 1470s. When I said new style I
meant the style used since the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in
the 1700s, with the new year starting on 1st January. Medievals
usually started the new year on 25th March (JC's conception date).
Actually, Laynesmith says the letter from the Milanese Ambassador is
Feb 1474, and I assumed that meant 1474 to you & me, and not 1475 to
you & me, but I could be wrong.

As regards the second son, I'm sure this comes from the Tewkesbury
Abbey Chronicle, which gives R. a son named George younger than
Edward is conventionally supposed to have been (ie born later than
1473). However, the problem is, the chronicle doesn't mention Edward
at all, so it is more likely that the child referred to IS Edward,
who as I have argued was born much later than is often supposed.
Perhaps Clarence wishfully told the monks that Richard was naming the
baby after himself. I have the details somewhere, but I can't think
where offhand.

Marie



>
> I realize there may be no surviving evidence to answer
> these questions. But I think they're worth asking,
> because it affects the reasoning about when Richard
> and Anne married.
>
> They way I see it, Richard must have wanted to prevent
> Clarence from following up on his abduction effort.
> So the sooner he married Anne, the better. He could
> be more confident of protecting her at Middleham or
> one of his other Yorkshire properties.
>
> Maybe Richard and Anne were willing for her to stay in
> sanctuary indefinitely. But it seems to me that as
> time passed they'd become more determined to get
> married, if only to show Clarence he couldn't get away
> with his interference.
>
> I don't yet have a theory about when they married.
> Although I think 1472 is possible, I don't see myself
> as "Vewwy Womantic." <G>
>
> I'd like to hear others' opinions about the
> possibilities.
>
>
> ***
>
> 3) The Paston Letters again, 6 November 1473, discuss
> Clarence arming himself to deal with Gloucester, and
> the King gathering a force to keep the two brothers
> apart. John P gives no reason for Clarence's
> spite against Gloucester (suggesting the background
> was well known)though he does hint that it may have
> been at least in part a cover for some real treason
> (this coincided with Oxford's activities,
> sponsored by Louis XI, and the wording of the letter
> does suggest that Paston had in mind a link between
> the two things).
>
> ***
>
> That's interesting. Apparently Clarence didn't learn
> much from Warwick's defeat.
>
> ***
>
> 4) "Anne, youngest daughter of the Earl of Warwick, .
> . was wedded to Ric. duke of Gloucester. . . in the
> year of Our Lord M.CCCC.LXXIIII
> at Westminster. . . " (Hearne's Fragment)
>
> ***
>
> That sounds clear and definite. Can you tell us more
> about Hearne and Hearne's Fragment?
>
> ***
>
>
>
> 5) February 1474 (new style), the Milanese ambassador
> in France wrote home in rather a muddle with the
> latest news: "The Duke of Lancaster [sic], who by
> force had taken to wife the daughter of the late earl
> of Warwick who had been married to the Prince of
> Wales, was constantly preparing for war with the Duke
> of Clarence. Thee latter, because his brother King
> Edward had promised him Warwick's country, did not
> want the former to have it by reason of his marriage
> with the Earl's second daughter."
> Now, if that isn't Clarence's own version of events, I
> don't know what is - and very interesting under the
> circumstances that it comes to us out of France.
>
> ***
>
> I didn't realize there was a calendar shift in the
> 1470s. Where can I read more about it?
>
> It's good to get the French and Italian versions of
> events. Even if they're inaccurate, I think other
> points of view help us see things more completely.
>
> ***
>
> [Lent - can look up dates - also prohibited for
> marriages]
>
> ***
>
> Thanks! I'd appreciate that.
>
> ***
>
> 6) Spring 1474: An Act of Parliament ratified the
> agreement between the two brothers regarding their
> wives' inheritance: "The King. . . hath ordained. ..
> that George Duke of Clarence and Isabel his wife,
> Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne his wife, . . .
>
> ***
>
> This sounds like Richard and Anne are married, and
> their marriage is public and recognized by everyone.
>
> ***
>
> ... It is ordained by the said authority that, if the
> said Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne be hereafter
> divorced, and after the same be lawfully married,
>
> ***
>
> This sounds like there's doubt about the legality of
> their marriage. Maybe they married before getting the
> dispensation. Maybe everyone knew the dispensation
> was in the pipeline and expected it to arrive sooner
> or later.
>
> ***
>
> ... that yet this present Act be to them as good and
> valuable as if no such divorce had been had, but as if
> the same Anne had continued wife to the said Duke of
> Gloucester. And, over that, it is ordained by the said
> authority that, if the said duke of Gloucester and
> Anne hereafter be divorced, and after that he do his
> effectual diligence and continual devoir by all
> convenient and lawful means to be lawfully married to
> the said Anne the daughter,
>
> ***
>
> This sounds like Richard wants to stay married to
> Anne. I don't know whether this is just for the sake
> of appearances. But it sounds like Richard wants Anne
> as much as he wants her land.
>
> ***
>
> and during the life of the said Anne the daughter he
> be not married to any other woman, that yet the said
> duke of Gloucester shall have and enjoy as much of the
> premises as shall apertain to the said Anne. . . "
>
> ***
>
> But this sounds unfair to both Richard and Anne, if
> Richard's best efforts to remarry her don't succeed.
> Richard keeps her land, but he can't remarry or have
> legitimate heirs.
>
> Where is Anne supposed to live and what will she live
> on, if all of her lands belong to Richard? Does she
> have to enter a convent? Can she remarry if she wants
> to? Would she be able to remarry without land?
>
> ***
>
> 7) Regarding Prince Edward's birth: Rous tells us
> that at the time of his investiture, Prince Edward was
> aged "seven years and a little more" (aetatis septem
> annorum et parum ultra). Rous, was, of course,
> attached to the House of Warwick and was in a position
> to know. Vergil, surely less reliable in this
> regard, says he was about nine years old in 1483. No
> one suggested he was as old as 10 or 11. The earliest
> extant reference to him comes in relation to Richard's
> foundation at Queens' College Cambridge, in a
> document dated 10th April 1477.
>
> ***
>
> I have fuzzy memories of reading an article in The
> Ricardian about the possibility that Richard and Anne
> had another child that died. I think that theory was
> based on the belief that Edward was born in 1473. But
> it was guesswork. I'll look up that article when I
> get the chance.
>
> ***
>
> I am not sure whether to think they married just
> before Clarence's outburst of aggression in the autumn
> of 1473, or after some sort of agreement with him
> reached over Christmas. Either way, Hearn's date
> of 1474 would seem to be incorrect, as January/
> February 1474 our style would still have been 1473
> according to the usual medieval calculation. The later
> date for the marriage does make much more sense of the
> apparent lack of legal ratification for it in spring
> 1474; in fact, from that point of view, probably the
> later the better.
>
> ***
>
> I'm not sure what to think at this point. Is there
> any documentary evidence of Anne's whereabouts between
> 1472 and 1474? Or have most historians assumed Anne
> was living at Middleham or one of Richard's other
> castles, because they assumed Richard and Anne married
> in spring 1472?
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> Hearne's Fragment was not actually
> written by a Hearne - he was the editor. It's a bit of an early
16th
> century chronicle covering the late 15th century, though
apparently
> written from memory. I've often seen it quoted but have never seen
> the whole thing. Full title (from refs in Hammond & Sutton's 'Road
to
> Bosworth' is: Thomas Hearne (ed)., A Remarkable Fragment of an Old
> English Chronicle", Oxford 1715

If you want to see the whole thing, it was reprinted in 1843, with
notes, as the first item in 'The Chronicles of the White Rose of
York', pages 5-29. That collection of chronicles was in its turn
reprinted by A J Sutton in 1974 from a copy which I trust is still
in the Society's library.

Marie wrote: 6) Spring 1474: An Act of Parliament
ratified the agreement between the two brothers
regarding their wives' inheritance: "The King. . .
hath ordained. .. that George Duke of Clarence and
Isabel his wife,

***

George, Duke of Clarence married Isabel in France,
against Edward IV's will. He was in the same
relationship to Isabel that Richard was to Anne.

If George and Isabel's marriage was accepted as valid,
wouldn't Richard and Anne's have been accepted, too?

Richard and Anne must have known how to get the same
kind of dispensation that George and Isabel got. And
they at least had Edward IV's agreement to their
marriage.

***

How do we get someone with access to papal records to
look up a dispensation for Richard and Anne for us?

***

A good question.

***

<G> Now I'd like to know how to get someone to look
up a dispensation for George and Isabel, as well. <G>

Isn't this the kind of research that The Richard III
Society would want to support? It seems like a study
of papal dispensations in the reigns of Edward IV and
Richard III would be very useful.

Marion









__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Eric wrote: If you want to see the whole thing, it
was reprinted in 1843, with notes, as the first item
in 'The Chronicles of the White Rose of York', pages
5-29. That collection of chronicles was in its turn
reprinted by A J Sutton in 1974 from a copy which I
trust is still in the Society's library.

***

Thanks, Eric! I've found a copy in a library near me,
which I hope is on the shelf when I get there.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Monday next in the UK has a contestant on Mastermind answering questions on
Richard.
Paul

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: 6) Spring 1474: An Act of Parliament
> ratified the agreement between the two brothers
> regarding their wives' inheritance: "The King. . .
> hath ordained. .. that George Duke of Clarence and
> Isabel his wife,
>
> ***
>
> George, Duke of Clarence married Isabel in France,
> against Edward IV's will. He was in the same
> relationship to Isabel that Richard was to Anne.
>
> If George and Isabel's marriage was accepted as valid,
> wouldn't Richard and Anne's have been accepted, too?
>
> Richard and Anne must have known how to get the same
> kind of dispensation that George and Isabel got. And
> they at least had Edward IV's agreement to their
> marriage.
>
> ***
>
> How do we get someone with access to papal records to
> look up a dispensation for Richard and Anne for us?
>
> ***
>
> A good question.
>
> ***
>
> <G> Now I'd like to know how to get someone to look
> up a dispensation for George and Isabel, as well. <G>
>
> Isn't this the kind of research that The Richard III
> Society would want to support? It seems like a study
> of papal dispensations in the reigns of Edward IV and
> Richard III would be very useful.
>
> Marion

I can't recall the source (though I've read it recently - I think it
is just a chorincle-type source), but George and Isabel are said to
have got a dispensation from the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem. There
was a question on this forum some months back as to who he might have
been and what his status was, but I don't think anyone volunteered an
answer. It's not a papal dispensation, though.
Question: does a dispensation for this sort of thing necessarily have
to be a papal dispensation? If not, would there necessarily be a
record.

Marie

PS in Manchester library today. I nearly thought I'd found that
Calendar of Papal registers in the index - but, no, it was only
volumes 1-8 (up to beg. 15th C).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

> >
> > <G> Now I'd like to know how to get someone to look
> > up a dispensation for George and Isabel, as well. <G>
> >
> > Isn't this the kind of research that The Richard III
> > Society would want to support? It seems like a study
> > of papal dispensations in the reigns of Edward IV and
> > Richard III would be very useful.
> >
> > Marion
>
> I can't recall the source (though I've read it recently - I think
it
> is just a chorincle-type source), but George and Isabel are said to
> have got a dispensation from the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem.
There
> was a question on this forum some months back as to who he might
have
> been and what his status was, but I don't think anyone volunteered
an
> answer. It's not a papal dispensation, though.
> Question: does a dispensation for this sort of thing necessarily
have
> to be a papal dispensation? If not, would there necessarily be a
> record.


I've just been looking in the Catholic Encyclopaedia online. The
Consanguinity article says, basically, that by the 15th century
marriage was prohibited only within 4 degrees (the Church had earlier
tried enforcing 7). According to canon law, Richard and Anne were
related within the 3rd degree (according to Roman civil law, only the
5th degree).
The power of dispensation resided in the Pope but could be delegated
to bishops, etc.
The article on dispensation says the Pope "is NOT wont, however, out
of consideration for the public welfare, to exercise this power
personally, unless in very exceptional cases..." [my caps]. These
exceptional cases include consanguinity only in the first degree
(equal) of the collateral or direct lines - ie between siblings or
parent and child.
So Richard and Anne could have obtained a dispensation within
England, and there would probably not be a record. To be honest, were
it not for the give-away in the 1474 legislation, no historian would
ever have questioned the marriage. I don't think they go looking for
records of dispensations for every 15th aristocratic marriage, do
they?
As regards getting married first, this was frowned on and such
parties could in theory be excomunicated. However, it is clear that
it was frequently done in order to "facilitate the dispensation
grant". Obviously, it was felt that this worked. If you'd done this
you were supposed to declare it in your application, even if the
marriage hadn't been consummated. The Church did eventually, at the
Council of Trent, try to put a stop to this by declaring that such
marriages would never receive a dispenation, but this is well after
Richard and Anne's time and was in any case soon dropped as an idea
as it proved unenforceable - the states in question continued to
recognise such marriages anyway.
All of which suggests to me that Richard and Anne had only recently
married, before getting a dispensation, and were waiting on the
result of an application - otherwise why all that stuff about
possible divorce? (The wording suggests one possible outcome was that
they would get the dispensation but the marriage they had gone
through would be declared invalid and they would have to go through a
second ceremony - perhaps this is how we reconcile the Milanese
papers with Hearne's date of 1474). Since they remained married we
can surely assume that a dispensation was granted, under whatever
condition.

There is indeed the strong possibility that they did not consummate
the marriage until the dispensation was received - in order to avoid
the risk of an illegitimate child. This, in fact, would be my
suspicion.

If they had had trouble getting a dispensation up front, I wonder who
might have been to blame. . . . I'm convinced the Milanese
ambassadors version of events originated with Clarence - was he
spreading thw word that Richard had taken Anne by force in the hope
this would scupper the plans for a dispensation?

I suspect that when Henry Tudor got his English dispensation ratified
by the Pope, it was for political rather than canonical reasons. He
did tend to use the Pope's support as a political tool.

Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

>
> George, Duke of Clarence married Isabel in France,
> against Edward IV's will. He was in the same
> relationship to Isabel that Richard was to Anne.
>
> If George and Isabel's marriage was accepted as valid,
> wouldn't Richard and Anne's have been accepted, too?
>
> Richard and Anne must have known how to get the same
> kind of dispensation that George and Isabel got. And
> they at least had Edward IV's agreement to their
> marriage.
Sightly different in that George was heir to the throne at the time he
married warwick's daughter.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> >
> > George, Duke of Clarence married Isabel in France,
> > against Edward IV's will. He was in the same
> > relationship to Isabel that Richard was to Anne.
> >
> > If George and Isabel's marriage was accepted as valid,
> > wouldn't Richard and Anne's have been accepted, too?
> >
> > Richard and Anne must have known how to get the same
> > kind of dispensation that George and Isabel got. And
> > they at least had Edward IV's agreement to their
> > marriage.
> Sightly different in that George was heir to the throne at the time
he
> married warwick's daughter.
> Paul

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying George would have found it
easier to get a dispensation as he was heir to the throne, or more
difficult because Warwick's daughter wasn't Edward's idea of a
suitable future queen? Either way, he got one, albeit from an unusual
source. Richard and Anne's degree of relationship wasn't a big
problem in the normal wa, and a request would I think not have been
blocked for anything other than political reasons.
Marion is saying that, with the backing of his brother the King,
Richard should have been able to get the dispensation. I agree. I
suspect that initial holdups may have been caused by Clarence
himself, but after the 1474 Act of Parliament whereby Richard would
keep the estates anyway even if the dispensation were refused,
Clarence would have had no incentive for continuing to block the
dispensation. I suspect that may have been the main purpose of that
section of the Act. I wonder if Richard's work to get Archbishop
Neville released from Calais (Paston Letters Nov 1473 I think: "I
hope by means of the Duke of Gloucester that my Lord Archbishop shall
come home" or words to that effect) may also have been connected with
the attempt to get the dispensation.
Also, I'm not sure that it is at all clear that George continued to
be regarded as heir after Elizabeth's birth.

Marie

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Marie wrote: 6) Spring 1474: An Act of Parliament
> > ratified the agreement between the two brothers
> > regarding their wives' inheritance: "The King. . .
> > hath ordained. .. that George Duke of Clarence and
> > Isabel his wife,
> >
> > ***
> >
> > George, Duke of Clarence married Isabel in France,
> > against Edward IV's will. He was in the same
> > relationship to Isabel that Richard was to Anne.
> >
> > If George and Isabel's marriage was accepted as valid,
> > wouldn't Richard and Anne's have been accepted, too?
> >
> > Richard and Anne must have known how to get the same
> > kind of dispensation that George and Isabel got. And
> > they at least had Edward IV's agreement to their
> > marriage.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > How do we get someone with access to papal records to
> > look up a dispensation for Richard and Anne for us?
> >
> > ***
> >
> > A good question.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > <G> Now I'd like to know how to get someone to look
> > up a dispensation for George and Isabel, as well. <G>
> >
> > Isn't this the kind of research that The Richard III
> > Society would want to support? It seems like a study
> > of papal dispensations in the reigns of Edward IV and
> > Richard III would be very useful.
> >
> > Marion
>
> I can't recall the source (though I've read it recently - I think
it
> is just a chorincle-type source), but George and Isabel are said to
> have got a dispensation from the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem.
There
> was a question on this forum some months back as to who he might
have
> been and what his status was, but I don't think anyone volunteered
an
> answer. It's not a papal dispensation, though.

Okay, I've looked this up on the web. The Greek and Roman churches
both had a bishop of Jerusalem who was the head of that particular
patriarchate (which, understandably, both churches claimed). But
from the loss of Jerusalem until the 19th century this was just an
honorary title, and the Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem mainly used to
hang around the Vatican.
Unfortunately I can't find a site which gives a list of these
honorary patriarchs. However, does this maybe suggest Clarence and
Warwick were perhaps trying to get a papal dispensation but the best
they could manage was to bribe the under-employed Patriarch of
Jerusalem?

Marie




> Question: does a dispensation for this sort of thing necessarily
have
> to be a papal dispensation? If not, would there necessarily be a
> record.
>
> Marie
>
> PS in Manchester library today. I nearly thought I'd found that
> Calendar of Papal registers in the index - but, no, it was only
> volumes 1-8 (up to beg. 15th C).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Marie wrote:

> Also, I'm not sure that it is at all clear that
> George continued to be regarded as heir
> after Elizabeth's birth.

Ann:
I would guess Probably, and almost certainly in his own eyes. Not
that I am any great fan of George's, but:

baby Elizabeth wasn't a MALE heir;
the last attempt at a queen regnant had been Maud,
which had brought on a civil war described as
"when God and His Saints Slept"; not a success
when Maud's father died, it was after a generation
of relative peace, not the ongoing civil war of
Edward IV's generation.

I can't imagine the men of the 1460's being willing to accept a
princess heiress, even if they might have been much more willing to,
say, accept the claim through her of her son, when she had one.

L.P.H.,

Ann

>> Richard and Anne must have known how to get the same
>>> kind of dispensation that George and Isabel got. And
>>> they at least had Edward IV's agreement to their
>>> marriage.
Sightly different in that George was heir to the throne at the time
he married warwick's daughter.
>> Paul

> I'm not sure I follow.
I was responding to the part of your message about Richard and Anne having
Edward's agreement, not the dispensation bit.
Paul

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie,
>
> You wrote: Just come back from a few days away. Yes, I
> really think that Hicks & Co are probably wishfully up
> a gumtree banging on about Richard & Anne's own
> illegal marriage. As you rightly point out, no one at
> the time suggested any problem with their marriage or
> the legitimacy of Edward of Middleham. And, God knows,
> Richard had enough enemies.
>
> ***
>
> It has also occurred to me that Richard could have
> learned from watching reactions to Edward's secret
> marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. Some might argue
> that Richard learned about breaking rules and getting
> away with it, but I think he learned that it was best
> to marry Anne publicly, in church. Maybe they had a
> low-key wedding, but I think it was as legal as they
> could make it.
>
> ***
>
> I wonder if, in their contining belief in the phantom
> 1472 marriage, they haven't been looking for the
> dispensation in the wrong place, so to speak.
>
> ***
>
> That's possible. How do we get someone with access to
> papal records to look up a dispensation for Richard
> and Anne for us?
>
> ***
>
> Anyway, my reasoning for a later date for the marriage
> is simply a summary of the contemporary evidence from
> the beginning of 1472:
>
> 1)The Paston Letters tell us that in February 1472
> Edward had Clarence and Gloucester to Shene to discuss
> Gloucester's wish to marry Anne. Clarence did concede
> that they could marry, but that there would be no
> division of the Beauchamp estates. Kendal, and other
> historians following him (and others before him for
> all I know) have assumed that Richard accepted this
> and married Anne straight away (or as straight as he
> could - after Easter). We Ricardians have been
> reluctant to let go of this idea because it is Vewwy
> Womantic.
>
> ***
>
> Here's another question that has occurred to me. Did
> Anne stay in sanctuary at St. Martin's until she
> married Richard? If not, where did she stay?

I've been thinking some more about this. Of course, we know that
after Tewkesbury Anne went into Calrence's household. And Croyland
tells us that at some point after that he hid her in the city
disguised as a cookmaid, and Richard found her and took her to
sanctuary.
Again, the idea that this all happened in 1471 is based on having to
squeeze it in before a 1472 marriage. Croyland says the dissension
over the marriage "arose" in Michaelmas term 1471, but doesn't give
any dates after that, only outlining the following stages:
1) Richard seeks Anne in marriage
2) Clarence, afraid of a division of property, hides her
3) Richard finds her & takes her to St Martins
4) "As a consequence of this such violent discussion arose..." King &
judges sit in council chamber to decide the matter
5) Edward offers to act as mediator, so the business shouldn't
interfere with his plans for invasion of France
6) the "misunderstanding" was set at rest with an agreed division of
property cutting out the Countess, and agreement that the marriage
between Richard and Anne was to take place. (This is obviously the
agreement ratified in the Parliament of spring 1474.)

To take these points in reverse order: we know item 6 belongs to
sometime between late November 1473 (when John Paston hoped the
brothers would "be set at one by the award of the King") and spring
1474 (when the agreement was written up by statute); Croyland
suggests Richard did not marry Anne until after the agreement was
reached.
Item 5 connects with John Paston's comment in late November 1473.
item 4 could be connected with the threat of actual violence he noted
earlier in the month (also referred to by the Milanese ambassador in
Feb 1474).
So this is all quite late. In which case it is quite possible that
Anne remained in Clarence's household until the summer of 1473, or
that she was missing, hidden away, for a very long time. Croyland
suggests that it was Richard finding her in her drudgery that
ratcheted up the argument to a violent state - and this seems to have
happened late in 1473.

Worth remembering that Richard couldn't have married Anne in any case
until at least 9 months after Tewkesbury - 12 months would have been
better. This (allowing for Lent) would take us into mid April 1472
before Clarence would have had any immediate cause to worry.

Marie

PS By the by, I'm not the first to have suggested a 1474 marriage -
Peter Hammond sets out the arguments in his booklet on Edward of
Middleham - but he doesn't thrash them out in quite the same detail
we have! and he didn't have that Milanese letter.

> Here's another question that has occurred to me. Did
> Anne stay in sanctuary at St. Martin's until she
> married Richard? If not, where did she stay?

Marie:
I've been thinking some more about this. Of course, we know that after Tewkesbury Anne went into Clarence's household. And Croyland tells us that at some point after that he hid her in the city disguised as a cookmaid, and Richard found her and took her to sanctuary.

Ann:
Costain thought that the dynamics were wrong -- not that he put it in those words -- but that it was much more likely that Anne had run away from Clarence's household and disguised *herself* as a cookmaid. Given that Clarence almost certainly had in mind disposing of both Anne and her mother to some convenient convent and keeping Isabel and all the property.

IF Anne did that, then she may well have stayed out of sight until Richard next came to London, and gotten a message to him then.

Marie:
Again, the idea that this all happened in 1471 is based on having to squeeze it in before a 1472 marriage. Croyland says the dissension over the marriage "arose" in Michaelmas term 1471, but doesn't give any dates after that, only outlining the following stages:
1) Richard seeks Anne in marriage
2) Clarence, afraid of a division of property, hides her

Reverse 1) and 2) ....

3) Richard finds her & takes her to St Martins
4) "As a consequence of this such violent discussion arose..." King & judges sit in council chamber to decide the matter
5) Edward offers to act as mediator, so the business shouldn't interfere with his plans for invasion of France
6) the "misunderstanding" was set at rest with an agreed division of property cutting out the Countess, and agreement that the marriage between Richard and Anne was to take place. (This is obviously the agreement ratified in the Parliament of spring 1474.)

To take these points in reverse order: we know item 6 belongs to sometime between late November 1473 (when John Paston hoped the brothers would "be set at one by the award of the King") and spring 1474 (when the agreement was written up by statute); Croyland suggests Richard did not marry Anne until after the agreement was reached.

Item 5 connects with John Paston's comment in late November 1473.

Item 4 could be connected with the threat of actual violence he noted earlier in the month (also referred to by the Milanese ambassador in Feb 1474).
So this is all quite late. In which case it is quite possible that Anne remained in Clarence's household until the summer of 1473, or that she was missing, hidden away, for a very long time. Croyland suggests that it was Richard finding her in her drudgery that ratcheted up the argument to a violent state - and this seems to have happened late in 1473.

Worth remembering that Richard couldn't have married Anne in any case until at least 9 months after Tewkesbury - 12 months would have been better. This (allowing for Lent) would take us into mid April 1472 before Clarence would have had any immediate cause to worry.

Marie

--- In , "Sharp, Ann"
<axsc@p...> wrote:
> > Here's another question that has occurred to me. Did
> > Anne stay in sanctuary at St. Martin's until she
> > married Richard? If not, where did she stay?
>
> Marie:
> I've been thinking some more about this. Of course, we know that
after Tewkesbury Anne went into Clarence's household. And Croyland
tells us that at some point after that he hid her in the city
disguised as a cookmaid, and Richard found her and took her to
sanctuary.
>
> Ann:
> Costain thought that the dynamics were wrong -- not that he
put it in those words -- but that it was much more likely that Anne
had run away from Clarence's household and disguised *herself* as a
cookmaid. Given that Clarence almost certainly had in mind disposing
of both Anne and her mother to some convenient convent and keeping
Isabel and all the property.

Yes, I think this was brought up before and that was the general
consensus on the forum. I tend to agree. It is much more likely that
Anne would have hidden herself in the city in funny clothes to get
away from Clarence, than that Clarence would have plonked her there,
outside his direct control, to keep her hidden from Gloucester. Why
not just mure her up in one of his castles? Much safer.
The only obstacle is the probability that Croyland, when he talks of
the brothers' eloquence before the Council after this had happened,
was talking from memory and had heard the brothers' cases firsthand.
However, on balance I'm inclined to think that Croyland, who was
around but not, I believe, as near the charmed inner circle as some
historians like to imagine, got the gist of this bit wrong. The other
stuff - arguments before council, legal agreements - he would have
been far better informed on.

The question atill remains, however, as to when this happened. It is
quite probable that Anne had been a very long time in Clarence's
household before she came to understand that she just had to escape
or else. Perhaps Clarence did get as far as placing her in a convent,
and she made a runner from there. And how long was she in London
before she got word to Richard? If Richard was in the north when she
escaped, she would have had to wait till he next came to London.

Oh, for a timeline. . .

Marie

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann"
> <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > > Here's another question that has occurred to me. Did
> > > Anne stay in sanctuary at St. Martin's until she
> > > married Richard? If not, where did she stay?
> >
> > Marie:
> > I've been thinking some more about this. Of course, we know that
> after Tewkesbury Anne went into Clarence's household. And Croyland
> tells us that at some point after that he hid her in the city
> disguised as a cookmaid, and Richard found her and took her to
> sanctuary.
> >
> > Ann:
> > Costain thought that the dynamics were wrong -- not that he
> put it in those words -- but that it was much more likely that Anne
> had run away from Clarence's household and disguised *herself* as a
> cookmaid. Given that Clarence almost certainly had in mind
disposing
> of both Anne and her mother to some convenient convent and keeping
> Isabel and all the property.
>
> Yes, I think this was brought up before and that was the general
> consensus on the forum. I tend to agree. It is much more likely
that
> Anne would have hidden herself in the city in funny clothes to get
> away from Clarence, than that Clarence would have plonked her
there,
> outside his direct control, to keep her hidden from Gloucester. Why
> not just mure her up in one of his castles? Much safer.
> The only obstacle is the probability that Croyland, when he talks
of
> the brothers' eloquence before the Council after this had happened,
> was talking from memory and had heard the brothers' cases
firsthand.
> However, on balance I'm inclined to think that Croyland, who was
> around but not, I believe, as near the charmed inner circle as
some
> historians like to imagine, got the gist of this bit wrong. The
other
> stuff - arguments before council, legal agreements - he would have
> been far better informed on.
>
> The question atill remains, however, as to when this happened. It
is
> quite probable that Anne had been a very long time in Clarence's
> household before she came to understand that she just had to escape
> or else. Perhaps Clarence did get as far as placing her in a
convent,
> and she made a runner from there. And how long was she in London
> before she got word to Richard? If Richard was in the north when
she
> escaped, she would have had to wait till he next came to London.
>
> Oh, for a timeline. . .
>
> Marie

Help! I'm having second thoughts about this. If Anne escaped from
Clarence's household, why didn't she just take herself to sanctuary?

Her's an addition to the actual discussion on Elizabeth of York's
dispensation, from latest Blanc Sanglier. An article by Janet Senior
gives details of the info in the Calendar of Papal Reg.

According to the Cal., the petition for a dispensation had been drawn
up at Westminster Palace on 14th January 1486 by Archbishop
Rotherham, Bishop Alcock of Worcester and Jasper Tudor. Said petition
was then presented by Robert Morton, Archdeacon of Winchester, to the
papal legate James Bishop of Imola, two days later, on 16th.

The petition stated that Henry had agreed to take Elizabeth as his
wife as he wished to accede to the just petitions of his subjects to
take the lady as his wife. Stanley pointed out that the parliament
had asked Henry to arrange the marriage, but he assured the legate
that "the lady hath not been captured or compelled but out of great
and intimate love and cordial affection desires to contract marriage
with the King."

All of which proves absolutely that Henry had not intended marrying
Elizabeth until forced to by Parliament. Even then - why did he wait
till the wedding was almost upon him before applying for the
dispensation? Was Stanley's statement about Elizabeth addressing a
real suspicion or fact which the King wanted to deny: that perhaps
even though he made up his mind to marry her on 10th December, and
started ordering the wedding preparations the next day, she did not
yet agree to marry him? WAS she maybe confined against her will and
finally forced into the match? As I pointed out earlier, her sisters
and Warwick were in Margaret Beaufort's household in February 1486.

Marie

Marie

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
>> The question atill remains, however, as to when this happened. It
> is
> > quite probable that Anne had been a very long time in Clarence's
> > household before she came to understand that she just had to
escape
> > or else. Perhaps Clarence did get as far as placing her in a
> convent,
> > and she made a runner from there. And how long was she in London
> > before she got word to Richard? If Richard was in the north when
> she
> > escaped, she would have had to wait till he next came to London.
> >
> > Oh, for a timeline. . .
> >
> > Marie
>
> Help! I'm having second thoughts about this. If Anne escaped from
> Clarence's household, why didn't she just take herself to sanctuary?

Hmmm. Was Clarence her guardian and thus able to remove her from
sanctuary if she had sought it? Could her mother have done so?
Anne would have been 16 or 17 and a widow -- would she have been
under anyone's legal authority?

Or, conversely, is it possible that if she had gone into sanctuary
she could have been prevented from coming out again -- forced into
holy orders?

Or maybe acting on her own and trying to control her own destiny, if
that's what she did, was more appealing to her personality.

Personally, I'd like to think that Anne took matters into her own
hands, gave Clarence the slip, hid herself as a kitchen maid, and
contacted Richard all on her own initiative. (Shades of
Cinderella!) Anne the passive pawn always seemed rather wimpy to me.

Katy

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
>
> Her's an addition to the actual discussion on Elizabeth of York's
> dispensation, from latest Blanc Sanglier. An article by Janet
Senior
> gives details of the info in the Calendar of Papal Reg.
>
> According to the Cal., the petition for a dispensation had been
drawn
> up at Westminster Palace on 14th January 1486 by Archbishop
> Rotherham, Bishop Alcock of Worcester and Jasper Tudor. Said
petition
> was then presented by Robert Morton, Archdeacon of Winchester, to
the
> papal legate James Bishop of Imola, two days later, on 16th.

Robert Morton was John Morton's nephew -- son of his brother James.

Katy
>

Ann:

Oh, and one other thing -- the London of 1470 was not a huge,
sprawling metropolis. PMKendall observed that one was within a few
streets -- I want to say six, but am not confident I remember that
accurately -- of the river or country meadow at any place in the
city. Easy walking distance, in any case.

So hiding oneself, or being hidden, was probably a little more of a
challenge, and reaching one's cousin Gloucester with a message
probably a little less difficult, than we would tend to think.

L.P.H.,

Ann

The older I get, the better I was.

Ann wrote: Costain thought that the dynamics were
wrong -- not that he put it in those words -- but that
it was much more likely that Anne had run away from
Clarence's household and disguised *herself* as a
cookmaid. Given that Clarence almost certainly had in
mind disposing of both Anne and her mother to some
convenient convent and keeping Isabel and all the
property.

IF Anne did that, then she may well have stayed out of
sight until Richard next came to London, and gotten a
message to him then.

Marie wrote: Yes, I think this was brought up before
and that was the general consensus on the forum. I
tend to agree. It is much more likely that Anne would
have hidden herself in the city in funny clothes to
get
away from Clarence, than that Clarence would have
plonked her there, outside his direct control, to keep
her hidden from Gloucester.

Katy wrote: Personally, I'd like to think that Anne
took matters into her own hands, gave Clarence the
slip, hid herself as a kitchen maid, and
contacted Richard all on her own initiative. (Shades
of
Cinderella!) Anne the passive pawn always seemed
rather wimpy to me.

***


This makes sense to me. A proactive Anne fits better
with the theory that Anne was an active partner when
she and Richard were married. It's a shame that more
evidence about Anne's life hasn't survived. I'd like
to know more about her.

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Marie wrote: Stanley pointed out that the parliament
had asked Henry to arrange the marriage, but he
assured the legate that "the lady hath not been
captured or compelled but out of great and intimate
love and cordial affection desires to contract
marriage
with the King."

***

... and Henry VII's reign began on August 21, 1485 and
his greatful subjects just couldn't get him to take
enough of their money, and Morton's Fork and Dudley
and Empson were invented by exiled Ricardians. <G>

I don't believe that Elizabeth felt any "great and
intimate love and cordial affection" for Henry Tudor.

***

All of which proves absolutely that Henry had not
intended marrying Elizabeth until forced to by
Parliament. Even then - why did he wait till the
wedding was almost upon him before applying for the
dispensation? Was Stanley's statement about Elizabeth
addressing a real suspicion or fact which the King
wanted to deny: that perhaps even though he made up
his mind to marry her on 10th December, and
started ordering the wedding preparations the next
day, she did not yet agree to marry him? Was she maybe
confined against her will and finally forced into the
match?

***

That makes sense to me. If Elizabeth refused to agree
to the marriage, and they had to coerce her into it,
they might also have used tactics like those matching
outfits at Christmas 1487 and 1488 to grind her down.
It's hard to believe Elizabeth of York didn't resent
being reminded of Christmas 1484 by Margaret Beaufort.

I've recently found a website that says: "...
Elizabeth of York, was a quiet and gentle woman whose
motto 'Humble and Reverent' aptly summarized her way
of life."

(http://www.englishhistory.net/tudor/relative/margaret.html)

Maybe Elizabeth was a quiet and gentle woman. Or
maybe she'd just given up. That motto sounds like
something Margaret Beaufort would inflict on her.

It would be helpful to know when Elizabeth began to
use this motto. Does anyone know?

TIA!

Marion












__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Not a very good showing on the tv programme Mastermind for Jenny Dunn from
Portsmouth answering questions on Richard the Third. Only an 8 in round 1
while the chap answering on the Odyssey got 14 and didn't miss a single one
of his questions.
Jenny missed a simple (for Ricardians I think) question about the ceremony
Richard and Anne presided over in York in the autumn of 1483, and when she
cam back for her second round and was quizzed by John Humphreys about
Richard she managed little in the way of a defence. In fact John Humphreys
was left to nudge her in the right direction. 'Most accounts' he stated,'
say he was a thoroughly nasty guy, but you don't believe that.' 'Well I
don't know' was he reply, as why her answer to the question 'Why did he get
such a bad press?'
But I have to admit I think the poor lady was terrified of the cameras, so
allowances should be made, although I wonder why anyone would take on
Richard without being able to offer a good response to the slanderous
charges made against him by Tudor historians.
Paul

p.s. Battlefield Britain is going to include a programme on Bosworth. The
first programme about the Hundred Years War wasn't too bad, and Michael
Jones was on hand as an expert, so I guess we can expect to see him again.
Hope so. Could be interesting.

Someone did Henry VIII on Tuesday night, only scoring 4. She did't
remember which battle the "White Rose" died in, nor which Duke was
executed in 1521.
As an accountant, perhaps she could have chosen Henry VII as a subject.

This coming Friday, the 27th, a contestant on Mastermind, BBC2 at
20.00, is taking on the WOTR as their special subject.
Time for us all to test our knowledge too?
Paul




Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> This coming Friday, the 27th, a contestant on Mastermind, BBC2 at
> 20.00, is taking on the WOTR as their special subject.
> Time for us all to test our knowledge too?
> Paul

I love Mastermind. I find that when I know the answers I cant get them out quick
enough.......speed is of the essence with this quiz..
Eileen
>
>
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

King Richard III is a special subject on Mastermind tonight BBC2 at
20.00 in the UK.
Paul


Richard liveth yet