Papal dispensations for HVII and EoY and premarriage consummation?

I stumbled on a blog by a non historian user tackling the issue of the papal dispensations for HVII and EoY and the possibility of premarriage consummation that led to a "8 months" pregnancy for their first born Arthur. Here is the link to the related blog page livebythesword  I am not a historian but here's my two cents: ...

The blog says the dispensation granted on January 16th 1486 "was not the official papal one, Henry grabbed hold of a certain Bishop of Imola, a Papal representative who happended to be there and who was giving out 10 dispensations for people to marry, to get his licence and marry immediately. This is corroborated by the fact that when the official dispensations showed up in March 1486 (long after the wedding) they were worded in such a way that shows that the Pope had no idea that the wedding had already taken place. In fact, the Pope had to keep sending extra approval letters up until June 1486 to show his recognition and approval of Imola's dispensation." This assumption is based on the following article published on the site of RIII Society's American Branch Part V: Memoir of Elizabeth of York: Assumption of the throne by Henry VII through discussion of his treatment of Elizabeth Woodville. | Richard III Society  American Branch

I understand a previous dispensation dated early 1484 was held not entirely valid possibly due to problems of consent, but I do not quite understand the issues with the second dispensation.

As for the possibility of premarriage consummation my opinion is that it is not necessary to explain Arthur's early delivery as it was not in the case of Isabel Neville's early delivery onboard the ship outside Calais, but would like to have your opinion. Thank you for your attention. Mac

That was very interesting, thanks!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Papal dispensations for HVII and EoY and premarriage consummation?

I stumbled on a blog by a non historian user tackling the issue of the papal dispensations for HVII and EoY and the possibility of premarriage consummation that led to a "8 months" pregnancy for their first born Arthur. Here is the link to the related blog page livebythesword  I am not a historian but here's my two cents: ...

livebythesword  I am not a historian but here's my two ...

I am not a historian but here's my two cents: Henry was indeed taking his time after Bosworth before committing to marry Elizabeth. I do believe that he was actua...

View on cingupearl.tumblr.com

Preview by Yahoo

The blog says the dispensation granted on January 16th 1486 "was not the official papal one, Henry grabbed hold of a certain Bishop of Imola, a Papal representative who happended to be there and who was giving out 10 dispensations for people to marry, to get his licence and marry immediately. This is corroborated by the fact that when the official dispensations showed up in March 1486 (long after the wedding) they were worded in such a way that shows that the Pope had no idea that the wedding had already taken place. In fact, the Pope had to keep sending extra approval letters up until June 1486 to show his recognition and approval of Imola's dispensation." This assumption is based on the following article published on the site of RIII Society's American Branch Part V: Memoir of Elizabeth of York: Assumption of the throne by Henry VII through discussion of his treatment of Elizabeth Woodville. | Richard III Society  American Branch

Part V: Memoir of Elizabeth of York: Assumption of the throne by Henry VII through discussion of his...

Primary Texts and Secondary Sources On-line This document is linked to ORB: The Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies. Use this link to reach the project's home page.

View on www.r3.org

Preview by Yahoo

I understand a previous dispensation dated early 1484 was held not entirely valid possibly due to problems of consent, but I do not quite understand the issues with the second dispensation.

As for the possibility of premarriage consummation my opinion is that it is not necessary to explain Arthur's early delivery as it was not in the case of Isabel Neville's early delivery onboard the ship outside Calais, but would like to have your opinion. Thank you for your attention. Mac

That was very interesting, thanks!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Papal dispensations for HVII and EoY and premarriage consummation?

I stumbled on a blog by a non historian user tackling the issue of the papal dispensations for HVII and EoY and the possibility of premarriage consummation that led to a "8 months" pregnancy for their first born Arthur. Here is the link to the related blog page livebythesword  I am not a historian but here's my two cents: ...

livebythesword  I am not a historian but here's my two ...

I am not a historian but here's my two cents: Henry was indeed taking his time after Bosworth before committing to marry Elizabeth. I do believe that he was actua...

View on cingupearl.tumblr.com

Preview by Yahoo

The blog says the dispensation granted on January 16th 1486 "was not the official papal one, Henry grabbed hold of a certain Bishop of Imola, a Papal representative who happended to be there and who was giving out 10 dispensations for people to marry, to get his licence and marry immediately. This is corroborated by the fact that when the official dispensations showed up in March 1486 (long after the wedding) they were worded in such a way that shows that the Pope had no idea that the wedding had already taken place. In fact, the Pope had to keep sending extra approval letters up until June 1486 to show his recognition and approval of Imola's dispensation." This assumption is based on the following article published on the site of RIII Society's American Branch Part V: Memoir of Elizabeth of York: Assumption of the throne by Henry VII through discussion of his treatment of Elizabeth Woodville. | Richard III Society  American Branch

Part V: Memoir of Elizabeth of York: Assumption of the throne by Henry VII through discussion of his...

Primary Texts and Secondary Sources On-line This document is linked to ORB: The Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies. Use this link to reach the project's home page.

View on www.r3.org

Preview by Yahoo

I understand a previous dispensation dated early 1484 was held not entirely valid possibly due to problems of consent, but I do not quite understand the issues with the second dispensation.

As for the possibility of premarriage consummation my opinion is that it is not necessary to explain Arthur's early delivery as it was not in the case of Isabel Neville's early delivery onboard the ship outside Calais, but would like to have your opinion. Thank you for your attention. Mac

Hi Mac,

Re the dispensations for Elizabeth and Henry: I happen to have been looking into this in some detail and am planning to publish. It's a really complex business because, as the article indicates, there were just SO many dispensations.

1) was nothing intrinsically wrong with the 1484 dispensation - ie it correctly covered the impediment of consanguinity. We can only speculate about why it was not invoked in 1486. That may have something to do with suspicions over Elizabeth's consent, but it would not have been because the supplication came from Henry alone as has been stated by some biographers - that was not a problem. The 1484 dispensation came from the Papal Penitentiary rather than directly from the Pope, but the Cardinal Penitentiary was authorised to grant dispensations, and since he was Pope Sixtus's nephew Sixtus probably knew about it.

2) I agree that the delay between Henry's agreement to marry Elizabeth (10th December) and the application for a dispensation from the legate is puzzling. In my view he really needed to be able to open the second session of parliament that January with Elizabeth as his queen, and Bishop Imola had been in England all that time so why did he not ask him earlier? Perhaps it makes most sense if we assume he had been planning to use the 1484 dispensation until about a week before the planned wedding date something happened to make it look as though it wouldn't do the job. Maybe there were rumours going round (spread by Ricardian Yorkists?) that Elizabeth wasn't willing, or even that Henry had been forced to marry by parliament, and that therefore the marriage would not be valid. That would certainly explain the tribunal held by Imola at various witnesses testified to the willingness of the couple to marry. I don't actually see this as evidence that Elizabeth was pregnant because, if Arthur had been conceived on the wedding day he would have been exactly three weeks early. Ergo, if he were actually born on the due date then at the time that Henry and Elizabeth initiated the process for getting a dispensation from the legate her period wouldn't even have been overdue.

Imola had been authorised before he set off on his mission to England and Scotland to grant 12 (not 10 as per this article) dispensations from consanguinity and affinity in the third and fourth degrees, so Henry and Elizabeth's, for consanguinity in the fourth degrees, was perfectly within his remit. But obviously the Pope had not granted Imola these powers with the idea that he would use them to interfere in foreign politics, so it would make absolute sense for Henry to get the pope to ratify the dispensation afterwards. He had, in my view, learned a great deal from what had happened with Edward IV's marriage. If only Edward had got his marriage to Elizabeth ratified by the Pope!

3) The dispensation from the Pope was granted on 6th March and shows he didn't know Henry and Elizabeth had already married, which indicates to me that the application for it had gone off before the marriage took place. Henry may have had a little think afterwards and thought that perhaps this wouldn't do - particularly as there was renewed Yorkist unrest. So I think we see him sending again to explain the situation

4) The papal ratification of 27th March 1486 specifically ratified the marriage if it had already taken place using either the dispensation issued by the Penitentiary or that issued by the legate. Each of these papal bulls threatened anyone impugning the marriage, so there do seem to have been some kind of rumours abroad that all was not as it should have been with it.

Henry just didn't leave anything to chance. He was absolutely determined to ensure that his offspring could never be declared bastards like those of Edward IV.

"1) was nothing intrinsically wrong with the 1484 dispensation - ie it correctly covered the impediment of consanguinity. We can only speculate about why it was not invoked in 1486. That may have something to do with suspicions over Elizabeth's consent, but it would not have been because the supplication came from Henry alone as has been stated by some biographers - that was not a problem. The 1484 dispensation came from the Papal Penitentiary rather than directly from the Pope, but the Cardinal Penitentiary was authorised to grant dispensations, and since he was Pope Sixtus's nephew Sixtus probably knew about it."

Carol responds:

Could it have anything to do with the change in popes? Sixtus was dead by that time and the pope was Innocent VII.

Carol

Carol asked:

"Could it [the need for a second dispensation] have anything to do with the change in popes? Sixtus was dead by that time and the pope was Innocent VII."

Marie:

I don't think so. Dispensations didn't become void on the death of the pope who granted them (there would have been chaos if that had been the case), and Henry had absolutely no reason to fear that Innocent VIII was not on his side, to put it mildly. In fact, the evidence suggests that Innocent had been convinced - probably by Morton during his long sojourn in Rome - that Henry would indeed marry Elizabeth, and Henry's supporter John de Giglis (collector of Peter's Pence) felt the need to write to Pope Innocent in early December 1485 assuring him the marriage was definitely going ahead. So no fear that Innocent would turn round and refuse to recognise the 1484 dispensation.

Thanks for your kind words, Mac. I'm just putting the finishing touches now. I decided to write first and then look for an outlet. Trouble is, as it stands it's too long for an article and not long enough for a book (23,500 words). I'm hoping to get some feedback and then decide what to do.

Marie

Marie wrote "23.000 words, too long for an article, too short for a book"

Maybe a kindle edition? Just a humble suggestion. Mac

Thanks for your kind words, Mac. I'm just putting the finishing touches now. I decided to write first and then look for an outlet. Trouble is, as it stands it's too long for an article and not long enough for a book (23,500 words). I'm hoping to get some feedback and then decide what to do.

Marie

Marie wrote:

//snip//

Imola had been authorised before he set off on his mission to England and Scotland to grant 12 (not 10 as per this article) dispensations from consanguinity and affinity in the third and fourth degrees, so Henry and Elizabeth's, for consanguinity in the fourth degrees, was perfectly within his remit. But obviously the Pope had not granted Imola these powers with the idea that he would use them to interfere in foreign politics, so it would make absolute sense for Henry to get the pope to ratify the dispensation afterwards. He had, in my view, learned a great deal from what had happened with Edward IV's marriage. If only Edward had got his marriage to Elizabeth ratified by the Pope!

//snip//

"Thanks for your kind words, Mac. I'm just putting the finishing touches now. I decided to write first and then look for an outlet. Trouble is, as it stands it's too long for an article and not long enough for a book (23,500 words). I'm hoping to get some feedback and then decide what to do."

Carol responds:

How about a series of articles? The Ricardian does that fairly often.

Carol

Doug asked Marie:

"My apologies for snipping so much of your very interesting post, but the above produced a question.