Brothers marrying sisters: Constance and Isabelle of Castile

Since Hicks argued that Richard's and Anne's marriage lacked a dispensation for first degree of affinity following George's marriage to Isabel Neville, does anyone know if such a dispensation was needed and issued for the similar marriage of Edmund of Langley to Isabelle of Castile since it followed the marriage of Edmund's brother, John of Gaunt, to Isabelle's older sister Constance?

I never heard anyone counterarguing Hicks on the grounds of this example, so I was curious if they did indeed need and obtain a dispensation for first degree of affinity because their respective brother and sister were married to each other, or if, like in the case of Richard and Anne, such a dispensation was not needed because their siblings' marriage did not form any affinity between Edmund and Isabelle.

Thanks for helping. Mac

"Since Hicks argued that Richard's and Anne's marriage lacked a dispensation for first degree of affinity following George's marriage to Isabel Neville, does anyone know if such a dispensation was needed and issued for the similar marriage of Edmund of Langley to Isabelle of Castile since it followed the marriage of Edmund's brother, John of Gaunt, to Isabelle's older sister Constance?

"I never heard anyone counterarguing Hicks on the grounds of this example, so I was curious if they did indeed need and obtain a dispensation for first degree of affinity because their respective brother and sister were married to each other, or if, like in the case of Richard and Anne, such a dispensation was not needed because their siblings' marriage did not form any affinity between Edmund and Isabelle."

Carol responds:

Marie has convincingly shown that no such dispensation was needed as there is no blood or marriage relationship between a man and his brother's wife's sister (his brother's sister-in-law). Richard and Anne definitely had the needed dispensation for Richard's blood relationship (something like third cousin once removed) to Anne's deceased husband, Edward of Lancaster, and must already have had the more crucial dispensation for their own relationship (first cousins once removed) perhaps obtained by Warwick at the same time he obtained the identical dispensation for George and Isabel.

I looked for Marie's article in our files but her article on dispensations there seems to be the wrong one. It's possible to search old posts (with some difficulty) from the website (go to the bottom right-hand corner and look for the magnifying glass). Or you might wait until Marie returns to the forum and ask her then. Hicks is definitely barking up the wrong tree.

Meantime, you might find some help from Marie's article on affinities (real, not products of Hicks's imagination!) in our Files.

Carol

Hi Carol,

thank you for directing me to Marie's files. I have not the slightest doubts about her competence on side and about Hicks' deviousness on the other.

However, I would love to know if the a.m. double royal marriage has been tackled with as an example that, like with Richard and Anne, did not require any dispensation, at least for first degree affinity due one brother having previously married one of the 2 sisters, or, if the opposite is the case, why and what rules changed between these 2 marriages and Richard's marriage to Anne.

I can wait of course. Mac

“One child or two” – in the Ricardian index on the Society website.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 04 February 2015 13:08
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Brothers marrying sisters: Constance and Isabelle of Castile

This is slightly off topic, but on the subject of Hicks, I found a footnote referring to something he wrote, where he says that Richard and Anne had another son called George. I can't remember exactly which book it was, but does anyone have know anything about this other child or what evidence Hicks has for his existence?

Nico

On Wednesday, 4 February 2015, 7:54, "mac.thirty@... []" < > wrote:

Hi Carol,

thank you for directing me to Marie's files. I have not the slightest doubts about her competence on side and about Hicks' deviousness on the other.

However, I would love to know if the a.m. double royal marriage has been tackled with as an example that, like with Richard and Anne, did not require any dispensation, at least for first degree affinity due one brother having previously married one of the 2 sisters, or, if the opposite is the case, why and what rules changed between these 2 marriages and Richard's marriage to Anne.

I can wait of course. Mac

"Hi Carol, thank you for directing me to Marie's files. I have not the slightest doubts about her competence on side and about Hicks' deviousness on the other. However, I would love to know if the a.m. double royal marriage has been tackled with as an example that, like with Richard and Anne, did not require any dispensation, at least for first degree affinity due one brother having previously married one of the 2 sisters, or, if the opposite is the case, why and what rules changed between these 2 marriages and Richard's marriage to Anne."

Carol responds:

I was trying to say that *nothing* changed because no dispensation was required. *There was no affinity,* first degree or otherwise because marrying the sister of your brother's wife (or the brother of your sister's husband, from the wife's point of view) did not create an affinity. Hicks is simply mistaken, as Marie has convincingly shown. If you carefully read her (admittedly complicated and technical) article on affinities, you can see what did and did not constitute an affinity. But she specifically answers Hicks somewhere and proves him to be full (as usual) of hot air. That's all I can say for the moment.

Many historians have assumed that Richard and Anne married without one or more required dispensations because of a document that talks about the possibility of their divorce, but evidently George was trying to prove that Richard had forced Anne to marry him (as we know was not the case). It was just George making trouble over nothing, trying to get Richard's (Anne's) share of the countess's forfeited lands. Unfortunately, even historians favorable to Richard have misunderstood this situation. Again, when Marie returns, she can explain more clearly and back up her statements with evidence.

Not sure what you mean by "a.m. double royal marriage."

Carol

Hi,

Just back briefly. Thanks Carol & others for supporting my article on the illusory affinity.

I must admit I haven't read Josephine Wilkinson's take on it (I got bored with her book halfway through and gave it to a charity shop, I have to admit).

The article can be accessed online. There is a contents list of past Ricardians on the Society website (called "Ricardian Index), and mine is one of the articles to which there is a pdf link.

Basically, Hicks simply misunderstood the affinity rules. When you had sex you became "one flesh" with your partner, and all their consanguines (blood relatives) became your affines, and you were thus prohibited from marrying the same people they were. Your partner's blood relatives' spouses, however, weren't a problem.

I think what may have confused JW is that before Lateran 4 the affinity rules had been a bit more extensive, and I briefly refer to that in my article - but they had never never prohibited a person from marrying a sibling of their sibling's spouse, so if JW was looking for a repeal of such a restriction in Lateran 4 she was chasing rainbows.

Actually shortly after I wrote my article Mary O'Regan sent me a nice quotation from the writings of Bede. Someone had specifically asked the Venerable B. whether two brothers could marry two sisters and Bede said, yes they certainly could 'there is nothing in canon law to prevent it.'

There are actually loads of examples of double brother-sister marriages once you start looking for them.

And you don't have to take my word for it (or that of the VB). Henry Asgar Kelly, a well respected specialist in ecclesiastical history, actually published a little letter in the Ricardian Bulletin confirming my interpretation and agreeing that George & Isabel's marriage constituted no impediment to Richard & Anne.

I do wish this would go away but unfortunately Hicks seems to see no reason to revise his text. I did find it interesting that the editor of his 'Anne Neville', Alison Weir, seems to accept in her recent biography of Elizabeth of York that there was no such impediment so perhaps the message is finally getting through.

Bye for now. Missing the forum but afraid I don't have spare time at present.

Marie

Hi,

Just back briefly. Thanks Carol & others for supporting my article on the illusory affinity.

I must admit I haven't read Josephine Wilkinson's take on it (I got bored with her book halfway through and gave it to a charity shop, I have to admit).

The article can be accessed online. There is a contents list of past Ricardians on the Society website (called "Ricardian Index), and mine is one of the articles to which there is a pdf link.

Basically, Hicks simply misunderstood the affinity rules. When you had sex you became "one flesh" with your partner, and all their consanguines (blood relatives) became your affines, and you were thus prohibited from marrying the same people they were. Your partner's blood relatives' spouses, however, weren't a problem.

I think what may have confused JW is that before Lateran 4 the affinity rules had been a bit more extensive, and I briefly refer to that in my article - but they had never never prohibited a person from marrying a sibling of their sibling's spouse, so if JW was looking for a repeal of such a restriction in Lateran 4 she was chasing rainbows.

Actually shortly after I wrote my article Mary O'Regan sent me a nice quotation from the writings of Bede. Someone had specifically asked the Venerable B. whether two brothers could marry two sisters and Bede said, yes they certainly could 'there is nothing in canon law to prevent it.'

There are actually loads of examples of double brother-sister marriages once you start looking for them.

And you don't have to take my word for it (or that of the VB). Henry Asgar Kelly, a well respected specialist in ecclesiastical history, actually published a little letter in the Ricardian Bulletin confirming my interpretation and agreeing that George & Isabel's marriage constituted no impediment to Richard & Anne.

I do wish this would go away but unfortunately Hicks seems to see no reason to revise his text. I did find it interesting that the editor of his 'Anne Neville', Alison Weir, seems to accept in her recent biography of Elizabeth of York that there was no such impediment so perhaps the message is finally getting through.

Bye for now. Missing the forum but afraid I don't have spare time at present.

Marie

Marie, you are a treasure!



On Feb 4, 2015, at 5:32 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

Just back briefly. Thanks Carol & others for supporting my article on the illusory affinity.

I must admit I haven't read Josephine Wilkinson's take on it (I got bored with her book halfway through and gave it to a charity shop, I have to admit).

The article can be accessed online. There is a contents list of past Ricardians on the Society website (called "Ricardian Index), and mine is one of the articles to which there is a pdf link.

Basically, Hicks simply misunderstood the affinity rules. When you had sex you became "one flesh" with your partner, and all their consanguines (blood relatives) became your affines, and you were thus prohibited from marrying the same people they were. Your partner's blood relatives' spouses, however, weren't a problem.

I think what may have confused JW is that before Lateran 4 the affinity rules had been a bit more extensive, and I briefly refer to that in my article - but they had never never prohibited a person from marrying a sibling of their sibling's spouse, so if JW was looking for a repeal of such a restriction in Lateran 4 she was chasing rainbows.

Actually shortly after I wrote my article Mary O'Regan sent me a nice quotation from the writings of Bede. Someone had specifically asked the Venerable B. whether two brothers could marry two sisters and Bede said, yes they certainly could 'there is nothing in canon law to prevent it.'

There are actually loads of examples of double brother-sister marriages once you start looking for them.

And you don't have to take my word for it (or that of the VB). Henry Asgar Kelly, a well respected specialist in ecclesiastical history, actually published a little letter in the Ricardian Bulletin confirming my interpretation and agreeing that George & Isabel's marriage constituted no impediment to Richard & Anne.

I do wish this would go away but unfortunately Hicks seems to see no reason to revise his text. I did find it interesting that the editor of his 'Anne Neville', Alison Weir, seems to accept in her recent biography of Elizabeth of York that there was no such impediment so perhaps the message is finally getting through.

Bye for now. Missing the forum but afraid I don't have spare time at present.

Marie

This is as an aside for anyone listening from the Society - re Carol's remark "You can probably find it in a reference library."

Back issues of Ricardians cannot be found anywhere other than in the Society's own library or in the British Library. I find it extraordinary that the extensive articles in such a learned historical society are not made available to those seeking to do research. Not everyone joined the Society in the 1970's (or has enough room in their house to keep forty years worth of Ricardians + Bulletins), and the only way to access the articles listed on the Society website is by ordering a copy from the Society library. Pre-2000 articles etc should be scanned and uploaded asap for the benefit of members and research students.