Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

 I'm reading Josephine Wilkinson "Richard the Young King to Be" which focuses on Richard's early life. Nice change of pace.   She is not hostile but she harps constantly on the irregularities of their marriage. She also drones on and on about how greedy the match was For myself I can't imagine why Anne wouldn't want to be a Royal Duchess. Perhaps she had a crush on Edward =  She also points to a second annuity given to Alice Burgh. She seems to place great store on his emotions for his Mistress and that his marriage was larcenous. Oh well.   Was their marriage illegal?

There were no marital irregularities  Barnfield's article has shown that they had every dispensation they could ever need.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 02 June 2017 17:16
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

I'm reading Josephine Wilkinson "Richard the Young King to Be" which focuses on Richard's early life. Nice change of pace.

She is not hostile but she harps constantly on the irregularities of their marriage. She also drones on and on about how greedy the match was

For myself I can't imagine why Anne wouldn't want to be a Royal Duchess. Perhaps she had a crush on Edward =

She also points to a second annuity given to Alice Burgh. She seems to place great store on his emotions for his Mistress and that his marriage was larcenous. Oh well.

Was their marriage illegal?

Thank you. So we have proof of both dispensations, affinity and consanguinity?
On Jun 2, 2017 12:19 PM, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:
 

There were no marital irregularities  Barnfield's article has shown that they had every dispensation they could ever need.

 

From: @ yahoogroups.com [mailto: @yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 02 June 2017 17:16
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

 

 

 I'm reading Josephine Wilkinson "Richard the Young King to Be" which focuses on Richard's early life. Nice change of pace. 

  She is not hostile but she harps constantly on the irregularities of their marriage. She also drones on and on about how greedy the match was

 For myself I can't imagine why Anne wouldn't want to be a Royal Duchess. Perhaps she had a crush on Edward =

  She also points to a second annuity given to Alice Burgh. She seems to place great store on his emotions for his Mistress and that his marriage was larcenous. Oh well. 

  Was their marriage illegal?

Yes. There was one for consanguinity in that they were first cousins and there was one for affinity in that Richard was a cousin of her previous husband.

That covers everything.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 02 June 2017 17:21
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

Thank you. So we have proof of both dispensations, affinity and consanguinity?

On Jun 2, 2017 12:19 PM, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:

There were no marital irregularities  Barnfield's article has shown that they had every dispensation they could ever need.

From: @ yahoogroups.com [mailto: @yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 02 June 2017 17:16
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

I'm reading Josephine Wilkinson "Richard the Young King to Be" which focuses on Richard's early life. Nice change of pace.

She is not hostile but she harps constantly on the irregularities of their marriage. She also drones on and on about how greedy the match was

For myself I can't imagine why Anne wouldn't want to be a Royal Duchess. Perhaps she had a crush on Edward =

She also points to a second annuity given to Alice Burgh. She seems to place great store on his emotions for his Mistress and that his marriage was larcenous. Oh well.

Was their marriage illegal?

I found the book annoying in that she gives biographies of every saint mentioned. No flow to it, factual inaccuracies apart!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juin 2017 à 18:28, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <> a écrit :

Yes. There was one for consanguinity in that they were first cousins and there was one for affinity in that Richard was a cousin of her previous husband.

That covers everything.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 02 June 2017 17:21
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

Thank you. So we have proof of both dispensations, affinity and consanguinity?

On Jun 2, 2017 12:19 PM, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <> wrote:

There were no marital irregularities  Barnfield's article has shown that they had every dispensation they could ever need.

From: @ yahoogroups.com [mailto: @yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 02 June 2017 17:16
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

I'm reading Josephine Wilkinson "Richard the Young King to Be" which focuses on Richard's early life. Nice change of pace.

She is not hostile but she harps constantly on the irregularities of their marriage. She also drones on and on about how greedy the match was

For myself I can't imagine why Anne wouldn't want to be a Royal Duchess. Perhaps she had a crush on Edward =

She also points to a second annuity given to Alice Burgh. She seems to place great store on his emotions for his Mistress and that his marriage was larcenous. Oh well.

Was their marriage illegal?

It would be interesting for Karen to read the Hicks article in the Bulletin which insisted that their marriage was incestuous and then read Marie's article which completely set aside his argument. I can remember reading his article in one Bulletin and being very angry but not having the required knowledge I wasn't sure if he was right or not. Then in the next Bulletin Marie's article completely demolished his argument. It was a lovely feeling!
Also with regard to Richard and Anne, I have recently been reminded of something which was first brought to my attention when I first joined the Society around 30 years ago. On a FB page about Wales someone mentioned St John the Baptist Church n Llanblethian near Cowbridge in Glamorgan. The tower of the church was funded by Anne Neville in 1477 and she is described as the heiress to the lordship of Glamorgan. I remember receiving a leaflet when I joined the Society describing how Richard had granted a chaplaincy to Holycross Church in Cowbridge, which is very close to Llanblethian. I was quite interested as my daughter was christened at Holycross. I also read somewhere about her having funded the tower at Llanblethian. In the post on FB it also said that around the same time Anne had also funded a chantry chapel and an aisle at Holycross. So I would imagine that she was a woman in her own right and not reliant on her husband to do things for her and in one article I found online it specifically referred to her as the heiress of the lordship Glamorgan.
Personally I don't think it was greed that made Richard marry Anne. Yes he would want to marry well and gain lands but you also have to take into account the fact that Clarence was trying to ensure that Isabel had all of the Neville and Beauchamp inheritance.Whether the cookshop story is true or not Richard was rescuing Anne from Clarence's clutches and also Edward would probably have wanted to reward his brother for his loyalty. As for the Countess of Warwick she had been complicit in her husband's treason which ever way you look at it. She probably didn't have any choice but I don't think that she did anything to help Anne when she was married to Edward of Lancaster.
Mary

The thing that convinces me the cookshop story is true is the fact that we know about it. They wouldn't have made any reference to it otherwis.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juin 2017 à 19:34, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

It would be interesting for Karen to read the Hicks article in the Bulletin which insisted that their marriage was incestuous and then read Marie's article which completely set aside his argument. I can remember reading his article in one Bulletin and being very angry but not having the required knowledge I wasn't sure if he was right or not. Then in the next Bulletin Marie's article completely demolished his argument. It was a lovely feeling!

Also with regard to Richard and Anne, I have recently been reminded of something which was first brought to my attention when I first joined the Society around 30 years ago. On a FB page about Wales someone mentioned St John the Baptist Church n Llanblethian near Cowbridge in Glamorgan. The tower of the church was funded by Anne Neville in 1477 and she is described as the heiress to the lordship of Glamorgan. I remember receiving a leaflet when I joined the Society describing how Richard had granted a chaplaincy to Holycross Church in Cowbridge, which is very close to Llanblethian. I was quite interested as my daughter was christened at Holycross. I also read somewhere about her having funded the tower at Llanblethian. In the post on FB it also said that around the same time Anne had also funded a chantry chapel and an aisle at Holycross. So I would imagine that she was a woman in her own right and not reliant on her husband to do things for her and in one article I found online it specifically referred to her as the heiress of the lordship Glamorgan.
Personally I don't think it was greed that made Richard marry Anne. Yes he would want to marry well and gain lands but you also have to take into account the fact that Clarence was trying to ensure that Isabel had all of the Neville and Beauchamp inheritance.Whether the cookshop story is true or not Richard was rescuing Anne from Clarence's clutches and also Edward would probably have wanted to reward his brother for his loyalty. As for the Countess of Warwick she had been complicit in her husband's treason which ever way you look at it. She probably didn't have any choice but I don't think that she did anything to help Anne when she was married to Edward of Lancaster.
Mary

Good point Paul, had not thought of that.
Mary

Sorry have been away for some time - elbow deep in the Test Ebor.
Firstly, I've read Wilkinson and she certainly doesn't drone on (but yes she does go on about saints). She got her wrong assumption and interpretation from Hicks. We've discussed it on here many times and it goes right back to a Papal ruling which to be honest I'm too lazy to look up. But as Marie says, it's wrong.
More importantly though, Alice Burgh, mistress or Prioress, has led me to the people around Richard - you can find some of them on page 49 of Horrox. Now Horrox (who I do admire for her research) says that Richard 'bought off' these former Richard Neville supporters. I doubt that. These dozen or so families had been intermarrying since the Conquest. Some were of Breton descent, from Alain of Richmond who accompanied the Conqueror and was rewarded with the 'Honour of Richmond'. All had founded and endowed abbeys and churches. Each generation had contributed priests, abbesses or Hospitallers. They were no buy off. They'd supported Scrope against Henry IV in 1404 and paid the price. Fifty years' after Richard's death they'd lead and suffer dreadfully for the Pilgrimage of Grace.
So what does this tell us? Well contrary to the belief expressed in most books on Richard, did he really get the favourite's deal after Tewkesbury? I don't think so. These people could have been quite as awkward as the nest of vipers to which Clarence was sent in Warwick and Farleigh. But Richard did engage them - we know because they fought and died for him at Bosworth. No small achievement. Did Edward really favour little brother? I doubt it. In Edward's kingdom there could only be one star. He now had an heir, so witty George and heroic Richard could be sent away from London with enough to occupy them in their own domains (and it of course kept the Warwick lands in the family).
And what did Richard think? Well perhaps the disenchantment with Edward set in well before 1475? I think the real example is after Tewkesbury when he was sent south to sort out Fauconburg because Rivers was 'too busy' preparing for a pilgrimage that never happened. What caring brother would sent a young man of 19 with scoliosis who had suffered battle injury, trauma of losing those close to him, a march to Tewkesbury, sorting out the Tewkesbury rebels, a return to London, on another mission? When you read the background of those close to Richard in the North you do begin to understand the influences on him there; you can seen where he gets his ideas to found a collegiate chapel at Middleham and York. You can see why he wants to fight the infidel because no doubt his associates are telling him about the plight of their relatives the Hospitallers in Rhodes. And more than anything you can understand the tirade against Edward in TR, because he has broken all of their codes. Yes, I do begin to understand why TR is so harsh at last. H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2017, 22:04
Subject: Re: Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

Good point Paul, had not thought of that.
Mary

When considering some of the language used by King Richard in some of his proclamations, I find an interesting comparison in the proclamation issued in the City of London by the Mayor and Aldermen on behalf of the King, presumably in response to the King's Council's instruction on April 9th, 1483, to the mayor to call together the wardens of the companies & constables of parishes & wards, charging them to keep the peace.

This entry is available at British History Online in the Calendar of Letter Books of the City of London, "filed" between entries dated April 22nd and May 4th, 1483.

Folio 189 b.
Proclamac' contra mere trices vagant' circa Civita tem.
"For to eschewe the stynkyng and horrible Synne of Lechery the whiche daily groweth and is used more than it hath been in dates past by the meanes of Strumpettes mysguyded and idil women daily vagraunt and walkyng aboute by the stretes and lanes of this Citee of London and Suburbes of the same and also repairyng to Taverns and oþere private places of the said Citee provokyng many oþere persones unto the said Synne of lechery Whereby moche people aswell men as women being of theym self weldisposed daily fall to the said myschevous and horrible Synne To the grete displeasur of Almyghty God and distourbaunce and brekyng of the Kyng our soveraign lordes peas and of the politique guydyng of the Citee aforesaid My lord the Mair and my Maisters the Aldremen streitly chargen and commaunden uppon the King our soveraign lordes behalf that all suche Strumpettes and mysguyded and idill women aswell dwellyng as Resortyng to the said Citee of London or Suburbes of the same departe and wtdrawe theym self and in no wise be so hardy to come ayen Resorte or abide wtin the said Citee or libertie uppon payn þerefore ordeigned and that no persone wtin the same Citee and libertie eide comfort nor receive any suche mysguided and ill disposed women uppon þe payne therefore lymyted and ordeigned, straitly chargyng constables and all oþere officers of the said Citee to arrest all suche mysguyded and idill women as been aforerehersed where so ever ther shalbe founde wtin the same Citee and to brynge theym to one of the Countours there to abide the punysshment and correccioun of the lawe for suche mysdoers ordeigned." [No date.]

A J







On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

Sorry have been away for some time - elbow deep in the Test Ebor.
Firstly, I've read Wilkinson and she certainly doesn't drone on (but yes she does go on about saints). She got her wrong assumption and interpretation from Hicks. We've discussed it on here many times and it goes right back to a Papal ruling which to be honest I'm too lazy to look up. But as Marie says, it's wrong.
More importantly though, Alice Burgh, mistress or Prioress, has led me to the people around Richard - you can find some of them on page 49 of  Horrox.  Now Horrox (who I do admire for her research) says that Richard 'bought off' these former Richard Neville supporters. I doubt that. These dozen or so families had been intermarrying since the Conquest. Some were of Breton descent, from Alain of Richmond who accompanied the Conqueror and was rewarded with the 'Honour of Richmond'. All had founded and endowed abbeys and churches. Each generation had contributed priests, abbesses or Hospitallers. They were no buy off. They'd supported Scrope against Henry IV in 1404 and paid the price. Fifty years' after Richard's death they'd lead and suffer dreadfully for the Pilgrimage of Grace.
So what does this tell us? Well contrary to the belief expressed in most books on Richard, did he really get the favourite's deal after Tewkesbury? I don't think so. These people could have been quite as awkward as the nest of vipers to which Clarence was sent in Warwick and Farleigh. But Richard did engage them - we know because they fought and died for him at Bosworth.  No small achievement.  Did Edward really favour little brother? I doubt it. In Edward's kingdom there could only be one star. He now had an heir, so witty George and heroic Richard could be sent away from London with enough to occupy them in their own domains (and it of course kept the Warwick lands in the family).
And what did Richard think? Well perhaps the disenchantment with Edward set in well before 1475? I think the real example is after Tewkesbury when he was sent south to sort out Fauconburg because Rivers was 'too busy'  preparing for a pilgrimage that never happened. What caring brother would sent a young man of 19 with scoliosis who had suffered battle injury, trauma of losing those close to him, a march to Tewkesbury, sorting out the Tewkesbury rebels, a return to London, on another mission? When you read the background of those close to Richard in the North you do begin to understand the influences on him there; you can seen where he gets his ideas to found a collegiate chapel at Middleham and York. You can see why he wants to fight the infidel because no doubt his associates are telling him about the plight of their relatives the Hospitallers in Rhodes. And more than anything you can understand the tirade against Edward in TR, because he has broken all of their codes. Yes, I do begin to understand why TR is so harsh at last. H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2017, 22:04
Subject: Re: Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

  Good point Paul, had not thought of that.
Mary

That's why I rely on this forum. I became fascinated with his life a decade ago after watching Olivier. I thought to myself. what's the real story. This is stupid. So I trudged to the library. I ran out of resources there. Then when his grave was found I began looking online.    Blogs about him have blossomed, most of them suspect. Even the books I am suspicious of.  I am not a part of the hero worshipping Ricardian but I do want to crack open the Lie.
On Jun 2, 2017 1:38 PM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:
 

It would be interesting for Karen to read the Hicks article in the Bulletin which insisted that their marriage was incestuous and then read Marie's article which completely set aside his argument. I can remember reading his article in one Bulletin and being very angry but not having the required knowledge I wasn't sure if he was right or not. Then in the next Bulletin Marie's article completely demolished his argument. It was a lovely feeling!
Also with regard to Richard and Anne, I have recently been reminded of something which was first brought to my attention when I first joined the Society around 30 years ago. On a FB page about Wales someone mentioned St John the Baptist Church n Llanblethian near Cowbridge in Glamorgan. The tower of the church was funded by Anne Neville in 1477 and she is described as the heiress to the lordship of Glamorgan. I remember receiving a leaflet when I joined the Society describing how Richard had granted a chaplaincy to Holycross Church in Cowbridge, which is very close to Llanblethian. I was quite interested as my daughter was christened at Holycross. I also read somewhere about her having funded the tower at Llanblethian. In the post on FB it also said that around the same time Anne had also funded a chantry chapel and an aisle at Holycross. So I would imagine that she was a woman in her own right and not reliant on her husband to do things for her and in one article I found online it specifically referred to her as the heiress of the lordship Glamorgan.
 Personally I don't think it was greed that made Richard marry Anne. Yes he would want to marry well and gain lands  but you also have to take into account the fact that Clarence was trying to ensure that Isabel had all of the Neville and Beauchamp inheritance.Whether the cookshop story is true or not Richard was rescuing Anne from Clarence's clutches and also Edward would probably have wanted to reward his brother for his loyalty. As for the Countess of Warwick she had been complicit in her husband's treason which ever way you look at it. She probably didn't have any choice but I don't think that she did anything to help Anne when she was married to Edward of Lancaster. 
Mary

 In Hicks book on Anne he says something like "After two husbands she had been getting lots of sex and lots of shopping" Now this man is a University Professor of Medieval history? Seriously? He sounds angry that over Five hundred years ago Anne married Richard. 
On Jun 2, 2017 1:38 PM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:
 

It would be interesting for Karen to read the Hicks article in the Bulletin which insisted that their marriage was incestuous and then read Marie's article which completely set aside his argument. I can remember reading his article in one Bulletin and being very angry but not having the required knowledge I wasn't sure if he was right or not. Then in the next Bulletin Marie's article completely demolished his argument. It was a lovely feeling!
Also with regard to Richard and Anne, I have recently been reminded of something which was first brought to my attention when I first joined the Society around 30 years ago. On a FB page about Wales someone mentioned St John the Baptist Church n Llanblethian near Cowbridge in Glamorgan. The tower of the church was funded by Anne Neville in 1477 and she is described as the heiress to the lordship of Glamorgan. I remember receiving a leaflet when I joined the Society describing how Richard had granted a chaplaincy to Holycross Church in Cowbridge, which is very close to Llanblethian. I was quite interested as my daughter was christened at Holycross. I also read somewhere about her having funded the tower at Llanblethian. In the post on FB it also said that around the same time Anne had also funded a chantry chapel and an aisle at Holycross. So I would imagine that she was a woman in her own right and not reliant on her husband to do things for her and in one article I found online it specifically referred to her as the heiress of the lordship Glamorgan.
 Personally I don't think it was greed that made Richard marry Anne. Yes he would want to marry well and gain lands  but you also have to take into account the fact that Clarence was trying to ensure that Isabel had all of the Neville and Beauchamp inheritance.Whether the cookshop story is true or not Richard was rescuing Anne from Clarence's clutches and also Edward would probably have wanted to reward his brother for his loyalty. As for the Countess of Warwick she had been complicit in her husband's treason which ever way you look at it. She probably didn't have any choice but I don't think that she did anything to help Anne when she was married to Edward of Lancaster. 
Mary

Sorry it was late last night when I was writing so I omitted to add a couple of things
Firstly, the Stillington family (if not the Bishop) is certainly part of this 'set' and if you think about it, the establishment of the school at Acaster is part of the philosophy. I've got a bit further on the Bishop's connections which might explain some of his strange claims to 'grandeur' which Commynes comments on.
Secondly, the more and more digging you do into families and affinities the more you become aware of the outlandish actions of the Woodville family, not once but twice - EW and Edward, Jacquetta and Richard Woodville. This means that their normal patterns of affinities are broken and why in 1483 they could draw on so little support from the affinities they should have established in the High Sheriff network of Northants and the south midlands. They can only turn to their Kentish Haute network. And because EW's siblings had entered into 'forced' marriages they had had little time to establish affinities too. Some time ago Doug asked whether ancestry meant much to them; to most families it meant everything, not just in terms of pedigree but in terms of historic alliances. Lose that and like the Woodvilles you are groping for support when the one who propped you up (Edward) dies. H

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2017, 23:32
Subject: Re: Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

When considering some of the language used by King Richard in some of his proclamations, I find an interesting comparison in the proclamation issued in the City of London by the Mayor and Aldermen on behalf of the King, presumably in response to the King's Council's instruction on April 9th, 1483, to the mayor to call together the wardens of the companies & constables of parishes & wards, charging them to keep the peace.

This entry is available at British History Online in the Calendar of Letter Books of the City of London, "filed" between entries dated April 22nd and May 4th, 1483.

Folio 189 b.
Proclamac' contra mere trices vagant' circa Civita tem.
"For to eschewe the stynkyng and horrible Synne of Lechery the whiche daily groweth and is used more than it hath been in dates past by the meanes of Strumpettes mysguyded and idil women daily vagraunt and walkyng aboute by the stretes and lanes of this Citee of London and Suburbes of the same and also repairyng to Taverns and oþere private places of the said Citee provokyng many oþere persones unto the said Synne of lechery Whereby moche people aswell men as women being of theym self weldisposed daily fall to the said myschevous and horrible Synne To the grete displeasur of Almyghty God and distourbaunce and brekyng of the Kyng our soveraign lordes peas and of the politique guydyng of the Citee aforesaid My lord the Mair and my Maisters the Aldremen streitly chargen and commaunden uppon the King our soveraign lordes behalf that all suche Strumpettes and mysguyded and idill women aswell dwellyng as Resortyng to the said Citee of London or Suburbes of the same departe and wtdrawe theym self and in no wise be so hardy to come ayen Resorte or abide wtin the said Citee or libertie uppon payn þerefore ordeigned and that no persone wtin the same Citee and libertie eide comfort nor receive any suche mysguided and ill disposed women uppon þe payne therefore lymyted and ordeigned, straitly chargyng constables and all oþere officers of the said Citee to arrest all suche mysguyded and idill women as been aforerehersed where so ever ther shalbe founde wtin the same Citee and to brynge theym to one of the Countours there to abide the punysshment and correccioun of the lawe for suche mysdoers ordeigned." [No date.]

A J







On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Sorry have been away for some time - elbow deep in the Test Ebor.
Firstly, I've read Wilkinson and she certainly doesn't drone on (but yes she does go on about saints). She got her wrong assumption and interpretation from Hicks. We've discussed it on here many times and it goes right back to a Papal ruling which to be honest I'm too lazy to look up. But as Marie says, it's wrong.
More importantly though, Alice Burgh, mistress or Prioress, has led me to the people around Richard - you can find some of them on page 49 of Horrox. Now Horrox (who I do admire for her research) says that Richard 'bought off' these former Richard Neville supporters. I doubt that. These dozen or so families had been intermarrying since the Conquest. Some were of Breton descent, from Alain of Richmond who accompanied the Conqueror and was rewarded with the 'Honour of Richmond'. All had founded and endowed abbeys and churches. Each generation had contributed priests, abbesses or Hospitallers. They were no buy off. They'd supported Scrope against Henry IV in 1404 and paid the price. Fifty years' after Richard's death they'd lead and suffer dreadfully for the Pilgrimage of Grace.
So what does this tell us? Well contrary to the belief expressed in most books on Richard, did he really get the favourite's deal after Tewkesbury? I don't think so. These people could have been quite as awkward as the nest of vipers to which Clarence was sent in Warwick and Farleigh. But Richard did engage them - we know because they fought and died for him at Bosworth. No small achievement. Did Edward really favour little brother? I doubt it. In Edward's kingdom there could only be one star. He now had an heir, so witty George and heroic Richard could be sent away from London with enough to occupy them in their own domains (and it of course kept the Warwick lands in the family).
And what did Richard think? Well perhaps the disenchantment with Edward set in well before 1475? I think the real example is after Tewkesbury when he was sent south to sort out Fauconburg because Rivers was 'too busy' preparing for a pilgrimage that never happened. What caring brother would sent a young man of 19 with scoliosis who had suffered battle injury, trauma of losing those close to him, a march to Tewkesbury, sorting out the Tewkesbury rebels, a return to London, on another mission? When you read the background of those close to Richard in the North you do begin to understand the influences on him there; you can seen where he gets his ideas to found a collegiate chapel at Middleham and York. You can see why he wants to fight the infidel because no doubt his associates are telling him about the plight of their relatives the Hospitallers in Rhodes. And more than anything you can understand the tirade against Edward in TR, because he has broken all of their codes. Yes, I do begin to understand why TR is so harsh at last. H


From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2017, 22:04
Subject: Re: Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

Good point Paul, had not thought of that.
Mary

Hilary wrote: Sorry it was late last night when I was writing so I omitted to add a couple of things Firstly, the Stillington family (if not the Bishop) is certainly part of this 'set' and if you think about it, the establishment of the school at Acaster is part of the philosophy. I've got a bit further on the Bishop's connections which might explain some of his strange claims to 'grandeur' which Commynes comments on. Doug here: Well really, when it comes to the Bishop's claims, aren't we all related to Edward III? Or is it Charlemagne? (Hah!) Hilary concluded: Secondly, the more and more digging you do into families and affinities the more you become aware of the outlandish actions of the Woodville family, not once but twice - EW and Edward, Jacquetta and Richard Woodville. This means that their normal patterns of affinities are broken and why in 1483 they could draw on so little support from the affinities they should have established in the High Sheriff network of Northants and the south midlands. They can only turn to their Kentish Haute network. And because EW's siblings had entered into 'forced' marriages they had had little time to establish affinities too. Some time ago Doug asked whether ancestry meant much to them; to most families it meant everything, not just in terms of pedigree but in terms of historic alliances. Lose that and like the Woodvilles you are groping for support when the one who propped you up (Edward) dies. Doug here: I'm not trying to be petty, but wouldn't any marriage Jacquetta made that wasn't approved by those around Henry VI have broken those normal patterns of affinity you refer to? What little I know about Jacquetta is from what I've read here and the article about her at Wikipedia, so I can't say I have any great depth of knowledge to base any conclusions on. Did her marriage to Sir Richard scotch someone's marital plans for her? I did see in the Wikipedia article that Sir Richard, after originally supporting the Lancastrians, switched to the Yorkist camp, apparently sometime between being made Warden of the Cinque Ports and his daughter's marriage to Edward IV. As the Second Battle of St. Albans occurred in February 1461, perhaps it was the failure of the Lancastrians to take London and their consequent dispersal that was behind his switching support? However, whatever the exact reason for Sir Richard's switch, could it have been his abandoning the Lancastrian cause that caused the break, and not his daughter's later marriage to Edward? I don't know who actually would have constituted his affinity prior to, say, 1461, but wouldn't the majority of them have been Lancastrians? With possibly a few Yorkists scattered here and there, both for insurance and as a general strengthening of local ties? I do see your point that, once EW had married Edward, while there'd certainly be a lot of people who'd support them because they were the King and Queen, that support could easily disappear (as had happened too often during the previous decades) and couldn't replace long-held ties of loyalty as represented by the term affinity. Basically I guess, my questions are: First, would any marriage Jacquetta might have made that didn't meet the approval of those around Henry VI have caused those ties of affinity she had at that time to break? Or was it simply because Sir Richard wasn't from the same social class and had he been Lord So-and-so with a title covered in moss, there'd have been head shaking, but nothing more? And second, is it possible that it wasn't EW's marriage to Edward that caused the breaking of the Woodville's affinity, but rather Sir Richard's original switch from supporting the Lancastrians to supporting the Yorkists? And, most importantly, does it make any difference? Doug (With my apologies for the delay in answering!)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug I'll come back to you about Stillington when I've firmed it up. It isn't a Plantagenet connection, but something he would probably think was much grander. These things mattered then; the only comparison I can think of is with racehorses.
You're of course right to say that EW caused more of a stir than her mother, but the gentry (and fairly minor gentry at that) just didn't marry foreigners. Kings did that.The only other one I can think of is Walter Blount and Sancha de Alaya who was a lady in waiting. You would marry the daughter of the High Sheriff next door to keep the job in the family. That way you built up affinities that lasted right up until the end of the eighteenth century and beyond. Of course there was no precedent of having an English queen (the nearest we got was Joan of Kent who also caused a scandal). So to impose the queen's relatives on people made any natural bonding difficult. It's difficult to explain how ordered the rules of society were at that time. They dictated who you married, who you didn't, even dedicating some of your children to the Church and who were your friends whom you might have to die with (like the Constables and Askes). EW and Edward broke all these rules and in the end it cost the House of York the throne. I think Thomas Penn's book subtitle is spot on - 'An English tragedy'. It really was.
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 15:52
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

Hilary wrote: Sorry it was late last night when I was writing so I omitted to add a couple of things Firstly, the Stillington family (if not the Bishop) is certainly part of this 'set' and if you think about it, the establishment of the school at Acaster is part of the philosophy. I've got a bit further on the Bishop's connections which might explain some of his strange claims to 'grandeur' which Commynes comments on. Doug here: Well really, when it comes to the Bishop's claims, aren't we all related to Edward III? Or is it Charlemagne? (Hah!) Hilary concluded: Secondly, the more and more digging you do into families and affinities the more you become aware of the outlandish actions of the Woodville family, not once but twice - EW and Edward, Jacquetta and Richard Woodville. This means that their normal patterns of affinities are broken and why in 1483 they could draw on so little support from the affinities they should have established in the High Sheriff network of Northants and the south midlands. They can only turn to their Kentish Haute network. And because EW's siblings had entered into 'forced' marriages they had had little time to establish affinities too. Some time ago Doug asked whether ancestry meant much to them; to most families it meant everything, not just in terms of pedigree but in terms of historic alliances. Lose that and like the Woodvilles you are groping for support when the one who propped you up (Edward) dies. Doug here: I'm not trying to be petty, but wouldn't any marriage Jacquetta made that wasn't approved by those around Henry VI have broken those normal patterns of affinity you refer to? What little I know about Jacquetta is from what I've read here and the article about her at Wikipedia, so I can't say I have any great depth of knowledge to base any conclusions on. Did her marriage to Sir Richard scotch someone's marital plans for her? I did see in the Wikipedia article that Sir Richard, after originally supporting the Lancastrians, switched to the Yorkist camp, apparently sometime between being made Warden of the Cinque Ports and his daughter's marriage to Edward IV. As the Second Battle of St. Albans occurred in February 1461, perhaps it was the failure of the Lancastrians to take London and their consequent dispersal that was behind his switching support? However, whatever the exact reason for Sir Richard's switch, could it have been his abandoning the Lancastrian cause that caused the break, and not his daughter's later marriage to Edward? I don't know who actually would have constituted his affinity prior to, say, 1461, but wouldn't the majority of them have been Lancastrians? With possibly a few Yorkists scattered here and there, both for insurance and as a general strengthening of local ties? I do see your point that, once EW had married Edward, while there'd certainly be a lot of people who'd support them because they were the King and Queen, that support could easily disappear (as had happened too often during the previous decades) and couldn't replace long-held ties of loyalty as represented by the term affinity. Basically I guess, my questions are: First, would any marriage Jacquetta might have made that didn't meet the approval of those around Henry VI have caused those ties of affinity she had at that time to break? Or was it simply because Sir Richard wasn't from the same social class and had he been Lord So-and-so with a title covered in moss, there'd have been head shaking, but nothing more? And second, is it possible that it wasn't EW's marriage to Edward that caused the breaking of the Woodville's affinity, but rather Sir Richard's original switch from supporting the Lancastrians to supporting the Yorkists? And, most importantly, does it make any difference? Doug (With my apologies for the delay in answering!)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Hi Doug I'll come back to you about Stillington when I've firmed it up. It isn't a Plantagenet connection, but something he would probably think was much grander. These things mattered then; the only comparison I can think of is with racehorses. Doug here: That definitely sounds interesting and will likely be the cause of some, um, conjectures on my part until your post! Hilary concluded:
You're of course right to say that EW caused more of a stir than her mother, but the gentry (and fairly minor gentry at that) just didn't marry foreigners. Kings did that.The only other one I can think of is Walter Blount and Sancha de Alaya who was a lady in waiting. You would marry the daughter of the High Sheriff next door to keep the job in the family. That way you built up affinities that lasted right up until the end of the eighteenth century and beyond. Of course there was no precedent of having an English queen (the nearest we got was Joan of Kent who also caused a scandal). So to impose the queen's relatives on people made any natural bonding difficult. It's difficult to explain how ordered the rules of society were at that time. They dictated who you married, who you didn't, even dedicating some of your children to the Church and who were your friends whom you might have to die with (like the Constables and Askes). EW and Edward broke all these rules and in the end it cost the House of York the throne. I think Thomas Penn's book subtitle is spot on - 'An English tragedy'. It really was. Doug here: Then would it be correct to view these two marriages, in regards to the idea of affinity anyway, as resulting in the breaking of more old ties of affinity, than in establishing new ones? Even when one marriage was with the king? FWIW, I get the impression that the concept of affinity, as applied in most cases anyway, was mostly a matter of locality, with the importance of maintaining close, personal ties through marriages with one's neighbors and near-neighbors of the same social class with intermarriages being the method employed. Would that be correct? In Edward and Elizabeth's case then, the affinities broken by Edward's marriage to a Englishwoman, rather than a foreign princess say; followed by the marriage of so many of her relatives into the nobility, simply broke too many affinities, affronted too many people and didn't establish enough new affinities to make up for those lost. Had Edward lived another decade or so and been followed, peacefully by his son, would those affinities have had a chance to repair themselves? Or would it have taken even longer? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug. Yes indeed to all that you say. And that other decade might have helped. But it would have taken a long time for real bonding to have occurred. We're talking of generations. It's interesting that the Hornby/Harington/Stanley affair was the first time that the Stanleys imposed themselves on the Richard set/Neville circles. And look what a problem that caused.
Will come back to you on the Bishop. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017, 15:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Was RICHARD and Anne's marriage really illegal?

Hilary wrote: Hi Doug I'll come back to you about Stillington when I've firmed it up. It isn't a Plantagenet connection, but something he would probably think was much grander. These things mattered then; the only comparison I can think of is with racehorses. Doug here: That definitely sounds interesting and will likely be the cause of some, um, conjectures on my part until your post! Hilary concluded:
You're of course right to say that EW caused more of a stir than her mother, but the gentry (and fairly minor gentry at that) just didn't marry foreigners. Kings did that.The only other one I can think of is Walter Blount and Sancha de Alaya who was a lady in waiting. You would marry the daughter of the High Sheriff next door to keep the job in the family. That way you built up affinities that lasted right up until the end of the eighteenth century and beyond. Of course there was no precedent of having an English queen (the nearest we got was Joan of Kent who also caused a scandal). So to impose the queen's relatives on people made any natural bonding difficult. It's difficult to explain how ordered the rules of society were at that time. They dictated who you married, who you didn't, even dedicating some of your children to the Church and who were your friends whom you might have to die with (like the Constables and Askes). EW and Edward broke all these rules and in the end it cost the House of York the throne. I think Thomas Penn's book subtitle is spot on - 'An English tragedy'. It really was. Doug here: Then would it be correct to view these two marriages, in regards to the idea of affinity anyway, as resulting in the breaking of more old ties of affinity, than in establishing new ones? Even when one marriage was with the king? FWIW, I get the impression that the concept of affinity, as applied in most cases anyway, was mostly a matter of locality, with the importance of maintaining close, personal ties through marriages with one's neighbors and near-neighbors of the same social class with intermarriages being the method employed. Would that be correct? In Edward and Elizabeth's case then, the affinities broken by Edward's marriage to a Englishwoman, rather than a foreign princess say; followed by the marriage of so many of her relatives into the nobility, simply broke too many affinities, affronted too many people and didn't establish enough new affinities to make up for those lost. Had Edward lived another decade or so and been followed, peacefully by his son, would those affinities have had a chance to repair themselves? Or would it have taken even longer? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:
Doug. Yes indeed to all that you say. And that other decade might have helped. But it would have taken a long time for real bonding to have occurred. We're talking of generations. It's interesting that the Hornby/Harington/Stanley affair was the first time that the Stanleys imposed themselves on the Richard set/Neville circles. And look what a problem that caused.

Doug here:
Not unlike what occurred with regularity from the 17th century on when wealthy merchants bought estates to gentrify themselves and their families, then?

Hilary concluded:
Will come back to you on the Bishop.

Doug here:
No rush, I'm a retired OAP...
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.