What if...
What if...
2005-09-05 22:57:45
What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living after
Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
married her? What if the example of the Beaufort Bastards had been
used as a precedent for John being legitimized by that late marriage?
(Especially if his mother had been unmarried, perhaps a widow, at the
time of his conception and birth, and Richard was also unmarried
then...the four children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford were
born of double adultery, since both their parents had living spouses
when they were born.)
Wonder what would have happend then...if Parliament would accept the
precedent and declare John the legitimate heir. How would that have
affected Tudor's plans?
The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's death,
and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might be forthcoming,
was a big problem.
Katy
Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
married her? What if the example of the Beaufort Bastards had been
used as a precedent for John being legitimized by that late marriage?
(Especially if his mother had been unmarried, perhaps a widow, at the
time of his conception and birth, and Richard was also unmarried
then...the four children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford were
born of double adultery, since both their parents had living spouses
when they were born.)
Wonder what would have happend then...if Parliament would accept the
precedent and declare John the legitimate heir. How would that have
affected Tudor's plans?
The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's death,
and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might be forthcoming,
was a big problem.
Katy
Re: What if...
2005-09-06 18:05:39
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living after
> Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> married her?
> The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's
> death, and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might be
> forthcoming,was a big problem.
Given Richmond's track record, in both cases there would probably have
been a few more secretive deaths following Bosworth.
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living after
> Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> married her?
> The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's
> death, and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might be
> forthcoming,was a big problem.
Given Richmond's track record, in both cases there would probably have
been a few more secretive deaths following Bosworth.
Re: What if...
2005-09-06 20:11:21
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living after
> Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> married her?
Wonder what would have happend then...if Parliament would accept the
> precedent and declare John the legitimate heir. How would that have
> affected Tudor's plans?
Interesting thought Katy - but I think it would have made no difference to Tudor - was he
not plotting invasion even before little Edward died?
I have wondered also, what if Anne and little Ned had been alive at the time of Bosworth &
Richard had still died - what would have become of them - possibly Anne spending the
rest of her life in custody, Ned meeting the same fate as his cousin, young Warwick. But if
they had both been alive at the time of Bosworth might there have been a different
outcome - no reckless do or die charge. Richard maybe escaping to fight another day.
Everything must have seemed very dark to him at that moment in time - losing the two
people he loved most in the world so soon after each other. Tragic, tragic, tragic.
Eileen
>
> The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's death,
> and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might be forthcoming,
> was a big problem.
>
> Katy
> What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living after
> Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> married her?
Wonder what would have happend then...if Parliament would accept the
> precedent and declare John the legitimate heir. How would that have
> affected Tudor's plans?
Interesting thought Katy - but I think it would have made no difference to Tudor - was he
not plotting invasion even before little Edward died?
I have wondered also, what if Anne and little Ned had been alive at the time of Bosworth &
Richard had still died - what would have become of them - possibly Anne spending the
rest of her life in custody, Ned meeting the same fate as his cousin, young Warwick. But if
they had both been alive at the time of Bosworth might there have been a different
outcome - no reckless do or die charge. Richard maybe escaping to fight another day.
Everything must have seemed very dark to him at that moment in time - losing the two
people he loved most in the world so soon after each other. Tragic, tragic, tragic.
Eileen
>
> The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's death,
> and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might be forthcoming,
> was a big problem.
>
> Katy
Re: What if...
2005-09-07 18:16:01
--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote
>
> > What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living
after
> > Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> > married her?
>
> > The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's
> > death, and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might
be
> > forthcoming,was a big problem.
>
> Given Richmond's track record, in both cases there would probably
have
> been a few more secretive deaths following Bosworth.
Which is interesting in itsel, isn't it? As an illegitimate son,
John would have no claim to the throne, so why did Tudor have him
seized, imprisoned for the restof his life, and ultimately executed?
Even more than Clarence's son Edward Earl of Warwick, who was
likewise imprisoned and executed, John should have posed no threat to
Henry VII.
Henry Tudor would never hav existed if Henry VI had followed a
similar policy and done away with his illegitimate half-siblings
which included his father, Edmund. (Katherine of Valois, Henry V;'s
widow and Henry I's mother, married Owen Tudor secretly and without
assent of Patliament, so whether they stood in front of a priest or
not, they were not legally married and their children were bastards.)
Henry the Weasel must have felt very unsteady on the throne. He
holed up in the Tower for most of his reign and he created the cotery
of personal bodyguards of the monarch, the Beefeaters, to accompany
him everywhere.
Katy
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote
>
> > What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living
after
> > Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> > married her?
>
> > The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's
> > death, and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might
be
> > forthcoming,was a big problem.
>
> Given Richmond's track record, in both cases there would probably
have
> been a few more secretive deaths following Bosworth.
Which is interesting in itsel, isn't it? As an illegitimate son,
John would have no claim to the throne, so why did Tudor have him
seized, imprisoned for the restof his life, and ultimately executed?
Even more than Clarence's son Edward Earl of Warwick, who was
likewise imprisoned and executed, John should have posed no threat to
Henry VII.
Henry Tudor would never hav existed if Henry VI had followed a
similar policy and done away with his illegitimate half-siblings
which included his father, Edmund. (Katherine of Valois, Henry V;'s
widow and Henry I's mother, married Owen Tudor secretly and without
assent of Patliament, so whether they stood in front of a priest or
not, they were not legally married and their children were bastards.)
Henry the Weasel must have felt very unsteady on the throne. He
holed up in the Tower for most of his reign and he created the cotery
of personal bodyguards of the monarch, the Beefeaters, to accompany
him everywhere.
Katy
Re: What if...
2005-09-07 23:52:15
This is more of a 'why didnt he' than a 'what if' really - but why didnt Richard (I presume
he knew of Henry the Weasles pledge to marry Elizabeth of York) marry Elizabeth off. This
would surely have been a huge blow to the Weasle and cost him more than a few sleepless
nights. But once again, Richard was kind where he should have taken a harder line (i.e.
letting people like Morton and Margaret Beaufort walk around with their heads still
attached to their bodies)- possibly taking Elizabeth's feeling into consideration - hardly
the actions of the 'wicked uncle' of myth!
best wishes Eileen
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "rgcorris"
> <RSG_Corris@h...> wrote
> >
> > > What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living
> after
> > > Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> > > married her?
> >
> > > The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's
> > > death, and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might
> be
> > > forthcoming,was a big problem.
> >
> > Given Richmond's track record, in both cases there would probably
> have
> > been a few more secretive deaths following Bosworth.
>
> Which is interesting in itsel, isn't it? As an illegitimate son,
> John would have no claim to the throne, so why did Tudor have him
> seized, imprisoned for the restof his life, and ultimately executed?
> Even more than Clarence's son Edward Earl of Warwick, who was
> likewise imprisoned and executed, John should have posed no threat to
> Henry VII.
>
> Henry Tudor would never hav existed if Henry VI had followed a
> similar policy and done away with his illegitimate half-siblings
> which included his father, Edmund. (Katherine of Valois, Henry V;'s
> widow and Henry I's mother, married Owen Tudor secretly and without
> assent of Patliament, so whether they stood in front of a priest or
> not, they were not legally married and their children were bastards.)
>
> Henry the Weasel must have felt very unsteady on the throne. He
> holed up in the Tower for most of his reign and he created the cotery
> of personal bodyguards of the monarch, the Beefeaters, to accompany
> him everywhere.
>
> Katy
he knew of Henry the Weasles pledge to marry Elizabeth of York) marry Elizabeth off. This
would surely have been a huge blow to the Weasle and cost him more than a few sleepless
nights. But once again, Richard was kind where he should have taken a harder line (i.e.
letting people like Morton and Margaret Beaufort walk around with their heads still
attached to their bodies)- possibly taking Elizabeth's feeling into consideration - hardly
the actions of the 'wicked uncle' of myth!
best wishes Eileen
--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "rgcorris"
> <RSG_Corris@h...> wrote
> >
> > > What if the mother of Richard's son John had been still living
> after
> > > Anne's death, and what if Richard had looked her up and secretly
> > > married her?
> >
> > > The lack of a direct, obvious heir for Richard after his son's
> > > death, and his failing to remarry immediately so that one might
> be
> > > forthcoming,was a big problem.
> >
> > Given Richmond's track record, in both cases there would probably
> have
> > been a few more secretive deaths following Bosworth.
>
> Which is interesting in itsel, isn't it? As an illegitimate son,
> John would have no claim to the throne, so why did Tudor have him
> seized, imprisoned for the restof his life, and ultimately executed?
> Even more than Clarence's son Edward Earl of Warwick, who was
> likewise imprisoned and executed, John should have posed no threat to
> Henry VII.
>
> Henry Tudor would never hav existed if Henry VI had followed a
> similar policy and done away with his illegitimate half-siblings
> which included his father, Edmund. (Katherine of Valois, Henry V;'s
> widow and Henry I's mother, married Owen Tudor secretly and without
> assent of Patliament, so whether they stood in front of a priest or
> not, they were not legally married and their children were bastards.)
>
> Henry the Weasel must have felt very unsteady on the throne. He
> holed up in the Tower for most of his reign and he created the cotery
> of personal bodyguards of the monarch, the Beefeaters, to accompany
> him everywhere.
>
> Katy
Re: What if...
2005-09-08 09:18:41
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
But once again, Richard was kind where he should have taken a
harder line (i.e.letting people like Morton and Margaret Beaufort
walk around with their heads still attached to their bodies)-
possibly taking Elizabeth's feeling into consideration - hardly
> the actions of the 'wicked uncle' of myth!
Indeed....unless Richard's decency and reticence lead us back onto
the path that takes us to 'He planned to marry her himself.'
Not - I rush to declare - an historical speculation that I care to
engage in, but there are anti Ricardians out there who do, as we
know :(
Ana
>
>
>
>
>
>
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
But once again, Richard was kind where he should have taken a
harder line (i.e.letting people like Morton and Margaret Beaufort
walk around with their heads still attached to their bodies)-
possibly taking Elizabeth's feeling into consideration - hardly
> the actions of the 'wicked uncle' of myth!
Indeed....unless Richard's decency and reticence lead us back onto
the path that takes us to 'He planned to marry her himself.'
Not - I rush to declare - an historical speculation that I care to
engage in, but there are anti Ricardians out there who do, as we
know :(
Ana
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: What if...
2005-09-09 01:51:38
--- In , oz_rain_walker
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Indeed....unless Richard's decency and reticence lead us back onto
> the path that takes us to 'He planned to marry her himself.'
> Not - I rush to declare - an historical speculation that I care to
> engage in, but there are anti Ricardians out there who do, as we
> know :(
That would have required a major dispensation, I believe. They were
relatives in the either the second or the third degree, and by
blood. A dispensation was required for Clarence to marry Isabel
Neville, and their relationship was more distant. (Richard's
relationship to Anne Neville was the same, but I'm not sue whether a
dispensation was actually granted, or if one was assumed on the basis
of the Clarence/Isabel precedent...if their marriage was allowed,
then the marriage of the brother of one to the sister of the other
would be equally admissable.
Katy
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Indeed....unless Richard's decency and reticence lead us back onto
> the path that takes us to 'He planned to marry her himself.'
> Not - I rush to declare - an historical speculation that I care to
> engage in, but there are anti Ricardians out there who do, as we
> know :(
That would have required a major dispensation, I believe. They were
relatives in the either the second or the third degree, and by
blood. A dispensation was required for Clarence to marry Isabel
Neville, and their relationship was more distant. (Richard's
relationship to Anne Neville was the same, but I'm not sue whether a
dispensation was actually granted, or if one was assumed on the basis
of the Clarence/Isabel precedent...if their marriage was allowed,
then the marriage of the brother of one to the sister of the other
would be equally admissable.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What if...
2005-09-09 07:38:01
Hello, I don' believe that Richard had any intention of marrying Elizabeth of York. To have contemplated doing so would have lifted the stain of bastardy which he placed on them when he accepted the crown. ASll the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville were declared illegitimate and therefore barred from the thropne. If Richard married Elizabeth, he would have had to accept that Edward and Richard, the sons of his brother were legitimate and therefore Edward V should have been king.
Anne Neville and Richard never obtained papal dispensation. This was not unusual in the 15th century. Dispensation was expensive and communications between England and Rome were difficult because of distance.
On Thursday, September 08, 2005, at 05:51PM, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><<Original Attached>>
Anne Neville and Richard never obtained papal dispensation. This was not unusual in the 15th century. Dispensation was expensive and communications between England and Rome were difficult because of distance.
On Thursday, September 08, 2005, at 05:51PM, oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><<Original Attached>>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What if...
2005-09-09 10:17:32
On Sep 9, 2005, at 07:37, Moira Winder wrote:
> Anne Neville and Richard never obtained papal dispensation. This
> was not unusual in the 15th century.
In the September issue of English Historical Review an article will
present new evidence of dispensations obtained for four 15th Century
English royal marriages, including that of Richard and Anne.
Paul
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> Anne Neville and Richard never obtained papal dispensation. This
> was not unusual in the 15th century.
In the September issue of English Historical Review an article will
present new evidence of dispensations obtained for four 15th Century
English royal marriages, including that of Richard and Anne.
Paul
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What if...
2005-09-09 14:27:33
Hello again,
That is amazing. Can you say whether the dispensation was granted before of after their marriage - and also who granted it. Not all marriage dispensations were papal.
On Friday, September 09, 2005, at 02:17AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
><<Original Attached>>
That is amazing. Can you say whether the dispensation was granted before of after their marriage - and also who granted it. Not all marriage dispensations were papal.
On Friday, September 09, 2005, at 02:17AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
><<Original Attached>>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What if...
2005-09-09 14:50:39
Haven't seen the article myself yet.
However I do know it was issued by a department of the Papal Curia
known as the penitentiary. In other words from the top. More when I
know more.
Paul
On Sep 9, 2005, at 14:27, Moira Winder wrote:
> Hello again,
> That is amazing. Can you say whether the dispensation was granted
> before of after their marriage - and also who granted it. Not all
> marriage dispensations were papal.
> On Friday, September 09, 2005, at 02:17AM, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> <<Original Attached>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
However I do know it was issued by a department of the Papal Curia
known as the penitentiary. In other words from the top. More when I
know more.
Paul
On Sep 9, 2005, at 14:27, Moira Winder wrote:
> Hello again,
> That is amazing. Can you say whether the dispensation was granted
> before of after their marriage - and also who granted it. Not all
> marriage dispensations were papal.
> On Friday, September 09, 2005, at 02:17AM, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> <<Original Attached>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What if...
2005-09-09 15:11:25
You can get to this link and have an e-mail sent to you when a new issue of EHR goes online. (It sounds like the September issue will soon be appearing.) EHR apparently allows nonsubscribers to buy 24-hour access to individual articles, though I haven't tried to do so.
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/
Susan Higginbotham
www.thetraitorswife.com
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
>
>
> In the September issue of English Historical Review an article will
present new evidence of dispensations obtained for four 15th Century
English royal marriages, including that of Richard and Anne.
Paul
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/
Susan Higginbotham
www.thetraitorswife.com
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
>
>
> In the September issue of English Historical Review an article will
present new evidence of dispensations obtained for four 15th Century
English royal marriages, including that of Richard and Anne.
Paul
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: What if...
2005-09-09 15:47:28
Thanks, Susan,
What a great resource this is! It costs $16 to have access to an individual
article for a day. I wish I'd known earlier of this way of accessing the
EHR.
I've signed up to have the free "table of contents" e-mailed with each issue.
LML,
Pam
In a message dated 9/9/2005 8:12:15 AM Mountain Standard Time,
boswellbaxter@... writes:
You can get to this link and have an e-mail sent to you when a new issue of
EHR goes online. (It sounds like the September issue will soon be appearing.)
EHR apparently allows nonsubscribers to buy 24-hour access to individual
articles, though I haven't tried to do so.
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/
Susan Higginbotham
www.thetraitorswife.com
What a great resource this is! It costs $16 to have access to an individual
article for a day. I wish I'd known earlier of this way of accessing the
EHR.
I've signed up to have the free "table of contents" e-mailed with each issue.
LML,
Pam
In a message dated 9/9/2005 8:12:15 AM Mountain Standard Time,
boswellbaxter@... writes:
You can get to this link and have an e-mail sent to you when a new issue of
EHR goes online. (It sounds like the September issue will soon be appearing.)
EHR apparently allows nonsubscribers to buy 24-hour access to individual
articles, though I haven't tried to do so.
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/
Susan Higginbotham
www.thetraitorswife.com
What if...
2006-11-06 06:00:14
There's no real proof of "Richard of Eastwell"'s
existance that I've been able to find other than the
burial record of Richard Plantagenet of 1550.
So what if there was no Richard of Eastwell, and the
Richard Plantagenet mentioned in the log is actually
King Richard himself, reburied after the dissolution
of the Churches?
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
existance that I've been able to find other than the
burial record of Richard Plantagenet of 1550.
So what if there was no Richard of Eastwell, and the
Richard Plantagenet mentioned in the log is actually
King Richard himself, reburied after the dissolution
of the Churches?
Take care,
Kat
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.