Inheritance questions
Inheritance questions
2005-11-28 17:50:35
The following questions have cropped up in my research. I'd be
grateful for any help in answering them.
The Despencer inheritance
Isabel, heiress of the Despencer barony, had two daughters, whose
heirs in 1453 were two Nevilles, the Earl of Warwick and Lord
Bergavenney. Warwick, and later Richard of Gloucester, seem to have
kept the whole of Glamorgan as well as Abergavenney. This seems to
have been the main cause of the feud between Warwick and Somerset,
who had been given official custody of the Bergavenney lands (George
Neville was a minor at this time). At some point a Lord Bergavenney
seems to have bourn the titles of Baron Despencer and Burghersh, but
did this involve possession of these estates?
What I'd like to know is
1. As well as Glamorgan, what were the Despencer estates?
2. How were they partitioned between the two heiresses?
3. When (if ever) did the Bergavenney line gain control of its half
share?
The FitzAlan partition
I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3 heiresses
in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited the
entire estate.
So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them in
1453?
These would be:
Oswestry
Sharwarden
Clun
Brimsfield
Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
Reigate
Lewes
Acre
grateful for any help in answering them.
The Despencer inheritance
Isabel, heiress of the Despencer barony, had two daughters, whose
heirs in 1453 were two Nevilles, the Earl of Warwick and Lord
Bergavenney. Warwick, and later Richard of Gloucester, seem to have
kept the whole of Glamorgan as well as Abergavenney. This seems to
have been the main cause of the feud between Warwick and Somerset,
who had been given official custody of the Bergavenney lands (George
Neville was a minor at this time). At some point a Lord Bergavenney
seems to have bourn the titles of Baron Despencer and Burghersh, but
did this involve possession of these estates?
What I'd like to know is
1. As well as Glamorgan, what were the Despencer estates?
2. How were they partitioned between the two heiresses?
3. When (if ever) did the Bergavenney line gain control of its half
share?
The FitzAlan partition
I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3 heiresses
in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited the
entire estate.
So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them in
1453?
These would be:
Oswestry
Sharwarden
Clun
Brimsfield
Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
Reigate
Lewes
Acre
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-28 22:21:55
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> The following questions have cropped up in my research. I'd be
> grateful for any help in answering them.
>
> The Despencer inheritance
>
> Isabel, heiress of the Despencer barony, had two daughters, whose
> heirs in 1453 were two Nevilles, the Earl of Warwick and Lord
> Bergavenney. Warwick, and later Richard of Gloucester, seem to
have
> kept the whole of Glamorgan as well as Abergavenney. This seems to
> have been the main cause of the feud between Warwick and Somerset,
> who had been given official custody of the Bergavenney lands
(George
> Neville was a minor at this time). At some point a Lord
Bergavenney
> seems to have bourn the titles of Baron Despencer and Burghersh,
but
> did this involve possession of these estates?
> What I'd like to know is
> 1. As well as Glamorgan, what were the Despencer estates?
> 2. How were they partitioned between the two heiresses?
> 3. When (if ever) did the Bergavenney line gain control of its half
> share?
I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship of
Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to Edward
Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of Glamorgan,
as was Gloucester later.
However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick had
had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
(Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed to
Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of the
rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his full
sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for years,
claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had the
law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
of the House of Lancaster'.
>
> The FitzAlan partition
>
> I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3 heiresses
> in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
> Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited
the
> entire estate.
> So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them in
> 1453?
> These would be:
> Oswestry
> Sharwarden
> Clun
> Brimsfield
> Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
> Reigate
> Lewes
> Acre
>
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> The following questions have cropped up in my research. I'd be
> grateful for any help in answering them.
>
> The Despencer inheritance
>
> Isabel, heiress of the Despencer barony, had two daughters, whose
> heirs in 1453 were two Nevilles, the Earl of Warwick and Lord
> Bergavenney. Warwick, and later Richard of Gloucester, seem to
have
> kept the whole of Glamorgan as well as Abergavenney. This seems to
> have been the main cause of the feud between Warwick and Somerset,
> who had been given official custody of the Bergavenney lands
(George
> Neville was a minor at this time). At some point a Lord
Bergavenney
> seems to have bourn the titles of Baron Despencer and Burghersh,
but
> did this involve possession of these estates?
> What I'd like to know is
> 1. As well as Glamorgan, what were the Despencer estates?
> 2. How were they partitioned between the two heiresses?
> 3. When (if ever) did the Bergavenney line gain control of its half
> share?
I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship of
Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to Edward
Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of Glamorgan,
as was Gloucester later.
However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick had
had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
(Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed to
Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of the
rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his full
sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for years,
claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had the
law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
of the House of Lancaster'.
>
> The FitzAlan partition
>
> I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3 heiresses
> in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
> Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited
the
> entire estate.
> So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them in
> 1453?
> These would be:
> Oswestry
> Sharwarden
> Clun
> Brimsfield
> Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
> Reigate
> Lewes
> Acre
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-29 10:32:53
Just to add that Henry, Duke of Warwick had an infant daughter who survived by about a year, (named Alice, I think) and Anne Beauchamp, as Alice's aunt of the whole blood, inherited from her rather than her father. Incidentally, the Rules of Intestacy 1925 still give whole blood relations priority over half-blood - brothers and sisters of the half-blood only gain anything if there are none of the whole blood.
Ann
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship of
Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to Edward
Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of Glamorgan,
as was Gloucester later.
However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick had
had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
(Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed to
Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of the
rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his full
sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for years,
claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had the
law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
of the House of Lancaster'.
>
> The FitzAlan partition
>
> I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3 heiresses
> in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
> Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited
the
> entire estate.
> So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them in
> 1453?
> These would be:
> Oswestry
> Sharwarden
> Clun
> Brimsfield
> Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
> Reigate
> Lewes
> Acre
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Ann
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship of
Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to Edward
Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of Glamorgan,
as was Gloucester later.
However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick had
had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
(Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed to
Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of the
rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his full
sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for years,
claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had the
law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
of the House of Lancaster'.
>
> The FitzAlan partition
>
> I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3 heiresses
> in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
> Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited
the
> entire estate.
> So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them in
> 1453?
> These would be:
> Oswestry
> Sharwarden
> Clun
> Brimsfield
> Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
> Reigate
> Lewes
> Acre
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-30 09:09:48
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> Just to add that Henry, Duke of Warwick had an infant daughter who
survived by about a year, (named Alice, I think) and Anne Beauchamp,
as Alice's aunt of the whole blood, inherited from her rather than
her father. Incidentally, the Rules of Intestacy 1925 still give
whole blood relations priority over half-blood - brothers and sisters
of the half-blood only gain anything if there are none of the whole
blood.
>
> Ann
You're quite right - I'd simplified the story somewhat. Her name was
Anne, and she outlived Duke Henry by 2 1/2 years. The point of the
story was indeed that Anne the Kingmaker's wife did not inherit from
her father and thus Somerset's claim to the estate was invalid,
however unfair it may have felt that Earl Richard's youngest daughter
had ended up with the lot. The critical factor was the existence of
Henry. Had he not been born, and outlived his father, then Anne and
her elder half sisters would have been co-heiresses.
Marie
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship
of
> Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to
Edward
> Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of
Glamorgan,
> as was Gloucester later.
> However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
> Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
> husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
> However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick
had
> had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
> (Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed
to
> Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of
the
> rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his
full
> sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for
years,
> claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
> However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had
the
> law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
> of the House of Lancaster'.
> >
> > The FitzAlan partition
> >
> > I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3
heiresses
> > in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
> > Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited
> the
> > entire estate.
> > So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them
in
> > 1453?
> > These would be:
> > Oswestry
> > Sharwarden
> > Clun
> > Brimsfield
> > Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
> > Reigate
> > Lewes
> > Acre
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
wrote:
>
> Just to add that Henry, Duke of Warwick had an infant daughter who
survived by about a year, (named Alice, I think) and Anne Beauchamp,
as Alice's aunt of the whole blood, inherited from her rather than
her father. Incidentally, the Rules of Intestacy 1925 still give
whole blood relations priority over half-blood - brothers and sisters
of the half-blood only gain anything if there are none of the whole
blood.
>
> Ann
You're quite right - I'd simplified the story somewhat. Her name was
Anne, and she outlived Duke Henry by 2 1/2 years. The point of the
story was indeed that Anne the Kingmaker's wife did not inherit from
her father and thus Somerset's claim to the estate was invalid,
however unfair it may have felt that Earl Richard's youngest daughter
had ended up with the lot. The critical factor was the existence of
Henry. Had he not been born, and outlived his father, then Anne and
her elder half sisters would have been co-heiresses.
Marie
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship
of
> Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to
Edward
> Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of
Glamorgan,
> as was Gloucester later.
> However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
> Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
> husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
> However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick
had
> had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
> (Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed
to
> Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of
the
> rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his
full
> sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for
years,
> claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
> However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had
the
> law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
> of the House of Lancaster'.
> >
> > The FitzAlan partition
> >
> > I've overlooked the end of the original FitAlan line in 3
heiresses
> > in the 14th century. The castle of Arundel, together with the
> > Earldom, was devised on a cousin who I had assumed had inherited
> the
> > entire estate.
> > So who inherited the other principles estates, and who held them
in
> > 1453?
> > These would be:
> > Oswestry
> > Sharwarden
> > Clun
> > Brimsfield
> > Holt (Bromfield and Yale)
> > Reigate
> > Lewes
> > Acre
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-30 11:53:07
Yes, I've read the END appendix, so I'm aware of the dispute between
the four daughters of Richard Beauchamp. My query was specifically
regarding the Despencer inheritance, which was complicated by Isabel
Despencer's earlier marriage to the Earl of Worcester, and the
consequent legal division of HER inheritance between Warwick and his
cousin Lord Bergavenney (the heir of Worcester), which was of
interest to Somerset as the King had granted the custody of
Bergavenney's lands to Somerset until the lad came of age. Storey
mentions "military preparations" by both sides in Glamorgan, so I'm
interested to know if this large Lordship was divided, and if
Bergavenney ever got custody of the estates. This would probably
have been after Bosworth as neither Warwick nor Gloucester showed any
inclination to give them up.
Yet another aspect of the Nevill inheritance was the "northern
section" of the Neville of Salisbury estates, chiefly Middleham,
Sheriff Hutton and Penrith. These had been detached from the Earldom
of Westmoreland for the junior Neville line. What complicated
matters was that the estates were entailed in the male line only,
which excluded them from the lands Clarence and Gloucester claimed in
right of their wives. After Barnet, the legal heir was George Neville
Duke of Bedford, son of Montagu. Therein lay the difficulty facing
Gloucester, who particularly wanted these lordships as the centre of
his northern territorial block. If Montagu had been attainted it
would have deprived Bedford of the lands, but then Warwick would have
been at least as deserving of attainder, which would have deprived
Clarence and Gloucester to a hereditory claim on all the other
Neville/Beauchamp estates.
The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of his
Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates to
support the dignity. As a younger son with no inheritance of his
own, Richard needed to establish a hereditory claim to pass on to his
son, as the many estates he was granted from attainted Lancastrians
were always likely to be reversed, and royal grants were subject to
resumption. His claim to the Bergavenney and Neville lands were
therefore as fictional as those established by Edward IV to deprive
Howard, Berkely and Westmoreland of their rightful inheritance in
favour of Edward's sons. The support these Lords gave to the
usurpation showed what a dangerous practice this could be.
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON
<A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Just to add that Henry, Duke of Warwick had an infant daughter
who
> survived by about a year, (named Alice, I think) and Anne
Beauchamp,
> as Alice's aunt of the whole blood, inherited from her rather than
> her father. Incidentally, the Rules of Intestacy 1925 still give
> whole blood relations priority over half-blood - brothers and
sisters
> of the half-blood only gain anything if there are none of the whole
> blood.
> >
> > Ann
>
> You're quite right - I'd simplified the story somewhat. Her name
was
> Anne, and she outlived Duke Henry by 2 1/2 years. The point of the
> story was indeed that Anne the Kingmaker's wife did not inherit
from
> her father and thus Somerset's claim to the estate was invalid,
> however unfair it may have felt that Earl Richard's youngest
daughter
> had ended up with the lot. The critical factor was the existence of
> Henry. Had he not been born, and outlived his father, then Anne and
> her elder half sisters would have been co-heiresses.
>
> Marie
the four daughters of Richard Beauchamp. My query was specifically
regarding the Despencer inheritance, which was complicated by Isabel
Despencer's earlier marriage to the Earl of Worcester, and the
consequent legal division of HER inheritance between Warwick and his
cousin Lord Bergavenney (the heir of Worcester), which was of
interest to Somerset as the King had granted the custody of
Bergavenney's lands to Somerset until the lad came of age. Storey
mentions "military preparations" by both sides in Glamorgan, so I'm
interested to know if this large Lordship was divided, and if
Bergavenney ever got custody of the estates. This would probably
have been after Bosworth as neither Warwick nor Gloucester showed any
inclination to give them up.
Yet another aspect of the Nevill inheritance was the "northern
section" of the Neville of Salisbury estates, chiefly Middleham,
Sheriff Hutton and Penrith. These had been detached from the Earldom
of Westmoreland for the junior Neville line. What complicated
matters was that the estates were entailed in the male line only,
which excluded them from the lands Clarence and Gloucester claimed in
right of their wives. After Barnet, the legal heir was George Neville
Duke of Bedford, son of Montagu. Therein lay the difficulty facing
Gloucester, who particularly wanted these lordships as the centre of
his northern territorial block. If Montagu had been attainted it
would have deprived Bedford of the lands, but then Warwick would have
been at least as deserving of attainder, which would have deprived
Clarence and Gloucester to a hereditory claim on all the other
Neville/Beauchamp estates.
The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of his
Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates to
support the dignity. As a younger son with no inheritance of his
own, Richard needed to establish a hereditory claim to pass on to his
son, as the many estates he was granted from attainted Lancastrians
were always likely to be reversed, and royal grants were subject to
resumption. His claim to the Bergavenney and Neville lands were
therefore as fictional as those established by Edward IV to deprive
Howard, Berkely and Westmoreland of their rightful inheritance in
favour of Edward's sons. The support these Lords gave to the
usurpation showed what a dangerous practice this could be.
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON
<A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Just to add that Henry, Duke of Warwick had an infant daughter
who
> survived by about a year, (named Alice, I think) and Anne
Beauchamp,
> as Alice's aunt of the whole blood, inherited from her rather than
> her father. Incidentally, the Rules of Intestacy 1925 still give
> whole blood relations priority over half-blood - brothers and
sisters
> of the half-blood only gain anything if there are none of the whole
> blood.
> >
> > Ann
>
> You're quite right - I'd simplified the story somewhat. Her name
was
> Anne, and she outlived Duke Henry by 2 1/2 years. The point of the
> story was indeed that Anne the Kingmaker's wife did not inherit
from
> her father and thus Somerset's claim to the estate was invalid,
> however unfair it may have felt that Earl Richard's youngest
daughter
> had ended up with the lot. The critical factor was the existence of
> Henry. Had he not been born, and outlived his father, then Anne and
> her elder half sisters would have been co-heiresses.
>
> Marie
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-30 17:25:39
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>> I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship
of
> Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to
Edward
> Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of
Glamorgan,
> as was Gloucester later.
> However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
> Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
> husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
> However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick
had
> had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
> (Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed
to
> Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of
the
> rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his
full
> sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for
years,
> claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
> However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had
the
> law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
> of the House of Lancaster'.
Was this the basis of that lawsuit one hears about in law school as
holding the record for length of litigation? Probably not...I
believe that one is known as The Great Berkeley Litigation, and that
it wound on for something like 126 years, through the reigns of four
kings, until it finally became moot, probably because all the money
and property had gone into the pockets of the lawyers. But I do seem
to recall that it ended in the reign of Henry VII...in that case it
would be because everything in contention had ended up in his pockets.
Katy
<marie@r...> wrote:
>> I can't comment in detail on the division, and not on the lordship
of
> Bergavenny at all, although I should have thought it did go to
Edward
> Neville as he had the title. Warwick was certainly Lord of
Glamorgan,
> as was Gloucester later.
> However, there's a further complicating factor when it comes to
> Somerset's quarrel with Warwick. by her second Richard Beauchamp
> husband, the Earl of Warwick (d.1439), Isabel had a son, Henry.
> However, she was also his second wife. By his first wife, Warwick
had
> had two daughters, Margaret (Countess of Shrewsbury) and Elizabeth
> (Edmund of Somerset's wife). On Warwick's death the earldom passed
to
> Warwick's son by Isabel, Henry, and when he died youg, because of
the
> rule of the exclusion of the half blood it then descended to his
full
> sister Anne, the Kingmaker's wife. Somerset contested this for
years,
> claiming that Warwick's daughters were properly co-heiresses.
> However, unjust though it might have seemed, richard Neville had
the
> law on his side. There is an appendix on the issue in Storey's 'End
> of the House of Lancaster'.
Was this the basis of that lawsuit one hears about in law school as
holding the record for length of litigation? Probably not...I
believe that one is known as The Great Berkeley Litigation, and that
it wound on for something like 126 years, through the reigns of four
kings, until it finally became moot, probably because all the money
and property had gone into the pockets of the lawyers. But I do seem
to recall that it ended in the reign of Henry VII...in that case it
would be because everything in contention had ended up in his pockets.
Katy
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-30 21:23:39
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I've read the END appendix, so I'm aware of the dispute
between
> the four daughters of Richard Beauchamp. My query was specifically
> regarding the Despencer inheritance, which was complicated by
Isabel
> Despencer's earlier marriage to the Earl of Worcester, and the
> consequent legal division of HER inheritance between Warwick and
his
> cousin Lord Bergavenney (the heir of Worcester), which was of
> interest to Somerset as the King had granted the custody of
> Bergavenney's lands to Somerset until the lad came of age. Storey
> mentions "military preparations" by both sides in Glamorgan, so I'm
> interested to know if this large Lordship was divided, and if
> Bergavenney ever got custody of the estates. This would probably
> have been after Bosworth as neither Warwick nor Gloucester showed
any
> inclination to give them up.
> Yet another aspect of the Nevill inheritance was the "northern
> section" of the Neville of Salisbury estates, chiefly Middleham,
> Sheriff Hutton and Penrith. These had been detached from the
Earldom
> of Westmoreland for the junior Neville line. What complicated
> matters was that the estates were entailed in the male line only,
> which excluded them from the lands Clarence and Gloucester claimed
in
> right of their wives. After Barnet, the legal heir was George
Neville
> Duke of Bedford, son of Montagu. Therein lay the difficulty facing
> Gloucester, who particularly wanted these lordships as the centre
of
> his northern territorial block. If Montagu had been attainted it
> would have deprived Bedford of the lands, but then Warwick would
have
> been at least as deserving of attainder, which would have deprived
> Clarence and Gloucester to a hereditory claim on all the other
> Neville/Beauchamp estates.
Actually, no. The Countess' lands would not have been affected by her
husband's attainder. It is a very compicated business, but it starts
with Clarence being the only one of the brothers married to one of
Warwick's daughters, and determined to have all her parents'
inheritance, immediately. And Edward granted it to him (it appears he
may have been promised this as the price of his coming back on side).
However, in March 1472 we get the following:-
"Warrant to the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, to whom the
King had granted all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and
other possessions late of Richard, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury, in
the right of the latter or of Anne his wife, and who at the King's
request has surrendered a parcel of the same to his brother Richard,
Duke of Gloucester, that neither by authority of Parliament nor in
any other way shall any castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands,
rents, services, reversions or possessions granted to him before this
by the King be taken from him or his heirs, and that if any
restitution should be made to anyone of any parcel of the lands late
of Thomas Earl of Devon granted to him, such persons shall be
recompensed by the King and not by the Duke, and no similar
restitution shall be to his prejudice, provided that this grant shall
not extend to any castles, lordships or lands belonging to the Duke
of Gloucester by force of the said petition. By K." (CPR)
At the same time, Clarence was created Earl of Warwick and Salisbury.
So the Neville estates had already been handed out by Edward, first
to Clarence, then to Gloucester.
The 1474 Act of parliament which made the famous big division between
the brothers had been only concerned with the Countess's own
inheritance. The trick there was to declare that, for the purpose in
hand, she was legally dead.
> The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of his
> Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates to
> support the dignity.
Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to that
particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern Neville
lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been attainted,
and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of Parliament
debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville estates.
This would indeed have left Bedford without sufficient lands to
maintain the dignity - there were specified incomes required to
support different titles. The other solution to the landless duke
problem, however, would have been for Edward to have endowed Bedford
with some lands. It was Edward, of course - this happened in the 1478
parliament which attainted Clarence. The loss of the title 'Duke of
Bedford' didn't itself affect George Neville's claim to his father's
lands and titles.
I'm not clear when Richard obtained GN's wardship, only that it was
after the 1475 Act.
Of course Clarence and Gloucester come across as rapacious, but
Edward had no other real solution to the problem of providing for
them. He seems to have got stuck in with this policy just fine.
As a younger son with no inheritance of his
> own, Richard needed to establish a hereditory claim to pass on to
his
> son, as the many estates he was granted from attainted Lancastrians
> were always likely to be reversed, and royal grants were subject to
> resumption.
Yes, this is Hicks' argument. However, I don't altogether see it. It
seems to me that the non-attainder of Warwick and Montagu caused as
many problems for the York brothers as it solved. The Salisbury lands
were the only immediate hereditary gain. For the rest, the brothers
were still dependant on royal grants in one or other shape or form,
grants that were surely even more shaky without the underlying
attainders. Is it possible they might have been as much motivated by
their wives' feelings as by practical considerations? Or am I not
being sufficiently hard-headed?
His claim to the Bergavenney and Neville lands were
> therefore as fictional as those established by Edward IV to deprive
> Howard, Berkely and Westmoreland of their rightful inheritance in
> favour of Edward's sons. The support these Lords gave to the
> usurpation showed what a dangerous practice this could be.
Indeed. Fortunately for Clarence and Gloucester, they were depriving
only a child who died anyway (George Nevile), and a woman whose lands
had in any case been given to her children.
Marie
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I've read the END appendix, so I'm aware of the dispute
between
> the four daughters of Richard Beauchamp. My query was specifically
> regarding the Despencer inheritance, which was complicated by
Isabel
> Despencer's earlier marriage to the Earl of Worcester, and the
> consequent legal division of HER inheritance between Warwick and
his
> cousin Lord Bergavenney (the heir of Worcester), which was of
> interest to Somerset as the King had granted the custody of
> Bergavenney's lands to Somerset until the lad came of age. Storey
> mentions "military preparations" by both sides in Glamorgan, so I'm
> interested to know if this large Lordship was divided, and if
> Bergavenney ever got custody of the estates. This would probably
> have been after Bosworth as neither Warwick nor Gloucester showed
any
> inclination to give them up.
> Yet another aspect of the Nevill inheritance was the "northern
> section" of the Neville of Salisbury estates, chiefly Middleham,
> Sheriff Hutton and Penrith. These had been detached from the
Earldom
> of Westmoreland for the junior Neville line. What complicated
> matters was that the estates were entailed in the male line only,
> which excluded them from the lands Clarence and Gloucester claimed
in
> right of their wives. After Barnet, the legal heir was George
Neville
> Duke of Bedford, son of Montagu. Therein lay the difficulty facing
> Gloucester, who particularly wanted these lordships as the centre
of
> his northern territorial block. If Montagu had been attainted it
> would have deprived Bedford of the lands, but then Warwick would
have
> been at least as deserving of attainder, which would have deprived
> Clarence and Gloucester to a hereditory claim on all the other
> Neville/Beauchamp estates.
Actually, no. The Countess' lands would not have been affected by her
husband's attainder. It is a very compicated business, but it starts
with Clarence being the only one of the brothers married to one of
Warwick's daughters, and determined to have all her parents'
inheritance, immediately. And Edward granted it to him (it appears he
may have been promised this as the price of his coming back on side).
However, in March 1472 we get the following:-
"Warrant to the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, to whom the
King had granted all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and
other possessions late of Richard, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury, in
the right of the latter or of Anne his wife, and who at the King's
request has surrendered a parcel of the same to his brother Richard,
Duke of Gloucester, that neither by authority of Parliament nor in
any other way shall any castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands,
rents, services, reversions or possessions granted to him before this
by the King be taken from him or his heirs, and that if any
restitution should be made to anyone of any parcel of the lands late
of Thomas Earl of Devon granted to him, such persons shall be
recompensed by the King and not by the Duke, and no similar
restitution shall be to his prejudice, provided that this grant shall
not extend to any castles, lordships or lands belonging to the Duke
of Gloucester by force of the said petition. By K." (CPR)
At the same time, Clarence was created Earl of Warwick and Salisbury.
So the Neville estates had already been handed out by Edward, first
to Clarence, then to Gloucester.
The 1474 Act of parliament which made the famous big division between
the brothers had been only concerned with the Countess's own
inheritance. The trick there was to declare that, for the purpose in
hand, she was legally dead.
> The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of his
> Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates to
> support the dignity.
Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to that
particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern Neville
lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been attainted,
and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of Parliament
debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville estates.
This would indeed have left Bedford without sufficient lands to
maintain the dignity - there were specified incomes required to
support different titles. The other solution to the landless duke
problem, however, would have been for Edward to have endowed Bedford
with some lands. It was Edward, of course - this happened in the 1478
parliament which attainted Clarence. The loss of the title 'Duke of
Bedford' didn't itself affect George Neville's claim to his father's
lands and titles.
I'm not clear when Richard obtained GN's wardship, only that it was
after the 1475 Act.
Of course Clarence and Gloucester come across as rapacious, but
Edward had no other real solution to the problem of providing for
them. He seems to have got stuck in with this policy just fine.
As a younger son with no inheritance of his
> own, Richard needed to establish a hereditory claim to pass on to
his
> son, as the many estates he was granted from attainted Lancastrians
> were always likely to be reversed, and royal grants were subject to
> resumption.
Yes, this is Hicks' argument. However, I don't altogether see it. It
seems to me that the non-attainder of Warwick and Montagu caused as
many problems for the York brothers as it solved. The Salisbury lands
were the only immediate hereditary gain. For the rest, the brothers
were still dependant on royal grants in one or other shape or form,
grants that were surely even more shaky without the underlying
attainders. Is it possible they might have been as much motivated by
their wives' feelings as by practical considerations? Or am I not
being sufficiently hard-headed?
His claim to the Bergavenney and Neville lands were
> therefore as fictional as those established by Edward IV to deprive
> Howard, Berkely and Westmoreland of their rightful inheritance in
> favour of Edward's sons. The support these Lords gave to the
> usurpation showed what a dangerous practice this could be.
Indeed. Fortunately for Clarence and Gloucester, they were depriving
only a child who died anyway (George Nevile), and a woman whose lands
had in any case been given to her children.
Marie
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-11-30 22:56:14
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've read the END appendix, so I'm aware of the dispute
> between
> > the four daughters of Richard Beauchamp. My query was
specifically
> > regarding the Despencer inheritance, which was complicated by
> Isabel
> > Despencer's earlier marriage to the Earl of Worcester, and the
> > consequent legal division of HER inheritance between Warwick and
> his
> > cousin Lord Bergavenney (the heir of Worcester), which was of
> > interest to Somerset as the King had granted the custody of
> > Bergavenney's lands to Somerset until the lad came of age.
Storey
> > mentions "military preparations" by both sides in Glamorgan, so
I'm
> > interested to know if this large Lordship was divided, and if
> > Bergavenney ever got custody of the estates. This would probably
> > have been after Bosworth as neither Warwick nor Gloucester showed
> any
> > inclination to give them up.
> > Yet another aspect of the Nevill inheritance was the "northern
> > section" of the Neville of Salisbury estates, chiefly Middleham,
> > Sheriff Hutton and Penrith. These had been detached from the
> Earldom
> > of Westmoreland for the junior Neville line. What complicated
> > matters was that the estates were entailed in the male line only,
> > which excluded them from the lands Clarence and Gloucester
claimed
> in
> > right of their wives. After Barnet, the legal heir was George
> Neville
> > Duke of Bedford, son of Montagu. Therein lay the difficulty
facing
> > Gloucester, who particularly wanted these lordships as the centre
> of
> > his northern territorial block. If Montagu had been attainted it
> > would have deprived Bedford of the lands, but then Warwick would
> have
> > been at least as deserving of attainder, which would have
deprived
> > Clarence and Gloucester to a hereditory claim on all the other
> > Neville/Beauchamp estates.
>
> Actually, no. The Countess' lands would not have been affected by
her
> husband's attainder. It is a very compicated business, but it
starts
> with Clarence being the only one of the brothers married to one of
> Warwick's daughters, and determined to have all her parents'
> inheritance, immediately. And Edward granted it to him (it appears
he
> may have been promised this as the price of his coming back on
side).
> However, in March 1472 we get the following:-
> "Warrant to the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, to whom
the
> King had granted all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and
> other possessions late of Richard, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury,
in
> the right of the latter or of Anne his wife, and who at the King's
> request has surrendered a parcel of the same to his brother
Richard,
> Duke of Gloucester, that neither by authority of Parliament nor in
> any other way shall any castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands,
> rents, services, reversions or possessions granted to him before
this
> by the King be taken from him or his heirs, and that if any
> restitution should be made to anyone of any parcel of the lands
late
> of Thomas Earl of Devon granted to him, such persons shall be
> recompensed by the King and not by the Duke, and no similar
> restitution shall be to his prejudice, provided that this grant
shall
> not extend to any castles, lordships or lands belonging to the Duke
> of Gloucester by force of the said petition. By K." (CPR)
> At the same time, Clarence was created Earl of Warwick and
Salisbury.
> So the Neville estates had already been handed out by Edward, first
> to Clarence, then to Gloucester.
>
> The 1474 Act of parliament which made the famous big division
between
> the brothers had been only concerned with the Countess's own
> inheritance. The trick there was to declare that, for the purpose
in
> hand, she was legally dead.
>
> > The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of
his
> > Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates to
> > support the dignity.
>
> Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to that
> particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern Neville
> lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been attainted,
> and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of Parliament
> debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville
estates.
Just a point here:
Edward IV's short-lived third son was named George, Duke of Bedford.
I only discovered his existence by reading "Perkin".
> This would indeed have left Bedford without sufficient lands to
> maintain the dignity - there were specified incomes required to
> support different titles. The other solution to the landless duke
> problem, however, would have been for Edward to have endowed
Bedford
> with some lands. It was Edward, of course - this happened in the
1478
> parliament which attainted Clarence. The loss of the title 'Duke of
> Bedford' didn't itself affect George Neville's claim to his
father's
> lands and titles.
> I'm not clear when Richard obtained GN's wardship, only that it
was
> after the 1475 Act.
> Of course Clarence and Gloucester come across as rapacious, but
> Edward had no other real solution to the problem of providing for
> them. He seems to have got stuck in with this policy just fine.
>
> As a younger son with no inheritance of his
> > own, Richard needed to establish a hereditory claim to pass on to
> his
> > son, as the many estates he was granted from attainted
Lancastrians
> > were always likely to be reversed, and royal grants were subject
to
> > resumption.
>
> Yes, this is Hicks' argument. However, I don't altogether see it.
It
> seems to me that the non-attainder of Warwick and Montagu caused as
> many problems for the York brothers as it solved. The Salisbury
lands
> were the only immediate hereditary gain. For the rest, the brothers
> were still dependant on royal grants in one or other shape or form,
> grants that were surely even more shaky without the underlying
> attainders. Is it possible they might have been as much motivated
by
> their wives' feelings as by practical considerations? Or am I not
> being sufficiently hard-headed?
>
> His claim to the Bergavenney and Neville lands were
> > therefore as fictional as those established by Edward IV to
deprive
> > Howard, Berkely and Westmoreland of their rightful inheritance in
> > favour of Edward's sons. The support these Lords gave to the
> > usurpation showed what a dangerous practice this could be.
>
> Indeed. Fortunately for Clarence and Gloucester, they were
depriving
> only a child who died anyway (George Nevile), and a woman whose
lands
> had in any case been given to her children.
>
> Marie
>
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I've read the END appendix, so I'm aware of the dispute
> between
> > the four daughters of Richard Beauchamp. My query was
specifically
> > regarding the Despencer inheritance, which was complicated by
> Isabel
> > Despencer's earlier marriage to the Earl of Worcester, and the
> > consequent legal division of HER inheritance between Warwick and
> his
> > cousin Lord Bergavenney (the heir of Worcester), which was of
> > interest to Somerset as the King had granted the custody of
> > Bergavenney's lands to Somerset until the lad came of age.
Storey
> > mentions "military preparations" by both sides in Glamorgan, so
I'm
> > interested to know if this large Lordship was divided, and if
> > Bergavenney ever got custody of the estates. This would probably
> > have been after Bosworth as neither Warwick nor Gloucester showed
> any
> > inclination to give them up.
> > Yet another aspect of the Nevill inheritance was the "northern
> > section" of the Neville of Salisbury estates, chiefly Middleham,
> > Sheriff Hutton and Penrith. These had been detached from the
> Earldom
> > of Westmoreland for the junior Neville line. What complicated
> > matters was that the estates were entailed in the male line only,
> > which excluded them from the lands Clarence and Gloucester
claimed
> in
> > right of their wives. After Barnet, the legal heir was George
> Neville
> > Duke of Bedford, son of Montagu. Therein lay the difficulty
facing
> > Gloucester, who particularly wanted these lordships as the centre
> of
> > his northern territorial block. If Montagu had been attainted it
> > would have deprived Bedford of the lands, but then Warwick would
> have
> > been at least as deserving of attainder, which would have
deprived
> > Clarence and Gloucester to a hereditory claim on all the other
> > Neville/Beauchamp estates.
>
> Actually, no. The Countess' lands would not have been affected by
her
> husband's attainder. It is a very compicated business, but it
starts
> with Clarence being the only one of the brothers married to one of
> Warwick's daughters, and determined to have all her parents'
> inheritance, immediately. And Edward granted it to him (it appears
he
> may have been promised this as the price of his coming back on
side).
> However, in March 1472 we get the following:-
> "Warrant to the King's brother George, Duke of Clarence, to whom
the
> King had granted all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and
> other possessions late of Richard, Earl of Warwick and Salisbury,
in
> the right of the latter or of Anne his wife, and who at the King's
> request has surrendered a parcel of the same to his brother
Richard,
> Duke of Gloucester, that neither by authority of Parliament nor in
> any other way shall any castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands,
> rents, services, reversions or possessions granted to him before
this
> by the King be taken from him or his heirs, and that if any
> restitution should be made to anyone of any parcel of the lands
late
> of Thomas Earl of Devon granted to him, such persons shall be
> recompensed by the King and not by the Duke, and no similar
> restitution shall be to his prejudice, provided that this grant
shall
> not extend to any castles, lordships or lands belonging to the Duke
> of Gloucester by force of the said petition. By K." (CPR)
> At the same time, Clarence was created Earl of Warwick and
Salisbury.
> So the Neville estates had already been handed out by Edward, first
> to Clarence, then to Gloucester.
>
> The 1474 Act of parliament which made the famous big division
between
> the brothers had been only concerned with the Countess's own
> inheritance. The trick there was to declare that, for the purpose
in
> hand, she was legally dead.
>
> > The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of
his
> > Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates to
> > support the dignity.
>
> Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to that
> particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern Neville
> lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been attainted,
> and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of Parliament
> debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville
estates.
Just a point here:
Edward IV's short-lived third son was named George, Duke of Bedford.
I only discovered his existence by reading "Perkin".
> This would indeed have left Bedford without sufficient lands to
> maintain the dignity - there were specified incomes required to
> support different titles. The other solution to the landless duke
> problem, however, would have been for Edward to have endowed
Bedford
> with some lands. It was Edward, of course - this happened in the
1478
> parliament which attainted Clarence. The loss of the title 'Duke of
> Bedford' didn't itself affect George Neville's claim to his
father's
> lands and titles.
> I'm not clear when Richard obtained GN's wardship, only that it
was
> after the 1475 Act.
> Of course Clarence and Gloucester come across as rapacious, but
> Edward had no other real solution to the problem of providing for
> them. He seems to have got stuck in with this policy just fine.
>
> As a younger son with no inheritance of his
> > own, Richard needed to establish a hereditory claim to pass on to
> his
> > son, as the many estates he was granted from attainted
Lancastrians
> > were always likely to be reversed, and royal grants were subject
to
> > resumption.
>
> Yes, this is Hicks' argument. However, I don't altogether see it.
It
> seems to me that the non-attainder of Warwick and Montagu caused as
> many problems for the York brothers as it solved. The Salisbury
lands
> were the only immediate hereditary gain. For the rest, the brothers
> were still dependant on royal grants in one or other shape or form,
> grants that were surely even more shaky without the underlying
> attainders. Is it possible they might have been as much motivated
by
> their wives' feelings as by practical considerations? Or am I not
> being sufficiently hard-headed?
>
> His claim to the Bergavenney and Neville lands were
> > therefore as fictional as those established by Edward IV to
deprive
> > Howard, Berkely and Westmoreland of their rightful inheritance in
> > favour of Edward's sons. The support these Lords gave to the
> > usurpation showed what a dangerous practice this could be.
>
> Indeed. Fortunately for Clarence and Gloucester, they were
depriving
> only a child who died anyway (George Nevile), and a woman whose
lands
> had in any case been given to her children.
>
> Marie
>
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-12-01 09:51:59
> >
> > > The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of
> his
> > > Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates
to
> > > support the dignity.
> >
> > Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to
that
> > particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern
Neville
> > lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been
attainted,
> > and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of Parliament
> > debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville
> estates.
>
> Just a point here:
> Edward IV's short-lived third son was named George, Duke of
Bedford.
> I only discovered his existence by reading "Perkin".
Ah, now I either hadn't realised, or had forgotten, that the brief
George was Duke of Bedford. He was born, according to my notes,
sometime in 1477 and died in March 1479. That is extremely
interesting as it suggests, Hicks notwithstanding, that the person
with the incentive for depriving George Neville was Edward, not
Richard, and that his motive was the ennoblement of his own third son.
George Neville had been created Duke of Bedford early in 1470 as part
of Edward's package to compensate his father for the loss of the
earldom of Northumberland and retain his loyalty. This package
consisted John Neville's elevation to the title of Marquess Montagu,
his son's to the title of Duke of Bedford, and Bedford's betrothal to
Elizabeth of York.
Needless to say, after Montagu's treason Edward would almost
inevitably have resented George Neville continuing to hold this
title, last borne by Henry V's own brother. He certainly didn't
honour the betrothal agreement.
I do think Hicks, good researcher though he is, should come with a
health warning as he has a dogged agenda. I see from a review of his
forthcoming book on Anne Neville that he is still banging on about
the illegality of Richard and Anne's marriage and his consequent
hypocrisy in impugning Edward's marriage (another interpretation of
events which he conjured, literally, out of thin air). You might have
thought that, given the news from Rome, he'd either have got some
very hasty amendments made to the book*, even if only an erratum
slip, or at least informed the reviewer that this supposition was now
out of date.
Marie
PS. As far as a practical motive for preventing Warwick & Montagu's
attainder is concerned, this would have been, as I argued before,
confined to the earldom of Salisbury. Certainly Clarence kept the
title (it was granted to Richard's son only on Clarence's attainder),
but I would need to check whether Clarence kept all the "Salisbury
lands" as well. If he did then, Hicks notwithstanding yet again,
Clarence would have been the only brother who would have benefited in
any practical way from the failure to attaint Warwick and Montagu.
I think Clarence's view of his just deserts must go back to the
Readeption period. Was there some deal when Anne married Edward of
Lancaster that she should be ontent with being Princess of Wales,
with Isabel being treated as sole heiress to her parents' estates? It
seems highly likely - Clarence had to be compensated in some way for
being demoted from immediate candidate for the throne to next in line
in the event of Prince Edward dying without issue. If so, then this
would explain Clarence's insistence that Edward honour this agreement
as the price of his return to the Yorkist fold. This seems to be the
root of the squabble between the two brothers over Warwick's & the
Countess's estates.
> > > The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived of
> his
> > > Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates
to
> > > support the dignity.
> >
> > Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to
that
> > particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern
Neville
> > lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been
attainted,
> > and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of Parliament
> > debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville
> estates.
>
> Just a point here:
> Edward IV's short-lived third son was named George, Duke of
Bedford.
> I only discovered his existence by reading "Perkin".
Ah, now I either hadn't realised, or had forgotten, that the brief
George was Duke of Bedford. He was born, according to my notes,
sometime in 1477 and died in March 1479. That is extremely
interesting as it suggests, Hicks notwithstanding, that the person
with the incentive for depriving George Neville was Edward, not
Richard, and that his motive was the ennoblement of his own third son.
George Neville had been created Duke of Bedford early in 1470 as part
of Edward's package to compensate his father for the loss of the
earldom of Northumberland and retain his loyalty. This package
consisted John Neville's elevation to the title of Marquess Montagu,
his son's to the title of Duke of Bedford, and Bedford's betrothal to
Elizabeth of York.
Needless to say, after Montagu's treason Edward would almost
inevitably have resented George Neville continuing to hold this
title, last borne by Henry V's own brother. He certainly didn't
honour the betrothal agreement.
I do think Hicks, good researcher though he is, should come with a
health warning as he has a dogged agenda. I see from a review of his
forthcoming book on Anne Neville that he is still banging on about
the illegality of Richard and Anne's marriage and his consequent
hypocrisy in impugning Edward's marriage (another interpretation of
events which he conjured, literally, out of thin air). You might have
thought that, given the news from Rome, he'd either have got some
very hasty amendments made to the book*, even if only an erratum
slip, or at least informed the reviewer that this supposition was now
out of date.
Marie
PS. As far as a practical motive for preventing Warwick & Montagu's
attainder is concerned, this would have been, as I argued before,
confined to the earldom of Salisbury. Certainly Clarence kept the
title (it was granted to Richard's son only on Clarence's attainder),
but I would need to check whether Clarence kept all the "Salisbury
lands" as well. If he did then, Hicks notwithstanding yet again,
Clarence would have been the only brother who would have benefited in
any practical way from the failure to attaint Warwick and Montagu.
I think Clarence's view of his just deserts must go back to the
Readeption period. Was there some deal when Anne married Edward of
Lancaster that she should be ontent with being Princess of Wales,
with Isabel being treated as sole heiress to her parents' estates? It
seems highly likely - Clarence had to be compensated in some way for
being demoted from immediate candidate for the throne to next in line
in the event of Prince Edward dying without issue. If so, then this
would explain Clarence's insistence that Edward honour this agreement
as the price of his return to the Yorkist fold. This seems to be the
root of the squabble between the two brothers over Warwick's & the
Countess's estates.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Inheritance questions
2005-12-01 12:07:44
This makes sense. If Edward IV had failed in his 1471 campaign, then Edward of Lancaster would have gained possession of the Duchy of Cornwall and other lands of the Prince of Wales and so would have had no need of Anne Neville's share of the Warwick inheritance, which could have been used as a means of buying off Clarence. Of course, with Lancaster's death,m and Edward's restoration, the basis for the scheme was destroyed and Gloucester would be able to argue that the earlier agreement by which Anne resigned her rights to Isabel was void. Now I'm going to have to do some re-jigging of the latter stages of my novel in order to get this in! Thanks.
Ann
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
I think Clarence's view of his just deserts must go back to the
Readeption period. Was there some deal when Anne married Edward of
Lancaster that she should be ontent with being Princess of Wales,
with Isabel being treated as sole heiress to her parents' estates? It
seems highly likely - Clarence had to be compensated in some way for
being demoted from immediate candidate for the throne to next in line
in the event of Prince Edward dying without issue. If so, then this
would explain Clarence's insistence that Edward honour this agreement
as the price of his return to the Yorkist fold. This seems to be the
root of the squabble between the two brothers over Warwick's & the
Countess's estates.
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Ann
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
I think Clarence's view of his just deserts must go back to the
Readeption period. Was there some deal when Anne married Edward of
Lancaster that she should be ontent with being Princess of Wales,
with Isabel being treated as sole heiress to her parents' estates? It
seems highly likely - Clarence had to be compensated in some way for
being demoted from immediate candidate for the throne to next in line
in the event of Prince Edward dying without issue. If so, then this
would explain Clarence's insistence that Edward honour this agreement
as the price of his return to the Yorkist fold. This seems to be the
root of the squabble between the two brothers over Warwick's & the
Countess's estates.
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: Inheritance questions
2005-12-02 09:35:39
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > > The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived
of
> > his
> > > > Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates
> to
> > > > support the dignity.
> > >
> > > Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to
> that
> > > particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern
> Neville
> > > lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been
> attainted,
> > > and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of
Parliament
> > > debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville
> > estates.
> >
> > Just a point here:
> > Edward IV's short-lived third son was named George, Duke of
> Bedford.
> > I only discovered his existence by reading "Perkin".
>
>
> Ah, now I either hadn't realised, or had forgotten, that the brief
> George was Duke of Bedford. He was born, according to my notes,
> sometime in 1477 and died in March 1479. That is extremely
> interesting as it suggests, Hicks notwithstanding, that the person
> with the incentive for depriving George Neville was Edward, not
> Richard, and that his motive was the ennoblement of his own third
son.
> George Neville had been created Duke of Bedford early in 1470 as
part
> of Edward's package to compensate his father for the loss of the
> earldom of Northumberland and retain his loyalty. This package
> consisted John Neville's elevation to the title of Marquess
Montagu,
> his son's to the title of Duke of Bedford, and Bedford's betrothal
to
> Elizabeth of York.
> Needless to say, after Montagu's treason Edward would almost
> inevitably have resented George Neville continuing to hold this
> title, last borne by Henry V's own brother. He certainly didn't
> honour the betrothal agreement.
>
> I do think Hicks, good researcher though he is, should come with a
> health warning as he has a dogged agenda. I see from a review of
his
> forthcoming book on Anne Neville that he is still banging on about
> the illegality of Richard and Anne's marriage and his consequent
> hypocrisy in impugning Edward's marriage (another interpretation of
> events which he conjured, literally, out of thin air). You might
have
> thought that, given the news from Rome, he'd either have got some
> very hasty amendments made to the book*, even if only an erratum
> slip, or at least informed the reviewer that this supposition was
now
> out of date.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. As far as a practical motive for preventing Warwick & Montagu's
> attainder is concerned, this would have been, as I argued before,
> confined to the earldom of Salisbury. Certainly Clarence kept the
> title (it was granted to Richard's son only on Clarence's
attainder),
> but I would need to check whether Clarence kept all the "Salisbury
> lands" as well. If he did then, Hicks notwithstanding yet again,
> Clarence would have been the only brother who would have benefited
in
> any practical way from the failure to attaint Warwick and Montagu.
>
> I think Clarence's view of his just deserts must go back to the
> Readeption period. Was there some deal when Anne married Edward of
> Lancaster that she should be ontent with being Princess of Wales,
> with Isabel being treated as sole heiress to her parents' estates?
It
> seems highly likely - Clarence had to be compensated in some way
for
> being demoted from immediate candidate for the throne to next in
line
> in the event of Prince Edward dying without issue. If so, then this
> would explain Clarence's insistence that Edward honour this
agreement
> as the price of his return to the Yorkist fold. This seems to be
the
> root of the squabble between the two brothers over Warwick's & the
> Countess's estates.
>
..... and the Montagu title, as a Barony, made a brief re-appearance
for Clarence's eldest grandson, of course. In Elizabeth I's time, an
unrelated family named Browne held it.
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > > The solution Gloucester hit on was to have Bedford deprived
of
> > his
> > > > Dukedom on the false grounds that he had insufficient estates
> to
> > > > support the dignity.
> > >
> > > Well, I don't quite see that the deprivation was a solution to
> that
> > > particular problem. Edward had already granted the northern
> Neville
> > > lands, as above, just as if Warwick and Montagu had been
> attainted,
> > > and this grant had been protected in 1475 by an Act of
Parliament
> > > debarring Bedford from ever making any claim to the Neville
> > estates.
> >
> > Just a point here:
> > Edward IV's short-lived third son was named George, Duke of
> Bedford.
> > I only discovered his existence by reading "Perkin".
>
>
> Ah, now I either hadn't realised, or had forgotten, that the brief
> George was Duke of Bedford. He was born, according to my notes,
> sometime in 1477 and died in March 1479. That is extremely
> interesting as it suggests, Hicks notwithstanding, that the person
> with the incentive for depriving George Neville was Edward, not
> Richard, and that his motive was the ennoblement of his own third
son.
> George Neville had been created Duke of Bedford early in 1470 as
part
> of Edward's package to compensate his father for the loss of the
> earldom of Northumberland and retain his loyalty. This package
> consisted John Neville's elevation to the title of Marquess
Montagu,
> his son's to the title of Duke of Bedford, and Bedford's betrothal
to
> Elizabeth of York.
> Needless to say, after Montagu's treason Edward would almost
> inevitably have resented George Neville continuing to hold this
> title, last borne by Henry V's own brother. He certainly didn't
> honour the betrothal agreement.
>
> I do think Hicks, good researcher though he is, should come with a
> health warning as he has a dogged agenda. I see from a review of
his
> forthcoming book on Anne Neville that he is still banging on about
> the illegality of Richard and Anne's marriage and his consequent
> hypocrisy in impugning Edward's marriage (another interpretation of
> events which he conjured, literally, out of thin air). You might
have
> thought that, given the news from Rome, he'd either have got some
> very hasty amendments made to the book*, even if only an erratum
> slip, or at least informed the reviewer that this supposition was
now
> out of date.
>
> Marie
>
> PS. As far as a practical motive for preventing Warwick & Montagu's
> attainder is concerned, this would have been, as I argued before,
> confined to the earldom of Salisbury. Certainly Clarence kept the
> title (it was granted to Richard's son only on Clarence's
attainder),
> but I would need to check whether Clarence kept all the "Salisbury
> lands" as well. If he did then, Hicks notwithstanding yet again,
> Clarence would have been the only brother who would have benefited
in
> any practical way from the failure to attaint Warwick and Montagu.
>
> I think Clarence's view of his just deserts must go back to the
> Readeption period. Was there some deal when Anne married Edward of
> Lancaster that she should be ontent with being Princess of Wales,
> with Isabel being treated as sole heiress to her parents' estates?
It
> seems highly likely - Clarence had to be compensated in some way
for
> being demoted from immediate candidate for the throne to next in
line
> in the event of Prince Edward dying without issue. If so, then this
> would explain Clarence's insistence that Edward honour this
agreement
> as the price of his return to the Yorkist fold. This seems to be
the
> root of the squabble between the two brothers over Warwick's & the
> Countess's estates.
>
..... and the Montagu title, as a Barony, made a brief re-appearance
for Clarence's eldest grandson, of course. In Elizabeth I's time, an
unrelated family named Browne held it.