Various

A few snippets:

According to Ross, Edward of Middleham was created Earl of Salisbury
2 days BEFORE Clarence was disposed of.

According to Wales in the Wars of the Roses, Holt castle was bought
by the King from Lord Bergavenney in 1478. At the same time, the
younger Lord Herbert was deprived of his Earldom of Pembroke, and
transferred to the King the Lordships of Gower and Chepstow, also
former Mowbray estates. The King seems to have been trying to re-
assemble the Mowbray Lands for his son the Duke of York, while
Pembroke was given to the Prince of Wales.
The last Mowbray Duke seems to have had a policy of selling off his
Welsh lands, and presumably this is how Bergavenney gained possession
of Holt.
However, for my purposes it seems clear that in 1453 Holt was very
much a Mowbray property.
The rest of the FitzAlan estates remain elusive, however.
It should be remembered that in stripping George Neville of ALL his
peerages, Richard and Edward were depriving him of a voice in
Parliament.
Also, it was a standard practice of Kings to award cash annuities to
men they enobled in order for them to "support the dignity". For
example, the landless Lord Egremont's income was derived entirely
from a state allowance. This could easily have been done in
Bedford's case. By using this device to degrade Bedford (I know of
no other example of this) the York brothers hoped that George (and
his superior claim to the Neville lands) would be quickly forgotten.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> A few snippets:
>
> According to Ross, Edward of Middleham was created Earl of
Salisbury
> 2 days BEFORE Clarence was disposed of.

Three days before, in fact. What I wrote was that Edward of Middleham
didn't get the earldom of Salisbury until after Clarence's attainder,
and this is correct. In fact, the death sentence had been passed on
Clarence on 7th February, eleven days before it was carried out.
Edward seems to have found it hard to do the deed at the end, but the
impression given by Ross and Hicks that Richard was benefiting in
advance of clarence's downfall - not to put too fine a point on it,
that he was being bribed to go along with it - doesn't really stand.
(Hicks developed his view of the period as a student of Ross, I
understand.)
>
> According to Wales in the Wars of the Roses, Holt castle was bought
> by the King from Lord Bergavenney in 1478. At the same time, the
> younger Lord Herbert was deprived of his Earldom of Pembroke, and
> transferred to the King the Lordships of Gower and Chepstow, also
> former Mowbray estates. The King seems to have been trying to re-
> assemble the Mowbray Lands for his son the Duke of York, while
> Pembroke was given to the Prince of Wales.
> The last Mowbray Duke seems to have had a policy of selling off his
> Welsh lands, and presumably this is how Bergavenney gained
possession
> of Holt.
> However, for my purposes it seems clear that in 1453 Holt was very
> much a Mowbray property.
> The rest of the FitzAlan estates remain elusive, however.
> It should be remembered that in stripping George Neville of ALL his
> peerages, Richard and Edward were depriving him of a voice in
> Parliament.

Why add Richard's name? There is no way of knowing whether Richard
pushed for this or not, but as Edward was King we can assume his
approval, at the very least. One voice, one vote, in Parliament, by a
peer with few properties and few retainers to call on, would not have
been particularly scary, imo. Edward's speedy endowment of his infant
son constitutes actual evidence of motive. The other is mere Hicksian
insinuation
> Also, it was a standard practice of Kings to award cash annuities
to
> men they enobled in order for them to "support the dignity". For
> example, the landless Lord Egremont's income was derived entirely
> from a state allowance.

Indeed. I did say Edward's other choice would have been to endow him
with lands. Stephen's observation that Edward gave the title to his
own infant son George has made the immediate purpose of Neville's
deprivation crystal clear, I should have said.

This could easily have been done in
> Bedford's case. By using this device to degrade Bedford (I know of
> no other example of this) the York brothers hoped that George (and
> his superior claim to the Neville lands) would be quickly forgotten.

No doubt, but a disgruntled untitled George Neville might have been
more dangerous than a fat well-endowed Duke of Bedford lounging about
on rich southern estates. Also, there are other examples of this -
Henry VII did it, for one, but you'll have to wait until I get back
from a week away for me to look up the details. I think one was a de
la Pole, in fact.

Bye, all.

Marie

Simply because it was Richard who had most to lose, as his favourite
estate of Middleham, together with Sheriff Hutton and Penrith, were the
rightful inheritance of Bedford. The title, in itself, was merely a
status symbol. But the estates were the heart of what Richard
considered as his home territory. Edward could easily have awarded a
different title to his third son.


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:

> Why add Richard's name? There is no way of knowing whether Richard
> pushed for this or not, but as Edward was King we can assume his
> approval, at the very least. One voice, one vote, in Parliament, by a
> peer with few properties and few retainers to call on, would not have
> been particularly scary, imo. Edward's speedy endowment of his infant
> son constitutes actual evidence of motive. The other is mere Hicksian
> insinuation

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> Simply because it was Richard who had most to lose, as his
favourite
> estate of Middleham, together with Sheriff Hutton and Penrith, were
the
> rightful inheritance of Bedford. The title, in itself, was merely a
> status symbol. But the estates were the heart of what Richard
> considered as his home territory. Edward could easily have awarded
a
> different title to his third son.

Not gone yet.


1) Depriving Geroge Neville of the Bedford title (unconnected with
his family) in no way protected Richard's title to the Neville
estates. This had been protected by Act of Parliament three years
earlier, as I explained. Also, when you say they were the "rightful"
inheritance of Bedford, bear in mind that this was only because
Montagu had not been attainted. George Neville was indisputably the
son of a traitor, and any attempt by him to reclaim his paternal
inheritance could have been dealt with quite easily by attainting his
father.

Also, Edward could not easily have awarded a different title to his
third son. There weren't many traditional royal dukedoms available.
Think of the titles borne in recent times by close relatives of the
King. Henry V's brothers were dukes of Bedford, Clarence and
Gloucester. Edward III's sons were, after the Prince of Wales, Duke
of Clarence, Duke of Lancaster, Duke of York and Duke of Gloucester.
(Have I missed any?) The duchy of Lancaster was now inextricably
linked to the Crown - any attempt to interfere with this would only
have introduced claims by the heirs of John of Gaunt. You can see for
yourself that the only title left was Duke of Bedford. And, since the
Queen's mother was the Duchess of Bedford courtesy of her former
marriage to Henry V's brother, it was a very apt title for one of her
grandsons.
I've also already set out why I believe Edward would have resented
George Neville continuing to bear this title, which he had been
granted under what one might call false pretences in order to give
him a suitable dignity as the husband of Edward's own eldest daughter
(which again shows Edward's inclination to keep the title in the
family). By 1478 George Neville's father had died a traitor and
Elizabeth was betrothed to the Dauphin.
Edward stated very clearly that he had personally desired to attaint
both Warwick and Montagu, but that his brothers had persuaded him not
to. If Richard was so keen to protect his title to the Neville lands,
then Montagu's attainder would be the obvious way to do it.

To my mind, Hicks' interpretation of Bedford's deprivation does not
stand up to scrutiny, but I think we'll have to agree to differ.

Marie





>
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > Why add Richard's name? There is no way of knowing whether
Richard
> > pushed for this or not, but as Edward was King we can assume his
> > approval, at the very least. One voice, one vote, in Parliament,
by a
> > peer with few properties and few retainers to call on, would not
have
> > been particularly scary, imo. Edward's speedy endowment of his
infant
> > son constitutes actual evidence of motive. The other is mere
Hicksian
> > insinuation
>

One last note. It is often overlooked that Warwick and clarence had
been declared traitors, and their estates confiscated, before they fled
to France (ref: Patent Rolls). I don't know the legal force of this,
but as far as Edward's regime was concerned the estates had been royal
property since long before Barnet.

However, if, as you say, Gloucester was determined to protect his title
in every way possible, then he would surely have supported, rather than
opposed, Edward's plan to attaint Montagu.

Marie

I seem to remember reading that when Montagu was killed, it was found
that he was wearing Yorkist colours under his armour. Could this
explain why he was not attainted?

The problem was that even Edward wasn't cynical enough to attaint
Montagu but not Warwick, who was surely guilty of the same treasons.
Richard wanted to claim the estates in right of his wife (Warwick's
daughter), so attainders weren't the answer.

Regarding titles:

The Earldoms of Lancaster, Hereford, Derby and Leicester were
subsumed in the Duchy of Lancaster. But then so was the Earldom of
Lincoln, which Edward revived for his nephew John de la Pole in 1467.

The Earldoms of Cambridge and Rutland were part of the Duchy of York,
but do not seem to have been in use in 1478.

The titles of Kendal, Carlisle, Huntingdon and Exeter were vacant,
and it could be argued that those of Somerset, Oxford and Richmond
were held by attainted Lancastrians and therefore available to the
crown.

Finally, Edward could have invented a new title such as "Wessex", or
devised a bogus Earldom such as that of "Rivers" which was invented
for his father-in-law.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
>
> One last note. It is often overlooked that Warwick and clarence had
> been declared traitors, and their estates confiscated, before they
fled
> to France (ref: Patent Rolls). I don't know the legal force of
this,
> but as far as Edward's regime was concerned the estates had been
royal
> property since long before Barnet.
>
> However, if, as you say, Gloucester was determined to protect his
title
> in every way possible, then he would surely have supported, rather
than
> opposed, Edward's plan to attaint Montagu.
>
> Marie
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> The problem was that even Edward wasn't cynical enough to attaint
> Montagu but not Warwick, who was surely guilty of the same
treasons.

> Richard wanted to claim the estates in right of his wife (Warwick's
> daughter), so attainders weren't the answer.

Sorry, I'm back (I hear you groan). Richard ctually did NOT claim the
Neville estates in right of his wife - as you have made amply clear,
he could not have done so. He had these by royal grant. The 1474 Act
of Parliament, of which you may be thinking, endowed Gloucester and
Clarence with Anne Beauchamp's lands ONLY, in right of their wives.
The grant to Richard of the Neville lands was made possible by the
fact that Edward had seized these from Warwick during his lifetime.
The attainders of both Warwick and Montagu might just possibly have
helped Richard's case by making George Neville's claim even more
difficult, but were not necessary. The attainders would not have
negated his own grant of the Neville lands, which had nothing to do
with inheritance. In fact, working from memory I believe richard was
granted the northern Neville lands as early as 1471, well before his
marriage to Anne.
I know Hicks has made a good scandal out of this over the past so
many years, but there's no real substance to it. Attainting Warwick
would, however, (after Richard and Anne's marriage) have deprived
both brothers of any claim through their wives to the Montagu
inheritance; the fact is, however, that George seems to have pretty
much succeeded keeping this all to himself, so he had by far the
stronger practical motive for preventing W&M being attainted.

The story that Montagu wore the Yorkist colours beneath his armour
comes from a chronicle and cannot be verified. What is clear is that
he fought and died on the Lancastrian side and that Edward himself
DID wish to attaint him - he had this fact placed on record.

>
> Regarding titles:
>
> The Earldoms of Lancaster, Hereford, Derby and Leicester were
> subsumed in the Duchy of Lancaster. But then so was the Earldom of
> Lincoln, which Edward revived for his nephew John de la Pole in
1467.
>
> The Earldoms of Cambridge and Rutland were part of the Duchy of
York,
> but do not seem to have been in use in 1478.
>
> The titles of Kendal, Carlisle, Huntingdon and Exeter were vacant,
> and it could be argued that those of Somerset, Oxford and Richmond
> were held by attainted Lancastrians and therefore available to the
> crown.

Indeed, I did say royal dukedoms, and your list bears this out. The
only one of the above titles which was a dukedom is Exeter - the
others are all mere earldoms or less. The duchy of Exeter was not a
particularly rich one and was NOT vacant - Edward had invested it in
his sister Anne and the heirs of HER body, and it was in 1478 held by
little Anne St Leger, who had been snapped up by Dorset for his own
son.
Bearing in mind the circumstances under which George Neville became
Duke of Bedford, how do you think Edward would have felt about him
continuing to bear this title given how things had turned out? Why do
you think it was the 1478 parliament which deprived him?
Why do you think Richard would have been wasting his time lobbying
for his ward's deprivation, AND when his own brother was being tried
for treason? This was the next parliament after the birth of Edward's
third son, however, and Edward's Queen might well have been
particularly keen to retrieve her late mother's title for the child.

I suggest that if Edward had valued the duchy of Bedford less he
would have given it away less carefully. The first time, he bestowed
it on the boy who was set to marry his eldest daughter (before he had
any sons); the next time, it was on one of his sons. After little
George's death he did not bestow it elsewhere - not on John de la
Pole, for instance. The next time it was bestowed was by Henry VII,
on his own uncle.

Marie

Two quick points:

Richard knew only too well that estates granted by the king from attainted traitors were usually of temporary nature only. He had been granted many such estates, particularly those of the Hungerfords and Veres, only to be forced to give them up when attainders were reversed. Only a legal, hereditory claim to estates was likely to last to form a permanent estate for his successors, which was what Richard, like all of his class, were primarily concerned to do.

The distinction between Earldoms and Dukedoms was not as clear cut as you suggest. Henry, the last Beauchamp Earl of Warwick, had his title upgraded to a Dukedom, and the Stafford had their Eardom of Buckingham upgraded in the same way. Indeed before the late 14th century there were no Dukes outside the Royal family. Edward could have awarded any of the vacant titles and upgraded them to Dukedoms if he so wished.

I wasn't aware that the title of Duke of Exeter had been awarded to Anne St. Leger. Certainly Edward (illegally) bestowed the lands of the Duchy on his sister and her heirs, but the lists of Dukes of Exeter always skips from Henry Holland to the Courtenays. Perhaps I've missed this grant as none of Anne's heirs ever bore the title.

BP
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> The problem was that even Edward wasn't cynical enough to attaint
> Montagu but not Warwick, who was surely guilty of the same
treasons.

> Richard wanted to claim the estates in right of his wife (Warwick's
> daughter), so attainders weren't the answer.

Sorry, I'm back (I hear you groan). Richard ctually did NOT claim the
Neville estates in right of his wife - as you have made amply clear,
he could not have done so. He had these by royal grant. The 1474 Act
of Parliament, of which you may be thinking, endowed Gloucester and
Clarence with Anne Beauchamp's lands ONLY, in right of their wives.
The grant to Richard of the Neville lands was made possible by the
fact that Edward had seized these from Warwick during his lifetime.
The attainders of both Warwick and Montagu might just possibly have
helped Richard's case by making George Neville's claim even more
difficult, but were not necessary. The attainders would not have
negated his own grant of the Neville lands, which had nothing to do
with inheritance. In fact, working from memory I believe richard was
granted the northern Neville lands as early as 1471, well before his
marriage to Anne.
I know Hicks has made a good scandal out of this over the past so
many years, but there's no real substance to it. Attainting Warwick
would, however, (after Richard and Anne's marriage) have deprived
both brothers of any claim through their wives to the Montagu
inheritance; the fact is, however, that George seems to have pretty
much succeeded keeping this all to himself, so he had by far the
stronger practical motive for preventing W&M being attainted.

The story that Montagu wore the Yorkist colours beneath his armour
comes from a chronicle and cannot be verified. What is clear is that
he fought and died on the Lancastrian side and that Edward himself
DID wish to attaint him - he had this fact placed on record.

>
> Regarding titles:
>
> The Earldoms of Lancaster, Hereford, Derby and Leicester were
> subsumed in the Duchy of Lancaster. But then so was the Earldom of
> Lincoln, which Edward revived for his nephew John de la Pole in
1467.
>
> The Earldoms of Cambridge and Rutland were part of the Duchy of
York,
> but do not seem to have been in use in 1478.
>
> The titles of Kendal, Carlisle, Huntingdon and Exeter were vacant,
> and it could be argued that those of Somerset, Oxford and Richmond
> were held by attainted Lancastrians and therefore available to the
> crown.

Indeed, I did say royal dukedoms, and your list bears this out. The
only one of the above titles which was a dukedom is Exeter - the
others are all mere earldoms or less. The duchy of Exeter was not a
particularly rich one and was NOT vacant - Edward had invested it in
his sister Anne and the heirs of HER body, and it was in 1478 held by
little Anne St Leger, who had been snapped up by Dorset for his own
son.
Bearing in mind the circumstances under which George Neville became
Duke of Bedford, how do you think Edward would have felt about him
continuing to bear this title given how things had turned out? Why do
you think it was the 1478 parliament which deprived him?
Why do you think Richard would have been wasting his time lobbying
for his ward's deprivation, AND when his own brother was being tried
for treason? This was the next parliament after the birth of Edward's
third son, however, and Edward's Queen might well have been
particularly keen to retrieve her late mother's title for the child.

I suggest that if Edward had valued the duchy of Bedford less he
would have given it away less carefully. The first time, he bestowed
it on the boy who was set to marry his eldest daughter (before he had
any sons); the next time, it was on one of his sons. After little
George's death he did not bestow it elsewhere - not on John de la
Pole, for instance. The next time it was bestowed was by Henry VII,
on his own uncle.

Marie





---------------------------------
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.


---------------------------------






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

--- In , david rayner
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> Two quick points:
>
> Richard knew only too well that estates granted by the king from
attainted traitors were usually of temporary nature only. He had
been granted many such estates, particularly those of the Hungerfords
and Veres, only to be forced to give them up when attainders were
reversed. Only a legal, hereditory claim to estates was likely to
last to form a permanent estate for his successors, which was what
Richard, like all of his class, were primarily concerned to do.

But Richard couldn't have an hereditary claim to the Neville estates.
It isn't an issue. Depriving Bedford of his duchy didn't in any sense
give him one. In fact, with the Bedfrod title taken off him, the
disgruntled GN is likely to have been more keen to seek compensation
elsewhere.
>
> The distinction between Earldoms and Dukedoms was not as clear cut
as you suggest. Henry, the last Beauchamp Earl of Warwick, had his
title upgraded to a Dukedom, and the Stafford had their Eardom of
Buckingham upgraded in the same way. Indeed before the late 14th
century there were no Dukes outside the Royal family. Edward could
have awarded any of the vacant titles and upgraded them to Dukedoms
if he so wished.

I'm aware of this. However, these titles weren't all one to these
folk. Certain titles had a meaning to certain families, and certain
titles had a more illustrious pedigree than others. The duchy of
Bedford is a case in point. Why should Edward settle for giving his
child a title with a less royal history and have to upgrafe it, when
this traitor's son had availed himself of the duchy of Bedford under
false pretences? I'll check the wording of the Act depriving him, to
see if it gives any further clues.
>
> I wasn't aware that the title of Duke of Exeter had been awarded
to Anne St. Leger. Certainly Edward (illegally) bestowed the lands
of the Duchy on his sister and her heirs, but the lists of Dukes of
Exeter always skips from Henry Holland to the Courtenays. Perhaps
I've missed this grant as none of Anne's heirs ever bore the title.

depends what you call illegal - the Duke himself was attainted in
November 1461. The relevant grants to his wife are dated 22 December
1461, 2 May 1462 and 1464/5. The duchy was formerly held in tail
male, as you no doubt know, and would had it not been for the Duke's
attainder have passed to his sister's son Lord Neville (later Earl of
Westmorland); Neville's father, however, had died fighting for
Lancaster at Towton. So Anne of York did very well out of her
husband's downfall although she possibly deserved it for having been
married to him at all.
The Queen was very keen to keep this duchy in her family too, and the
comparison may be of interest. You may recall that she paid the
Duchess a large sum to break off her (Holland) daughter's betrothal
to none other than our friend George Neville of Montagu, so that the
little girl could marry Dorset instead. However, Anne Holland died
sometime before 6 June 1474, on which date Dorset married Cecily
Bonville. In January 1476, the Duchess Anne died giving birth to St
Leger's daughter. As Anne had now borne St Leger a child, he got to
keep the estates. Not to be outdone, however, Dorset had very soon
(June 1477) arranged the betrothal of this new Exeter heiress to his
eldest son by Cecily Bonville. Nothing like keeping it in the family.

Anne St Leger was referred to in a parliamentary petition of 1482
as "Anne, the daughter and heir of Anne late Duchess of Exeter". This
petition, by the by, was from Dorset wanting the use of some of her
lands for himself, and an agreement that if either Anne Jr or Thomas
JR should die before they got to copulate, then she should marry
another of Dorset's sons; interestingly, this Act specifies that Anne
St Leger too was to hold the duchy in tail general.

The parliament of January 1483 again declared Anne St Leger heiress
to all the Holland estates. An entry in Harley 433 dating to May 1483
names her simply as the Duchess of Exeter. Fearing restoration of the
male heirs, however, St Leger, as we all know, joined Buckingham's
Rebellion and was executed. The Act of Parliament of January 1484
which attainted St Leger also repealed the Acts and grants whereby
his daughter had inherited the duchy - Richard's Act put forward the
interpretation that St Leger had been personally responsible for
wheedling his way into marriage with the late Duchess whilst her
husband was still alive and "inducing" Edward to have his daughter
inherit the duchy. However, despite the confirmatory Acts of 1482 and
1483, it has to be said that the mechanism whereby Anne St Leger came
to inherit was in place many years before the Duchess's second
marriage. If you want something to criticise Richard about, then I'd
say that the representation of the facts in this Act is less than
wholly honest.
So, anyway, although Richard didn't restore Lord Neville in this
parliament, he had paved the way.
And that is the story how Alittle nne St Leger came to gain and lose
a duchy.

Marie



>
> BP
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > The problem was that even Edward wasn't cynical enough to attaint
> > Montagu but not Warwick, who was surely guilty of the same
> treasons.
>
> > Richard wanted to claim the estates in right of his wife
(Warwick's
> > daughter), so attainders weren't the answer.
>
> Sorry, I'm back (I hear you groan). Richard ctually did NOT claim
the
> Neville estates in right of his wife - as you have made amply
clear,
> he could not have done so. He had these by royal grant. The 1474
Act
> of Parliament, of which you may be thinking, endowed Gloucester and
> Clarence with Anne Beauchamp's lands ONLY, in right of their wives.
> The grant to Richard of the Neville lands was made possible by the
> fact that Edward had seized these from Warwick during his lifetime.
> The attainders of both Warwick and Montagu might just possibly have
> helped Richard's case by making George Neville's claim even more
> difficult, but were not necessary. The attainders would not have
> negated his own grant of the Neville lands, which had nothing to do
> with inheritance. In fact, working from memory I believe richard
was
> granted the northern Neville lands as early as 1471, well before
his
> marriage to Anne.
> I know Hicks has made a good scandal out of this over the past so
> many years, but there's no real substance to it. Attainting Warwick
> would, however, (after Richard and Anne's marriage) have deprived
> both brothers of any claim through their wives to the Montagu
> inheritance; the fact is, however, that George seems to have pretty
> much succeeded keeping this all to himself, so he had by far the
> stronger practical motive for preventing W&M being attainted.
>
> The story that Montagu wore the Yorkist colours beneath his armour
> comes from a chronicle and cannot be verified. What is clear is
that
> he fought and died on the Lancastrian side and that Edward himself
> DID wish to attaint him - he had this fact placed on record.
>
> >
> > Regarding titles:
> >
> > The Earldoms of Lancaster, Hereford, Derby and Leicester were
> > subsumed in the Duchy of Lancaster. But then so was the Earldom
of
> > Lincoln, which Edward revived for his nephew John de la Pole in
> 1467.
> >
> > The Earldoms of Cambridge and Rutland were part of the Duchy of
> York,
> > but do not seem to have been in use in 1478.
> >
> > The titles of Kendal, Carlisle, Huntingdon and Exeter were
vacant,
> > and it could be argued that those of Somerset, Oxford and
Richmond
> > were held by attainted Lancastrians and therefore available to
the
> > crown.
>
> Indeed, I did say royal dukedoms, and your list bears this out. The
> only one of the above titles which was a dukedom is Exeter - the
> others are all mere earldoms or less. The duchy of Exeter was not a
> particularly rich one and was NOT vacant - Edward had invested it
in
> his sister Anne and the heirs of HER body, and it was in 1478 held
by
> little Anne St Leger, who had been snapped up by Dorset for his own
> son.
> Bearing in mind the circumstances under which George Neville became
> Duke of Bedford, how do you think Edward would have felt about him
> continuing to bear this title given how things had turned out? Why
do
> you think it was the 1478 parliament which deprived him?
> Why do you think Richard would have been wasting his time lobbying
> for his ward's deprivation, AND when his own brother was being
tried
> for treason? This was the next parliament after the birth of
Edward's
> third son, however, and Edward's Queen might well have been
> particularly keen to retrieve her late mother's title for the child.
>
> I suggest that if Edward had valued the duchy of Bedford less he
> would have given it away less carefully. The first time, he
bestowed
> it on the boy who was set to marry his eldest daughter (before he
had
> any sons); the next time, it was on one of his sons. After little
> George's death he did not bestow it elsewhere - not on John de la
> Pole, for instance. The next time it was bestowed was by Henry VII,
> on his own uncle.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide
with voicemail
>
>
>

> I'll check the wording of the Act depriving him, to
> see if it gives any further clues.

This is what it says (cut and pasted from Rolls of Parliament CD):-


"Wher afore this tyme, the kyng oure soverayne lord, for the gret
zeell and love he bare to John Nevell, late named Marquies
Mounttague, and oder considerations hym m\oved, erecte/[ ] and made
George Nevell, the eldest son of the seid marques, to be duke of
Bedford; and at that tyme, for the grete love his seid highnesse bare
to the seid John Nevell, purposed and intended to have guyffen to the
seid George, for sustentation of the same dignite, sufficiaunt
liffelode: and for the grett offences, unkyndnese and mysbehavynges
that the seid John Nevell hath doon and commytted to his seid
highnes, as is openly knowen, he hath no cause to departe any
liffelode to the seid George. And for so moch, as it is openly knowen
that the same George hath not, nor by enheritaunce mey have, eny
lyffelode to support the seid name, estate and dignite, or eny name
of \estate/; and ofte tymes it is sen that when eny lord is called to
high estate, and have not liffelode conveniently to support the same
dignite, it induces gret poverte, indigens, and causes oftymes grete
extortion, embracere and mayntenaunce to be had, to the grete trouble
of all such contres wher such estate shall hape to be inhabitet.
Wherfore the kyng, by the advyse and assent of his lordes spirituell
and temporell, and the comons, in this present parliament assembled,
and by the auctorite of the same, ordened, establisith and enactith,
that fro hens forth, the same erection and makyng of duke, and all
the names of dignite guyffen to the seid George, \or to the seid John
Nevell his fader/, be from hensforth voyd and of no effecte: and that
the same George, and his heires, from hens forth be no dukes, nor
marques, erle nor baron, nor be reputet nor taken for no dukes, nor
marques, erle nor baron, for no erection or creation afor made; bot
of that name of duke and marques, erle \and/ baron, in hym and his
heirez cesse and be voide, and of non effecte; the seid erection or
creation notwithstondyng."

Just for everybody else's benefit, George was still the heir of his
mother's Ingoldsthorp inheritance, but she didn't seem to be in any
imminent danger of departing this world, and anyway it wasn't exactly
up to ducal standards. From the above, anyway, it sounds as though
what Edward really feared was George's trying to claim his father's
lands and titles, not Warwick's Neville lands. And I'm sure that
would have been George's own first ambition.
"And for the grett offences, unkyndnese and mysbehavynges that the
seid John Nevell hath doon and commytted to his seid highnes, as is
openly knowen, he hath no cause to departe any liffelode to the seid
George." Well, this sounds to me like an Edward with a personal gripe.

Does anybody know how valuable the Neville Yorkshire holdings were in
monetary terms, anyway? I presume they were essentially what they had
held when the Nevilles were still a Yorkshire gentry family. It was
actually their wives' inheritances that made Salisbury and Warwick
what they were. Really, it was the wealth of Warwick, Salisbury and
Gloucester that made Middleham great, rather than the other way
about.

Marie

Dear Carol,
> Exactly. And there's always the old argument that if they were dead
> and if it were in his interest for them to be so, he would have
> shown the bodies (as Edward did for Henry VI), along with some
> official story comparable to the "pure displeasure and melancholy"
> version of Henry's death. Of course, the official cause of death
> would have to be plague or sweating sickness. But since there was
> no such announcement (and no display of children's bodies), there's
> no reason except deliberately spread rumors and "Some Bones" that
> could be Roman girls for all we know to believe otherwise.


On the other hand, if they died of natural causes while Richard was
on progress, Brackenbury might have panicked. Who would believe it if
they were set out as having died of fever or something? There was
already hostility. The King was out of immediate reach to consult.
He'd have to do something with the bodies quickly. (It was summer,
and getting embalmers in would raise more questions  involving more
people who'd need to be kept quiet.) Richard would only have found
out too late.

>> > I did check the Spanish and Portuguese sources (or, more
>> accurately, I had them checked for me) and it was the case that
>> Richard was in discussion with Spain for the hand of the Infanta
>> Isabella (born 1470) as well as with Portugal for the princess
>> Joanna. Joanna would have scored high marks as the senior female
>> Lancastrian heir, which meant that a marriage with her would have
>> united the remaining *legitimate* heirs of Lancaster and York.
>
> Thanks. So, politically, she would have been an excellent choice--
> all the ostensible advantages of marrying Elizabeth of York with
> none of the (in my view) obvious disadvantages. But I doubt that
> she spoke English, and unless she spoke French (or they attempted
> to converse in Latin like Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon at
> a later date--though there would have been no Prince Arthur if
> Richard had won Bosworth). She was close to Richard's age, an
> advantage for compatibility, and not too old to have children, but
> if she was a pious and nunlike as her reputation suggests, it
> probably wouldn't have been a happy marriage, just an affair of
> state for the official purpose of begetting an heir.


Or she may have adjusted to it as some other very pious ladies did,
seeing it as part of her Christian duty to her country. She could
have got on well with Cecily, given her religious interests, and
shared Richard's interest in founding chantries and collegiate
churches. One could see a solid, working relationship developing.

Alternatives:
Unfortunately, the 2 French princesses were already married (Anne
would have been a great choice, had she been single  a gifted and
good-looking lady).
Anne of Britanny was far too young.
best wishes,
Doc M