More inheritance puzzles

Hi all,

I've been following the film thread with interest. I was nevere into
the Carry On film either but I do love that "infamy" line. I've often
thought in passing that Johnny Depp has the right looks for Richard.
I think he could probably play the part too, but isn't it so hard to
guess unless you've actually seen the person in a similar role? I
think Clive Owen might be a we bit too solidly built.
Could Ray Winston do a Lancashire accent?

But to get to what I was about to say. I've just been rereading an
article by Hicks in an old ricardian on the business of the Neville
inheritance. He starts, of course, with his old saw "Richard had
chosen quite deliberately to secure Anne's lands by inheritance, not
by royalgrant", which as you all know by now, maketh no sense to me.

Also, he complains that the claims of the Countess of Warwick's half-
sisters were ignored in 1474, as if Richard was being nefarious
again. As previously discussed, however, the Countess's half-sisters
had no legal claim as Anne Beauchamp had inherited from her full
brother, which excluded his half-sisters even though they were older
than Anne. Hicks is a bit wicked sometimes.

Anyway, I'm wondering if he's got the "true heir" question right at
all. He rightly points outthat, because these lands were held in tail
male, immediately after Barnet George Neville would have been the
heir (had Edward not already confiscated the lands in question, a
point Hicks glosses over). He then goes on to argue that after George
Neville's death the "rightful owner" was Richard, Lord Latimer. He
doesn't explain why, but he does provide a family tree. It would
appear he hit on Latimer because he was the nearest relative in the
male line.
However, does tail male mean descent through the male line only, or
just inheritance by a male, possibly through the female line? I ask
this because Exeter's heir was held to be his sister's son, Lord
Neville, and I have read that his estates were held in tail male; if
that is incorrect, of course, Lord Neville may only have become the
proper heir after the death of Exeter's daughter, but this is not
what the articles I have read suggest.
I tried looking up the meaning on the legal-terms website and it
just gave "inheritance by a male". Do we have any lawyers amongst us
who can shed any light on this, because if we could have descent
through the female line, then - given that the estates had never
actually passed beyond the Kingmaker - after the birth of Edward,
Earl of Warwick, he would perhaps have had a prior claim as being of
direct descent. Even if George Neville was the "rightful" owner at
his death, that interpretation would tend to give the male offspring
of his sisters first place afterwards.

Is there anything in this, or am I talking nonsense? I can't somehow
believe that, if George Neville and Lord Latimer had such inheritance
potential, the Woodvilles would not have got hold of them. Dorset,
for instance, secured both the heiresses of the duchy of Exeter in
turn, and young Warwick. Nobody showed much interest in George
Neville and Latimer, however. Latimer had apparently been in the
guardianship of Archbishop Bourchier, then Richard sold the wardship
to Sir Humphrey Stafford of Grafton for £100. He could have married
either of these lads to his own daughter Katherine if he'd worried
about their potential. Of course, Hicks has it that Richard was
deliberately looking for a family who couldn't challenge him. Richard
would have been one very surprised spook, then, in 1486 when Humphrey
Stafford raised the Midlands to depose Henry VII.

Any lawyers out there, please?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been following the film thread with interest. I was nevere into
> the Carry On film either but I do love that "infamy" line. I've often
> thought in passing that Johnny Depp has the right looks for Richard.
> I think he could probably play the part too, but isn't it so hard to
> guess unless you've actually seen the person in a similar role? I
> think Clive Owen might be a we bit too solidly built.
> Could Ray Winston do a Lancashire accent?

No Katy I dont think Ray Winston can do a Lancashire Accent or would even want to - in
fact when he done Henry Vlll he made him sound like a barrow boy from the Old Kent
Road! - BUT - he's blooming good!

Best wishes Eileen



> But to get to what I was about to say. I've just been rereading an
> article by Hicks in an old ricardian on the business of the Neville
> inheritance. He starts, of course, with his old saw "Richard had
> chosen quite deliberately to secure Anne's lands by inheritance, not
> by royalgrant", which as you all know by now, maketh no sense to me.
>
> Also, he complains that the claims of the Countess of Warwick's half-
> sisters were ignored in 1474, as if Richard was being nefarious
> again. As previously discussed, however, the Countess's half-sisters
> had no legal claim as Anne Beauchamp had inherited from her full
> brother, which excluded his half-sisters even though they were older
> than Anne. Hicks is a bit wicked sometimes.
>
> Anyway, I'm wondering if he's got the "true heir" question right at
> all. He rightly points outthat, because these lands were held in tail
> male, immediately after Barnet George Neville would have been the
> heir (had Edward not already confiscated the lands in question, a
> point Hicks glosses over). He then goes on to argue that after George
> Neville's death the "rightful owner" was Richard, Lord Latimer. He
> doesn't explain why, but he does provide a family tree. It would
> appear he hit on Latimer because he was the nearest relative in the
> male line.
> However, does tail male mean descent through the male line only, or
> just inheritance by a male, possibly through the female line? I ask
> this because Exeter's heir was held to be his sister's son, Lord
> Neville, and I have read that his estates were held in tail male; if
> that is incorrect, of course, Lord Neville may only have become the
> proper heir after the death of Exeter's daughter, but this is not
> what the articles I have read suggest.
> I tried looking up the meaning on the legal-terms website and it
> just gave "inheritance by a male". Do we have any lawyers amongst us
> who can shed any light on this, because if we could have descent
> through the female line, then - given that the estates had never
> actually passed beyond the Kingmaker - after the birth of Edward,
> Earl of Warwick, he would perhaps have had a prior claim as being of
> direct descent. Even if George Neville was the "rightful" owner at
> his death, that interpretation would tend to give the male offspring
> of his sisters first place afterwards.
>
> Is there anything in this, or am I talking nonsense? I can't somehow
> believe that, if George Neville and Lord Latimer had such inheritance
> potential, the Woodvilles would not have got hold of them. Dorset,
> for instance, secured both the heiresses of the duchy of Exeter in
> turn, and young Warwick. Nobody showed much interest in George
> Neville and Latimer, however. Latimer had apparently been in the
> guardianship of Archbishop Bourchier, then Richard sold the wardship
> to Sir Humphrey Stafford of Grafton for £100. He could have married
> either of these lads to his own daughter Katherine if he'd worried
> about their potential. Of course, Hicks has it that Richard was
> deliberately looking for a family who couldn't challenge him. Richard
> would have been one very surprised spook, then, in 1486 when Humphrey
> Stafford raised the Midlands to depose Henry VII.
>
> Any lawyers out there, please?
>
> Marie
>

On Jan 5, 2006, at 22:30, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> Could Ray Winston do a Lancashire accent?
If you'd seen his Henry VIII you wouldn't even mention him in the same
breath as any actor. He has one accent. East End.
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

On Jan 5, 2006, at 23:35, eileen wrote:

> No Katy I dont think Ray Winston can do a Lancashire Accent or would
> even want to - in
> fact when he done Henry Vlll he made him sound like a barrow boy from
> the Old Kent
> Road! - BUT - he's blooming good!
I totally disagree, gangsters apart!
Paul

"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

I've just seen Winstone in Sweeney Todd. He could have been born to
play this...

My choice for Richard would be Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who played
Queerstrike in Gormonghast. Branagh would have been a great
Buckingham, but he's now too old.
I believe Maggie Smith did play the Duchess of York in the Ian
McKellen "fascist" version of Shakespeare's Travesty.

One twist I imagined was to cast the Woodvilles with black actors to
illustrate the hostility of the "old nobility" to what they consider
to be upstart commoners. This was so vivid an image I now tend to
think of the Woodvilles as black!

On the inheritance question, tale male refers to an UNBROKEN male
line. This was becoming increasingly popular amongst landowners who
wanted to keep their estates together under the family name, thus
cutting out daughters inheriting the lands. The wills would usually
contain a clause by which the estates would revert to the senior heir
(s) general (female lines) ONLY in the event of their being no
unbroken male line.
The kingdom of France decended under this law, the "Salic" Law, and
this was disputed by Edward III of England (the heir general) which
caused the Hundred Years War. One could also claim that the Wars of
the Roses were fought on a similar question between the heirs male
(Lancaster) and the heirs general (York).

Regarding the Carry Ons, I find them embarrasingly unfunny with one
exception - Carry on Cleo.

BP

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2006, at 23:35, eileen wrote:
>
> > No Katy I dont think Ray Winston can do a Lancashire Accent or
would
> > even want to - in
> > fact when he done Henry Vlll he made him sound like a barrow boy
from
> > the Old Kent
> > Road! - BUT - he's blooming good!
> I totally disagree, gangsters apart!
> Paul
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> I've just seen Winstone in Sweeney Todd. He could have been born
to
> play this...
>
> My choice for Richard would be Jonathan Rhys Meyers, who played
> Queerstrike in Gormonghast. Branagh would have been a great
> Buckingham, but he's now too old.
> I believe Maggie Smith did play the Duchess of York in the Ian
> McKellen "fascist" version of Shakespeare's Travesty.
>
> One twist I imagined was to cast the Woodvilles with black actors
to
> illustrate the hostility of the "old nobility" to what they
consider
> to be upstart commoners. This was so vivid an image I now tend to
> think of the Woodvilles as black!
>
> On the inheritance question, tale male refers to an UNBROKEN male
> line. This was becoming increasingly popular amongst landowners
who
> wanted to keep their estates together under the family name, thus
> cutting out daughters inheriting the lands. The wills would
usually
> contain a clause by which the estates would revert to the senior
heir
> (s) general (female lines) ONLY in the event of their being no
> unbroken male line.
> The kingdom of France decended under this law, the "Salic" Law, and
> this was disputed by Edward III of England (the heir general) which
> caused the Hundred Years War. One could also claim that the Wars of
> the Roses were fought on a similar question between the heirs male
> (Lancaster) and the heirs general (York).

Are you sure? As I say, the historians I've read on the Exeter
inheritance state that these estates were held in tail male, and
there's no doubt that the true heir was held to be Lord Neville, son
of Exeter's sister Anne. I've been doing some more thinking on that
one, and I'm pretty sure said sister was still alive at the time, so
this couldn't have been a tail general descent. Can you shed any
light on this one for me, because I find it rather a sticking point?
Surely the Salic Law was something which applied to the French (and
some other continental) dynasties, and isn't necessarily the same as
English "tail male" land inheritance. Edward III's argument for his
claim to the French throne, after all, was that the Salic Law did not
operate in England. If the general consensus in England in the late
Midle Ages regarding the descent of the crown was based on English
land tenure, then it does indeed suggest that tail male allowed for
inheritance through the female line though not by a female.
Perhaps what the landowners would have wanted in plumping for tail
male was deescent of the family holding intact, rather than in the
same surname, because tail general left all daughters as co-
heiresses?

Any lawyers out there?

Marie

PS I've just been perusing McFarlane's "The Nobility of Later
Medieval England", and come across another case of tail male
apparently descending through the female line (if surnames are
anything to go by): viz the heir of John Hastings, 2nd Earl of
Pembroke "was his second cousin once removed, Reynold, Lord Grey of
Ruthin. . . . Reynold Grey's . . . "

McFarlane doesn't really define 'tail male', observing only that "An
heiress carried her inheritance out of the family; coheiresses in
additon broke into into fragments. Their occurrence was
understandably disliked. Both use and entail were employed to retain
the estates in the hands of the family's male members, or at least to
give them a preference; only in the event of a total failure of male
heirs were they to 'fall among the spindles'."

Entail apparently originally provided protection from forfeiture for
treason, but this stopped in 1398. Also, apparently, a case of 1472
ruled that a landowner could bar an entail by an action known
as "common recovery", thus ensuring inheritance by his daughters
rather than a male heir who was not his own child. Not that Warwick
had done this, but it does suggest a current sense that such entails
(which were only devices drawn up by some ancestor to control his
descendants) were not entirely just.
If George Neville/ Latimer were to have asserted themselves as
the "true heirs", citing the entail, then they would in fact have
been arguing the case for our friend Ralph Lord Neville again, as the
true heir of the Earl of Westmoreland under the entail had been the
eldest son of the Earl's first marriage. Salisbury's own inheritance
of the lands, although willed by his father, had been illegal. The
actual evidence suggests that the only person who ever picked a
quarrel over Richard's tenure of the Neville lands was brother George.

Marie

PS. But I'd still love a full explanation of the rules for
determining the male heir.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> PS I've just been perusing McFarlane's "The Nobility of Later
> Medieval England", and come across another case of tail male
> apparently descending through the female line (if surnames are
> anything to go by): viz the heir of John Hastings, 2nd Earl of
> Pembroke "was his second cousin once removed, Reynold, Lord Grey of
> Ruthin. . . . Reynold Grey's . . . "


I'm not working from any notes, since I'm not at home, but does the
duchy of Norfolk provide an example of descent to a male through the
female line? When John Mowbray, the 4th duke, died in 1476 without a
male heir, John Howard became the next Duke of Norfolk because his
grandmother, IIRC, was the sister of the second duke.


> If George Neville/ Latimer were to have asserted themselves as
> the "true heirs", citing the entail, then they would in fact have
> been arguing the case for our friend Ralph Lord Neville again, as
the
> true heir of the Earl of Westmoreland under the entail had been the
> eldest son of the Earl's first marriage.

Is this the George Neville, Lord Latimer, who was mentally
deficient? There was some heated litigation over some property he
sold or otherwise signed away, with the point of contention being
whether he was "an idiot born" and thus incapable of ever entering
into a legal contract, or if he had been competent at some time and
then at some point rendered mentally incompetent by illness or injury
and when this might have occurred in relation to the transfer of
property.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> >
> > PS I've just been perusing McFarlane's "The Nobility of Later
> > Medieval England", and come across another case of tail male
> > apparently descending through the female line (if surnames are
> > anything to go by): viz the heir of John Hastings, 2nd Earl of
> > Pembroke "was his second cousin once removed, Reynold, Lord Grey
of
> > Ruthin. . . . Reynold Grey's . . . "
>
>
> I'm not working from any notes, since I'm not at home, but does the
> duchy of Norfolk provide an example of descent to a male through
the
> female line? When John Mowbray, the 4th duke, died in 1476 without
a
> male heir, John Howard became the next Duke of Norfolk because his
> grandmother, IIRC, was the sister of the second duke.

Mm, probably not. The Duchy of Norfolk can't have been held in tail
male, since little Anne Mowbray was Duchess. The Hastings property
referred to above apparently was.
>
>
> > If George Neville/ Latimer were to have asserted themselves as
> > the "true heirs", citing the entail, then they would in fact have
> > been arguing the case for our friend Ralph Lord Neville again, as
> the
> > true heir of the Earl of Westmoreland under the entail had been
the
> > eldest son of the Earl's first marriage.
>
> Is this the George Neville, Lord Latimer, who was mentally
> deficient? There was some heated litigation over some property he
> sold or otherwise signed away, with the point of contention being
> whether he was "an idiot born" and thus incapable of ever entering
> into a legal contract, or if he had been competent at some time and
> then at some point rendered mentally incompetent by illness or
injury
> and when this might have occurred in relation to the transfer of
> property.
>
> Katy

Sorry, should have been clearer. According to Hicks, the rightful
owners of the Neville lands (ie strictly Neville lands - those
inherited from Westmorland) after Barnet were, first, George Neville
son of Montagu, then after his death Richard Lord Latimer, son of
George.
The more I read, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that medieval
inheritance law was a minefield. Which is what all the historians say
it was, but it's hard to see why till you start looking into a few
cases. There were so many ways of avoiding the strict laws of
primogeniture - enfeoffments, entails, etc, and even where the law
was clear it was so often not observed that a large number of estates
must have transferred illegally at some point in their history and
therefore be theoretically open to challenge from a rival candidate.
But it wasn't a worry for powerful families: it was the weaker ones
that got preyed on. So I do feel that Hicks' scenario of Richard
spending the 1470s worrying himself silly about George Neville
(Bedford), and panicked in 1483 by his insecure tenure of his
Yorkshire lands vis-a-vis young Latimer, is a bit fairytale. He is
far more likely to have been afraid that his 1471 grant would be
revoked by Edward V at the instigation of his Woodville relatives,
and added to Crown lands. Even so, it would be hard for the
Woodvilles to move against someone with a power base as great as
Richard's without first getting hold of his person. Which, I suppose,
possibly brings us to Northampton and June 13th in the Tower.
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> The more I read, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that medieval
> inheritance law was a minefield. Which is what all the historians say
> it was, but it's hard to see why till you start looking into a few
> cases.


I would bet that Medieval England had more lawyers per square foot than
we have in the present time.

Katy

The Mowbray Duchy of Norfolk was held in tail male. The following is
similar to something i posted on LMB many years ago.

After the death of the 4th Duke - the estates not held in dower by the two
surviving widows - Elizabeth Talbot, and the elderly Catherine Neville (wife
of the 4th Duke and wife of the 2nd Duke respectively) passed to his only
child Anne Mowbray. However the titles that Mowbray had held (at least the
major ones) were extinct in the male line and reverted to the crown. In
July of 1476 - Richard Duke of York was created Earl of Nottingham and in
the February of 1477 he was also created Duke of Norfolk and Earl Warrenne
he married Anne Mowbray in February of 1478.

After Anne's death - then certainly the Mowbray Co-Heirs could have expected
to fight over the estates until there was a clear division but that had
nothing to do with the actual titles

The Principal Berkeley heir - William Lord Berkeley surrendered to Edward IV
his rights to any part of the Mowbray inheritance in 1476 in return Edward
cancelled Berkeley's debts of some £37,000 (principally these debts were to
the Crown and the Talbot family with whom the Berkeley's had feuded) -
William was also raised to a Viscountcy.

In the Parliament of 1483 an Act of Parliament vested the Mowbray lands in
the person of Richard Duke of York & Norfolk and his heirs and failing his
heirs to the heirs of the King instead. In other words Edward was intended
that the entire estate should if his son had no children revert to the
Crown. William Berkeley again waived his rights to any part of the estates.

Returning to the titles for a moment - at no time can Howard and Berkeley
really have thought they might have a chance of inheriting them - until
Mowbray's death in 76 it was likely he would have a son and heir (he died
when he was about 32). Titles and estates do not necessarily go together
and certainly not to co-heirs and in Mowbray's case while his daughter lived
the co-heirs couldn't really expect to inherit either.

In most cases looking at the other examples given - when a male line died
out - the co-heirs usually fought, bribed and argued over all the lands
until a settlement was reached - that usually meant that the last man
standing copped for the bulk of the holdings or the crown intervened and
divided it all up between their favourites amongst the co-heirs. Almost all
the severe and often violent disputes at this period between and sometimes
within families were caused by disputes over property and many became
violent or ended up in the courts for years - medieval society was highly
litigious (how times change eh <g>). The descent of titles is different
usually the senior ones Earldoms for example were assumed to have died out
or in the most famous cases ended up with the husband of the senior female
co-heir as a new creation - Salisbury and Warwick (whilst the other co-heirs
would get scraps of the estate if they were lucky). Reality was that a
strict reading of the law was rarely applied and almost irrelevant apart
from amongst the embittered losers in any dispute.

Effectively in 1476 Edward preparing for his son's marriage decided as he
was legally entitled to do to grant titles previously held by the Mowbrays
in male tail to his son in his own right and creating him so before his
marriage meant that Edward obviously did not wish the grants to involve Anne
Mowbray. Most senior peerages were not treated as if they could be
inherited in the female line. As few patents for peerages created at this
time and earlier survive it has become very hard to determine what
limitations titles had originally been granted - male tail, heirs of the
body of the grantee, heirs male, heirs general etc - however as a rule of
thumb by this period it seems that with the exception of Baronies most
titles were treated as passing to the male heirs only and then becoming
extinct. In some cases heiresses husbands were granted them but usually
care was taken to grant them as a new creation with new limitations -
certainly Howard's creation was regarded as brand new and not hereditary -
he is referred to as the 1st Duke of Norfolk not the 5th Duke of Norfolk.

Ultimately Richard III granted the Dukedom as a new creation to the senior
co-heir along with some of the land holdings Though it seems he retained
the Berkeley share for the crown presumably having plenty of time for
Edward's 1476 deal with them - though they got another sop - the Earldom of
Nottingham again in a new creation.





----- Original Message -----
From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: More inheritance puzzles


> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
>> <marie@r...> wrote:
>> >
>> > PS I've just been perusing McFarlane's "The Nobility of Later
>> > Medieval England", and come across another case of tail male
>> > apparently descending through the female line (if surnames are
>> > anything to go by): viz the heir of John Hastings, 2nd Earl of
>> > Pembroke "was his second cousin once removed, Reynold, Lord Grey
> of
>> > Ruthin. . . . Reynold Grey's . . . "
>>
>>
>> I'm not working from any notes, since I'm not at home, but does the
>> duchy of Norfolk provide an example of descent to a male through
> the
>> female line? When John Mowbray, the 4th duke, died in 1476 without
> a
>> male heir, John Howard became the next Duke of Norfolk because his
>> grandmother, IIRC, was the sister of the second duke.
>
> Mm, probably not. The Duchy of Norfolk can't have been held in tail
> male, since little Anne Mowbray was Duchess. The Hastings property
> referred to above apparently was.
>>
>>
>> > If George Neville/ Latimer were to have asserted themselves as
>> > the "true heirs", citing the entail, then they would in fact have
>> > been arguing the case for our friend Ralph Lord Neville again, as
>> the
>> > true heir of the Earl of Westmoreland under the entail had been
> the
>> > eldest son of the Earl's first marriage.
>>
>> Is this the George Neville, Lord Latimer, who was mentally
>> deficient? There was some heated litigation over some property he
>> sold or otherwise signed away, with the point of contention being
>> whether he was "an idiot born" and thus incapable of ever entering
>> into a legal contract, or if he had been competent at some time and
>> then at some point rendered mentally incompetent by illness or
> injury
>> and when this might have occurred in relation to the transfer of
>> property.
>>
>> Katy
>
> Sorry, should have been clearer. According to Hicks, the rightful
> owners of the Neville lands (ie strictly Neville lands - those
> inherited from Westmorland) after Barnet were, first, George Neville
> son of Montagu, then after his death Richard Lord Latimer, son of
> George.
> The more I read, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that medieval
> inheritance law was a minefield. Which is what all the historians say
> it was, but it's hard to see why till you start looking into a few
> cases. There were so many ways of avoiding the strict laws of
> primogeniture - enfeoffments, entails, etc, and even where the law
> was clear it was so often not observed that a large number of estates
> must have transferred illegally at some point in their history and
> therefore be theoretically open to challenge from a rival candidate.
> But it wasn't a worry for powerful families: it was the weaker ones
> that got preyed on. So I do feel that Hicks' scenario of Richard
> spending the 1470s worrying himself silly about George Neville
> (Bedford), and panicked in 1483 by his insecure tenure of his
> Yorkshire lands vis-a-vis young Latimer, is a bit fairytale. He is
> far more likely to have been afraid that his 1471 grant would be
> revoked by Edward V at the instigation of his Woodville relatives,
> and added to Crown lands. Even so, it would be hard for the
> Woodvilles to move against someone with a power base as great as
> Richard's without first getting hold of his person. Which, I suppose,
> possibly brings us to Northampton and June 13th in the Tower.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am a lawyer and I teach property law, so here goes!

Tail male involves inheritance by males exclusively through the male line. This is why in Pride and Prejudice Mrs Bennet was so keen that Elizabeth should marry Mr Collins. As Mr Bennet only had daughters the heir to his property was his closest male relation in the male line. It is not clear how Mr Collins was related to Mr Bennet - they presumably had a common ancestor in the original creator of the entail. It is rather odd that Mr Collins is called Collins and not Bennet!

Normally, an entail would be created by a landowner so that his lands could be kept intact and not divided among co-heiresses. This was particularly appropriate if he was also a peer. Most peerages effectively pass in tail male, so by placing the lands under an entail the lands would pass to the same person as the peerage. This would usually be done by will by which the original landowner left the specified lands to 'heirs male of his body'. This means that the first heir had to be the landowner's son or remoter male line descendant (grandson or great-grandson), but thereafter, if the landholder under the entail had no legitimate sons, the property could pass to his brother or a more distant relation, provided he was a male line descendant of the original landowner. A landowner could also create an entail for the heirs male of his body by a particular marriage - this is what Ralph Neville did with Middleham, Penrith and Sheriff Hutton, in favour of his heirs male by Joan Beaufort,
and to the disgust of the heirs male of his first marriage, who, of course, inherited the earldom of Westmorland.

It was possible to bring an entail to an end by a procedure known as 'barring' an entail, but I don't know whether this existed in the 15th century, when entails were fairly new (they first appear in the late 13th century). However, this could only be done by the existing landowner acting with his heir male, who had to be over 21 and, further, there could be no other male heirs in the direct line from the landholder seeking to bar the entail. There was effectively a window of opportunity when the landholder's eldest son was over 21 but before he had sons.

George Neville, Lord Latimer, was the second surviving son of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland by the marriage to Joan Beaufort. Therefore, when all the male descendants in the male line from his elder brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, were dead, the next heir under the entail was Latimer's senior surviving male line descendant, his grandson, Richard Neville, Lord Latimer.

Hope this helps

Ann

Hope that helps.

What he said.

In the case of the Exeter estates, the death of Henry Holland
rendered the male line extinct. This made the tail male a dead
letter, enabling inheritance by a woman. If there had been a junior
male Holland descendent alive HE would have been the legal heir.
Depending on the wording of the original entail, Edward IV could have
used the extinction as justification for granting the estates to his
sister and stepson. For example, some magnates willed their lands in
tail male with remainder (next succession) to the King, cutting out
female heirs altogether. This was rare however, as remainders would
usually name female heirs in the event of an extinction.
The Hastings of Pembroke case is a famous legal affair, confused by
the birth of a postumous son to the Earl. The heir general (Grey of
Ruthyn) could claim that the lad had never had seisin of the estates.
The King overuled Grey and took the Earldom, granting Abergavenney to
the Beauchamp Earl of Worcester. Grey however managed to force a
compromise whereby he gained most of the Hastings estates (and the
right to use the Hastings and Valence arms).
Edward was playing a dangerous game when he deprived Howard and
Berkely of the Norfolk inheritance. They became supporters of the
usurpation and Richard granted them each a share of the titles and
estates. In this case the lands were divided with the titles, as
Howard got the Bigod/Brotherton/Segrave lands plus the Dukedom of
Norfolk and Earldom of Surrey, while Berkeley got the old Mowbray
lands in Yorkshire and the north midlands together with the first
Mowbray Earldom of Nottingham.
Legally these titles, and others such as the Neville's aquisition of
the Salisbury and Warwick titles, were new creations. In practice
however most titles were allowed to descend through a female heir
with the new creation a mere legal formality. Of course the King was
entitled to refuse these creations, giving him a powerful stick with
which to keep his magnates in line.



--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> I am a lawyer and I teach property law, so here goes!
>
> Tail male involves inheritance by males exclusively through the
male line. This is why in Pride and Prejudice Mrs Bennet was so keen
that Elizabeth should marry Mr Collins. As Mr Bennet only had
daughters the heir to his property was his closest male relation in
the male line. It is not clear how Mr Collins was related to Mr
Bennet - they presumably had a common ancestor in the original
creator of the entail. It is rather odd that Mr Collins is called
Collins and not Bennet!
>
> Normally, an entail would be created by a landowner so that his
lands could be kept intact and not divided among co-heiresses. This
was particularly appropriate if he was also a peer. Most peerages
effectively pass in tail male, so by placing the lands under an
entail the lands would pass to the same person as the peerage. This
would usually be done by will by which the original landowner left
the specified lands to 'heirs male of his body'. This means that the
first heir had to be the landowner's son or remoter male line
descendant (grandson or great-grandson), but thereafter, if the
landholder under the entail had no legitimate sons, the property
could pass to his brother or a more distant relation, provided he was
a male line descendant of the original landowner. A landowner could
also create an entail for the heirs male of his body by a particular
marriage - this is what Ralph Neville did with Middleham, Penrith and
Sheriff Hutton, in favour of his heirs male by Joan Beaufort,
> and to the disgust of the heirs male of his first marriage, who,
of course, inherited the earldom of Westmorland.
>
> It was possible to bring an entail to an end by a procedure known
as 'barring' an entail, but I don't know whether this existed in the
15th century, when entails were fairly new (they first appear in the
late 13th century). However, this could only be done by the existing
landowner acting with his heir male, who had to be over 21 and,
further, there could be no other male heirs in the direct line from
the landholder seeking to bar the entail. There was effectively a
window of opportunity when the landholder's eldest son was over 21
but before he had sons.
>
> George Neville, Lord Latimer, was the second surviving son of
Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland by the marriage to Joan Beaufort.
Therefore, when all the male descendants in the male line from his
elder brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, were dead, the
next heir under the entail was Latimer's senior surviving male line
descendant, his grandson, Richard Neville, Lord Latimer.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Ann
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
>
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> What he said.
>
> In the case of the Exeter estates, the death of Henry Holland
> rendered the male line extinct. This made the tail male a dead
> letter, enabling inheritance by a woman. If there had been a
junior
> male Holland descendent alive HE would have been the legal heir.
> Depending on the wording of the original entail, Edward IV could
have
> used the extinction as justification for granting the estates to
his
> sister and stepson. For example, some magnates willed their lands
in
> tail male with remainder (next succession) to the King, cutting out
> female heirs altogether. This was rare however, as remainders
would
> usually name female heirs in the event of an extinction.
> The Hastings of Pembroke case is a famous legal affair, confused by
> the birth of a postumous son to the Earl. The heir general (Grey of
> Ruthyn) could claim that the lad had never had seisin of the
estates.
> The King overuled Grey and took the Earldom, granting Abergavenney
to
> the Beauchamp Earl of Worcester. Grey however managed to force a
> compromise whereby he gained most of the Hastings estates (and the
> right to use the Hastings and Valence arms).
> Edward was playing a dangerous game when he deprived Howard and
> Berkely of the Norfolk inheritance. They became supporters of the
> usurpation and Richard granted them each a share of the titles and
> estates. In this case the lands were divided with the titles, as
> Howard got the Bigod/Brotherton/Segrave lands plus the Dukedom of
> Norfolk and Earldom of Surrey, while Berkeley got the old Mowbray
> lands in Yorkshire and the north midlands together with the first
> Mowbray Earldom of Nottingham.
> Legally these titles, and others such as the Neville's aquisition
of
> the Salisbury and Warwick titles, were new creations. In practice
> however most titles were allowed to descend through a female heir
> with the new creation a mere legal formality. Of course the King
was
> entitled to refuse these creations, giving him a powerful stick
with
> which to keep his magnates in line.
>
> ...... and this "smuggling" of higher titles through the female
line didn't stop in 1485. The Earldom of Essex, excepting Thomas
Cromwell's 56 days, was transmitted from the Bourchiers to the
Devereaux, who married a Bourchier heiress, in the next century.
Similarly, Henry VIII's niece, Frances Brandon was her parents' last
surviving child so her their Duchy of Suffolk passed to Henry Grey,
her husband. There is the 1640 example of William Howard marrying
Mary Stafford.
These are but three examples, yet there must be hundreds of extinct
titles where descendants through the female line exist. Regardless of
their theoretical social rank, some heiresses and their husbands were
obviously rather more influential than others.

Stephen
>
> --- In , A LYON
<A.Lyon1@b...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am a lawyer and I teach property law, so here goes!
> >
> > Tail male involves inheritance by males exclusively through the
> male line. This is why in Pride and Prejudice Mrs Bennet was so
keen
> that Elizabeth should marry Mr Collins. As Mr Bennet only had
> daughters the heir to his property was his closest male relation in
> the male line. It is not clear how Mr Collins was related to Mr
> Bennet - they presumably had a common ancestor in the original
> creator of the entail. It is rather odd that Mr Collins is called
> Collins and not Bennet!
> >
> > Normally, an entail would be created by a landowner so that his
> lands could be kept intact and not divided among co-heiresses. This
> was particularly appropriate if he was also a peer. Most peerages
> effectively pass in tail male, so by placing the lands under an
> entail the lands would pass to the same person as the peerage. This
> would usually be done by will by which the original landowner left
> the specified lands to 'heirs male of his body'. This means that
the
> first heir had to be the landowner's son or remoter male line
> descendant (grandson or great-grandson), but thereafter, if the
> landholder under the entail had no legitimate sons, the property
> could pass to his brother or a more distant relation, provided he
was
> a male line descendant of the original landowner. A landowner could
> also create an entail for the heirs male of his body by a
particular
> marriage - this is what Ralph Neville did with Middleham, Penrith
and
> Sheriff Hutton, in favour of his heirs male by Joan Beaufort,
> > and to the disgust of the heirs male of his first marriage, who,
> of course, inherited the earldom of Westmorland.
> >
> > It was possible to bring an entail to an end by a procedure
known
> as 'barring' an entail, but I don't know whether this existed in
the
> 15th century, when entails were fairly new (they first appear in
the
> late 13th century). However, this could only be done by the
existing
> landowner acting with his heir male, who had to be over 21 and,
> further, there could be no other male heirs in the direct line from
> the landholder seeking to bar the entail. There was effectively a
> window of opportunity when the landholder's eldest son was over 21
> but before he had sons.
> >
> > George Neville, Lord Latimer, was the second surviving son of
> Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland by the marriage to Joan
Beaufort.
> Therefore, when all the male descendants in the male line from his
> elder brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, were dead, the
> next heir under the entail was Latimer's senior surviving male line
> descendant, his grandson, Richard Neville, Lord Latimer.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
> I am a lawyer and I teach property law, so here goes!
>
> Tail male involves inheritance by males exclusively through the
male line. This is why in Pride and Prejudice Mrs Bennet was so keen
that Elizabeth should marry Mr Collins. As Mr Bennet only had
daughters the heir to his property was his closest male relation in
the male line. It is not clear how Mr Collins was related to Mr
Bennet - they presumably had a common ancestor in the original
creator of the entail. It is rather odd that Mr Collins is called
Collins and not Bennet!

I obviously accept your definition as you are a property lawyer. But,
yes, it is rather odd that Mr Collins was Mr Collins and not Mr
Bennet, isn't it? Then there is the "tail male" case of the Hastings
with a Grey heir mentioned in McFarlane, and the Neville heir to the
tail male Exeter duchy (who was certainly related through the female
line).


>
> Normally, an entail would be created by a landowner so that his
lands could be kept intact and not divided among co-heiresses.

Which would obviously necessitate limiting to male heirs, but not
necessarily strictly through the male line.

>This was particularly appropriate if he was also a peer. Most
peerages effectively pass in tail male, so by placing the lands under
an entail the lands would pass to the same person as the peerage.
This would usually be done by will by which the original landowner
left the specified lands to 'heirs male of his body'. This means that
the first heir had to be the landowner's son or remoter male line
descendant (grandson or great-grandson), but thereafter, if the
landholder under the entail had no legitimate sons, the property
could pass to his brother or a more distant relation, provided he was
a male line descendant of the original landowner.

But, if all the entail said was that the property must pass to the
male heirs of his body, then it looks to me open to interpretation
whether it barred descent THROUGH the female line.

>A landowner could also create an entail for the heirs male of his
body by a particular marriage - this is what Ralph Neville did with
Middleham, Penrith and Sheriff Hutton, in favour of his heirs male by
Joan Beaufort,
> and to the disgust of the heirs male of his first marriage, who,
of course, inherited the earldom of Westmorland.

Ah, yes, I thought afterwards, perhaps the entail in question had
done this, so that Montagu would not have to worry about opening a
whole can of worms in pleading his own case. Thanks for that.

>
> It was possible to bring an entail to an end by a procedure known
as 'barring' an entail, but I don't know whether this existed in the
15th century, when entails were fairly new (they first appear in the
late 13th century). However, this could only be done by the existing
landowner acting with his heir male, who had to be over 21 and,
further, there could be no other male heirs in the direct line from
the landholder seeking to bar the entail. There was effectively a
window of opportunity when the landholder's eldest son was over 21
but before he had sons.

Apparently the first test case on "common recovery", the 15th century
version, took place in 1472, so slightly too late for Warwick anyhonw.

>
> George Neville, Lord Latimer, was the second surviving son of
Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland by the marriage to Joan Beaufort.
Therefore, when all the male descendants in the male line from his
elder brother, Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, were dead, the
next heir under the entail was Latimer's senior surviving male line
descendant, his grandson, Richard Neville, Lord Latimer.

Yes, I understand Latimer's descent. I was just wondering, with
reference to the Exeter case, whether a male heir of Warwick's body,
albeit through the female line, might have a fighting legal chance
against a collateral heir in the male line (I understand Bedford &
Latimer were direct heirs of the body of the original entailer,
Westmorland, but not of the last holder, Warwick). I'm sure I'm
bothering over nothing, but experience has taught me to check all
Hicks' interpretations quite carefully.

Anyway, thanks for that,

Marie

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> What he said.
>
> In the case of the Exeter estates, the death of Henry Holland
> rendered the male line extinct. This made the tail male a dead
> letter, enabling inheritance by a woman.

No, sorry, the problem is, the claimant after Exeter's death - so one
is told - was his nephew, Ralph, Lord Neville (Earl of Westmorland
from 1484). However, Ralph's mother, Exeter's sister, was still
alive - she only died in 1486. So this appears to be a case of
inheritance (or a claim to inheritance) by a male, through the female
line but over the head of a living female heir.


> Depending on the wording of the original entail, Edward IV could
have
> used the extinction as justification for granting the estates to
his
> sister and stepson.

He maybe could, but again this is not how it happened. Exeter was
attainted in 1461, and thus Edward was able to settle the confiscated
lands on his wife. There were several complicated steps, all the time
increasing her rights, until eventually the property was settled on
her and the heirs of her body in perpetuity. In fact she only
outlived the Duke of Exeter by a matter of weeks. There was another
Act after her death protecting the claim of her daughter by St Leger
(by now Dorset's daughter-in-law), but since Exeter had been deprived
and the lands regranted a long time ago, the King didn't need
the "Duke's" death as justification for this.
Neville really had no more claim than Montagu since these estates had
been confiscated, but there was an issue with entailed estates.
McFarlane says they were originally safe from confiscation for
treason, though only until 1398.


For example, some magnates willed their lands in
> tail male with remainder (next succession) to the King, cutting out
> female heirs altogether. This was rare however, as remainders
would
> usually name female heirs in the event of an extinction.
> The Hastings of Pembroke case is a famous legal affair, confused by
> the birth of a postumous son to the Earl. The heir general (Grey of
> Ruthyn) could claim that the lad had never had seisin of the
estates.
> The King overuled Grey and took the Earldom, granting Abergavenney
to
> the Beauchamp Earl of Worcester. Grey however managed to force a
> compromise whereby he gained most of the Hastings estates (and the
> right to use the Hastings and Valence arms).

Ah, now than you! That explains that one.

> Edward was playing a dangerous game when he deprived Howard and
> Berkely of the Norfolk inheritance. They became supporters of the
> usurpation

Can we please call every king of the period who didn't succeed in the
normal way a usurper, please, or none of them? Call me a pedant, if
you like.

and Richard granted them each a share of the titles and
> estates. In this case the lands were divided with the titles, as
> Howard got the Bigod/Brotherton/Segrave lands plus the Dukedom of
> Norfolk and Earldom of Surrey, while Berkeley got the old Mowbray
> lands in Yorkshire and the north midlands together with the first
> Mowbray Earldom of Nottingham.
> Legally these titles, and others such as the Neville's aquisition
of
> the Salisbury and Warwick titles, were new creations. In practice
> however most titles were allowed to descend through a female heir
> with the new creation a mere legal formality.

Thanks, I think that finally has pretty well cleared things up. It
would seem Bedford continued to have a claim after the birth of
Edward Earl of Warwick, but that it wasn't worth much in practice. At
the end of the day it was all up to the King, and once a new creation
was established it was not going to be swept away. An Act of
Parliament of February 1475 had actually debarred Montagu's heirs
from ever making any claim to the Neville lands.
This makes sense, because I still think that if there was a
realistic chance of either George Neville or Latimer winning back the
Neville lands, the Woodvilles would have secured their wardships.

Incidentally, I don't think it was only Gloucester who had a vested
interest in denying the claim of the male heirs. Clarence must have
reckoned that, if Richard was deprived of these, he'd come back
looking for a fairer share of the Beauchamp, Despencer and Montagu
estates. Besides the loss of income, Clarence would probably much
rather have kept Richard at a safe distance up in the North.

Marie

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: But,
yes, it is rather odd that Mr Collins was Mr Collins and not Mr
Bennet, isn't it? Then there is the "tail male" case of the Hastings
with a Grey heir mentioned in McFarlane, and the Neville heir to the
tail male Exeter duchy (who was certainly related through the female
line).
When the TV Pride and Prejudice appeared a few years ago, there was quite a discussion in The Times Letters page about this. The suggestion that made the most sense to me was that Mr Collins (or his father) was left property under the will of a maternal relation on the condition that he changed his surname from Bennet to Collins (this sort of condition was not uncommon). The inheritance was smaller than expected, which is why Mr Collins was so dependent on the benevolence of Lady Catherine de Bourgh. As to the Hastings and Exeter cases, I imagine (without checking) that the male line from the original entailer had become extinct, so the entail came to an end and the property passed to the senior heir through the female line. This happened with the Scottish crown, which Robert II entailed on theheirs male of his body in 1372. The male line of the House of Stewart became extinct on the death of James V in 1542, whereupon an Act of 1318 had renewed effect. This provided that the
daughter of a king had priority over the king's brothers and more distant male heirs, so that Mary Queen of Scots (then less than a week old) succeeded instead of the nearest male heir, James Hamilton, Earl of Arran, who was a great-grandson of James II (1437-60) via his paternal grandmother.

>
> Normally, an entail would be created by a landowner so that his
lands could be kept intact and not divided among co-heiresses.

Which would obviously necessitate limiting to male heirs, but not
necessarily strictly through the male line.

True, but in medieval times they seem to have preferred inheritance strictly through the male line.

But, if all the entail said was that the property must pass to the
male heirs of his body, then it looks to me open to interpretation
whether it barred descent THROUGH the female line.

Again true, but it was interpreted to mean inheritance only by males through the male line. The extreme case is the French crown on the death of Henri III in 1589. His successor, Henri IV, was related to him in the male line only by common descent from St Louis, who had died in 1271, over 300 years earlier!







Yes, I understand Latimer's descent. I was just wondering, with
reference to the Exeter case, whether a male heir of Warwick's body,
albeit through the female line, might have a fighting legal chance
against a collateral heir in the male line (I understand Bedford &
Latimer were direct heirs of the body of the original entailer,
Westmorland, but not of the last holder, Warwick).

Not under an entail in tail male, when there was an obvious male heir in Latimer.

Anyway, thanks for that,

No problem

Ann











SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

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


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

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> What he said.
>
> In the case of the Exeter estates, the death of Henry Holland
> rendered the male line extinct. This made the tail male a dead
> letter, enabling inheritance by a woman.

No, sorry, the problem is, the claimant after Exeter's death - so one
is told - was his nephew, Ralph, Lord Neville (Earl of Westmorland
from 1484). However, Ralph's mother, Exeter's sister, was still
alive - she only died in 1486. So this appears to be a case of
inheritance (or a claim to inheritance) by a male, through the female
line but over the head of a living female heir.

Nothing unusual in this. Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor, was not only alive in 1483 but actually outlived him, but there never seems to have been any question of her seeking the throne in her own right.
Ann

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> What he said.
>
> In the case of the Exeter estates, the death of Henry Holland
> rendered the male line extinct. This made the tail male a dead
> letter, enabling inheritance by a woman.

No, sorry, the problem is, the claimant after Exeter's death - so one
is told - was his nephew, Ralph, Lord Neville (Earl of Westmorland
from 1484). However, Ralph's mother, Exeter's sister, was still
alive - she only died in 1486. So this appears to be a case of
inheritance (or a claim to inheritance) by a male, through the female
line but over the head of a living female heir.
Perhaps Ralph and his mother agreed that he would claim the inheritance in her right. In royal succession at least there are a number of cases where a man claimed the throne through his mother who was still alive - Henry Tudor and Margaret Beaufort provide the best examples, but Baldwin IV of Jerusalem (1174-85) named his infant nephew Baldwin V as his heir in preference to the boy's mother, his sister, because the sister was married to Guy of Lusignan, who proved an incompetent king when he eventually gained the throne after young Baldwin's death.

The relative priority between male line heirs and female line heirs had yet to be worked out in the 15th century, except where an entail in tale male had been created. This is a factor we have to bear in mind in relation to the succession disputes of the time - nobody could say conclusively who had the best claim by blood!

In his succession charter of October 1376 Edward III declared his grandson, the future Richard II, to be his heir apparent, and that if Richard died without issue, his heirs were to be his three surviving uncles and their issue. The issue of Lionel Duke of Clarence (d.1368) were passed over, but there was no limitation to the male issue of the surviving uncles. In 1384 Richard II apparently named Roger Mortimer, grandson of Lionel of Clarence through his mother, as his heir. This ran contrary to the 1376 charter, but as a king Richard was as entitled to determine the succession as his grandfather. In any case, this looks like a stopgap solution - Richard was then 17, Anne of Bohemia 18, and there was presumably no reason known to them why they should not produce issue in the fairly near future. Of course, Richard had no issue by either of his marriages, and Henry IV seized the throne in 1399. Curiously enough, though he could have argued that he was Richard's heir under the 1376
charter, he did not - its existence seems to have been forgotten.

Henry IV entailed the succession on his four sons and their male issue in 1406, but rapidly revoked this entail for reason which are obscure, and issued a new one in favour of his sons and their issue without limitation to males. In the event, the only suviving legitimate issue the four produced was Henry VI, leaving a major question mark over who his heir should be after the death of Humphrey of Gloucester in 1447 and before the birth of Edward of Lancaster in 1453. In this period it seems to have been assumed that Richard, Duke of York, Henry's heir male via his male line descent from Edmund of York, was heir presumptive to the throne. From 1460, York relied on his female line descent from Lionel of Clarence, and impliedly argued that Henry IV should never have been king at all, but if the succession charter was still effective then the proper heirs were the descendants of Henry V's sisters.

Ann

I think the Beaufort/Tudor case is very much an exception. It
applied only in the case of a Kingdom, because at this time the idea
of a woman ruling a Kingdom was unthinkable.
A woman could inherit large estates in her own right, and in addition
was entitled as a widow to a third of her dead husband's estates for
the term of her life, even if she had produced a male heir. Since
some women lived long lives this could be very frustrating for Lords,
as they sometimes had to wait for several old ladies to die off
before getting hold of all their inheritance.
Just to clarify, tail male refers only to UNBROKEN male lines.
Remember that the eldest son was entitled to inherit the entire
estate*, while daughters always had lands divided equally between
them. This is why the son of a brother, or even a distant cousin
would sometimes be preferred to a clutch of daughters.
* At least this was the general practice in England. Some Lords did
divide estates amongst sons, though usually younger branches were
provided for with purchased estates or the lands of heiresses.
However there seems to have been a fashion in the West Country for
devising large estates on younger sons, and this partly explains why
the Courteney and Berkeley families were relatively poor for families
of such ancient pedigree.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@b...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@r...> wrote: --- In
, "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
> >
> > What he said.
> >
> > In the case of the Exeter estates, the death of Henry Holland
> > rendered the male line extinct. This made the tail male a dead
> > letter, enabling inheritance by a woman.
>
> No, sorry, the problem is, the claimant after Exeter's death - so
one
> is told - was his nephew, Ralph, Lord Neville (Earl of Westmorland
> from 1484). However, Ralph's mother, Exeter's sister, was still
> alive - she only died in 1486. So this appears to be a case of
> inheritance (or a claim to inheritance) by a male, through the
female
> line but over the head of a living female heir.
>
> Nothing unusual in this. Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry
Tudor, was not only alive in 1483 but actually outlived him, but
there never seems to have been any question of her seeking the throne
in her own right.
> Ann
>
>
>
>

hello marie
i've been following the thread with some interest.

i was going to supply you with a defination of parage..only to find the website i had gleaned the information from was now "history".
so i googled for parage and ended up checking out the google print section.

some interesting copywrite finds, i also ended up searching for maritagium ending up at this book:
Law, Land, & Family: Aristocratic Inheritance in England, 1300 to 1800
i believe it has the answers you are looking for, regarding inheritance.
i had to sign up for the google service to be able to read the selected pages. however, law, land and family certainly provides some clarity.

regards
roslyn

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
Hi all,

I've been following the film thread with interest. I was nevere into
the Carry On film either but I do love that "infamy" line. I've often
thought in passing that Johnny Depp has the right looks for Richard.
I think he could probably play the part too, but isn't it so hard to
guess unless you've actually seen the person in a similar role? I
think Clive Owen might be a we bit too solidly built.
Could Ray Winston do a Lancashire accent?

But to get to what I was about to say. I've just been rereading an
article by Hicks in an old ricardian on the business of the Neville
inheritance. He starts, of course, with his old saw "Richard had
chosen quite deliberately to secure Anne's lands by inheritance, not
by royalgrant", which as you all know by now, maketh no sense to me.

Also, he complains that the claims of the Countess of Warwick's half-
sisters were ignored in 1474, as if Richard was being nefarious
again. As previously discussed, however, the Countess's half-sisters
had no legal claim as Anne Beauchamp had inherited from her full
brother, which excluded his half-sisters even though they were older
than Anne. Hicks is a bit wicked sometimes.

Anyway, I'm wondering if he's got the "true heir" question right at
all. He rightly points outthat, because these lands were held in tail
male, immediately after Barnet George Neville would have been the
heir (had Edward not already confiscated the lands in question, a
point Hicks glosses over). He then goes on to argue that after George
Neville's death the "rightful owner" was Richard, Lord Latimer. He
doesn't explain why, but he does provide a family tree. It would
appear he hit on Latimer because he was the nearest relative in the
male line.
However, does tail male mean descent through the male line only, or
just inheritance by a male, possibly through the female line? I ask
this because Exeter's heir was held to be his sister's son, Lord
Neville, and I have read that his estates were held in tail male; if
that is incorrect, of course, Lord Neville may only have become the
proper heir after the death of Exeter's daughter, but this is not
what the articles I have read suggest.
I tried looking up the meaning on the legal-terms website and it
just gave "inheritance by a male". Do we have any lawyers amongst us
who can shed any light on this, because if we could have descent
through the female line, then - given that the estates had never
actually passed beyond the Kingmaker - after the birth of Edward,
Earl of Warwick, he would perhaps have had a prior claim as being of
direct descent. Even if George Neville was the "rightful" owner at
his death, that interpretation would tend to give the male offspring
of his sisters first place afterwards.

Is there anything in this, or am I talking nonsense? I can't somehow
believe that, if George Neville and Lord Latimer had such inheritance
potential, the Woodvilles would not have got hold of them. Dorset,
for instance, secured both the heiresses of the duchy of Exeter in
turn, and young Warwick. Nobody showed much interest in George
Neville and Latimer, however. Latimer had apparently been in the
guardianship of Archbishop Bourchier, then Richard sold the wardship
to Sir Humphrey Stafford of Grafton for £100. He could have married
either of these lads to his own daughter Katherine if he'd worried
about their potential. Of course, Hicks has it that Richard was
deliberately looking for a family who couldn't challenge him. Richard
would have been one very surprised spook, then, in 1486 when Humphrey
Stafford raised the Midlands to depose Henry VII.

Any lawyers out there, please?

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.


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

Not quite unthinkable, but very unusual, and it is only in this period that we get the first queens regnant who actually ruled.

Enrique IV ('the Impotent') of Castile named his half-sister, Isabella, as his heir in 1469. The alternative heir was the daughter born to Enrique's queen but of doubtful paternity - Juana 'la Beltraneja'. The nearest male heir was Ferdinand of Aragon, who duly married Isabella (a common enough arrangement). On Enrique's death in 1474 Isabella was proclaimed Queen Regnant but civil war followed between her supporters and those of la Beltraneja. What is unusual is that after the civil war ended Isabella was effective ruler of Castile in her own right although official documents stressed joint rule between Isabella and Ferdinand over both Castile and Aragon.

Ann

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
I think the Beaufort/Tudor case is very much an exception. It
applied only in the case of a Kingdom, because at this time the idea
of a woman ruling a Kingdom was unthinkable.
A woman could inherit large estates in her own right, and in addition
was entitled as a widow to a third of her dead husband's estates for
the term of her life, even if she had produced a male heir. Since
some women lived long lives this could be very frustrating for Lords,
as they sometimes had to wait for several old ladies to die off
before getting hold of all their inheritance.

>From: A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>

>Not quite unthinkable, but very unusual, and it is only in this period that we get the first queens regnant who actually ruled.
>  
>  Enrique IV ('the Impotent') of Castile named his half-sister, Isabella, as his heir in 1469. The alternative heir was the daughter born to Enrique's queen but of doubtful paternity - Juana 'la Beltraneja'. The nearest male heir was Ferdinand of Aragon, who duly married Isabella (a common enough arrangement). On Enrique's death in 1474 Isabella was proclaimed  Queen Regnant but civil war followed between her supporters and those of la Beltraneja. What is unusual is that after the civil war ended Isabella was effective ruler of Castile in her own right although official documents stressed joint rule between Isabella and Ferdinand over both Castile and Aragon.
>  
>  Ann
==============================

Just a couple of addenda to this summary: it was Isabel herself who proposed being named successor. This followed the sudden death of her fourteen year old brother, Alfonso, who had engaged Enrique in a civil war. After Alfonso's death, the rebels visited Isabel at Avila and asked her to be their figure-head, so to speak, so that the war could continue and they could escape extreme punishment. The sixteen-year-old Isabel came up with the solution of ending hostilities on the condition that she be named successor, and that Enrique could rule undisturbed until he died. Enrique accepted this and the treaty was ratified at Guisando.

Among the points in the treaty was one that Isabel wouldn't be forced to marry against her will, and that she wouldn't marry against Enrique's wishes. Very soon after the treaty had been signed and Isabel joined the court at Segovia, Enrique's unscrupulous favorite, the Marquis de Villena, began to plot to marry Isabel off to various and sundry men-about-Europe and the Penninsula, including his own brother, Pedro de Giron, who was a reprobate. Isabel made the overtures to Aragon. In Aragon, where, for decades, Juan II had been hankering to angle his family's return to power in Castile, the proposal of marriage to Fernando was welcome, but not in Castile. So both Isabel and Fernando eloped at great risk, and within the scope of a grand adventure too long and complicated to relate here. They married in Valladolid, and spent the next couple of years trying to win their way into Enrique's good graces, and they came pretty close.

When Enrique died, near Madrid, in December 1474, Isabel was alone in Segovia, Fernando having gone to Aragon to help out his father. She had to act quickly, before the kingdom declared for Juana "la Beltraneja", and so she jumped to a coronation, complete with the carrying of the sword of justice before her (a male privilege). Fernando stormed back down from Aragon and a huge conflict opened up between the couple for a bit, after which the official treaty of who ruled what, where and how was drawn up, and the famous motto "Tanto monta, monta tanto, Isabel como Fernando" was adopted.

So from the start of her political career, Isabel had taken matters into her own hands.

The question of the succession in Castile at this time wasn't so much a problem of female presence and male absence as it was the question of poor Juana "la Beltraneja"'s legitimacy. Later on, when Juan, only son of the Catholic Kings, died, there was no fuss in Castile about the daughters coming to power. In Aragon, however, it was another story, and the problem of female rulership was a problem.

Maria
elena@...

Maria

Thanks for all this. Very useful, since females in medieval royal succession is one of my professional research interests. All this tends to bear out my view that allowing a female to succeed, or be declared heir in circumstances where she was likely to succeed, was very much a last resort. Here after Alfonso's death, there was a choice between two females, one of doubtful paternity. Incidentally, after reading Tonsend Miller's book on Enrique, my suspicion is that Alfonso died from botulism poisoning - he seems to have suffered progressive paralysis after eating fish.

Regards

Ann

Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

==============================

Just a couple of addenda to this summary: it was Isabel herself who proposed being named successor. This followed the sudden death of her fourteen year old brother, Alfonso, who had engaged Enrique in a civil war. After Alfonso's death, the rebels visited Isabel at Avila and asked her to be their figure-head, so to speak, so that the war could continue and they could escape extreme punishment. The sixteen-year-old Isabel came up with the solution of ending hostilities on the condition that she be named successor, and that Enrique could rule undisturbed until he died. Enrique accepted this and the treaty was ratified at Guisando.

Among the points in the treaty was one that Isabel wouldn't be forced to marry against her will, and that she wouldn't marry against Enrique's wishes. Very soon after the treaty had been signed and Isabel joined the court at Segovia, Enrique's unscrupulous favorite, the Marquis de Villena, began to plot to marry Isabel off to various and sundry men-about-Europe and the Penninsula, including his own brother, Pedro de Giron, who was a reprobate. Isabel made the overtures to Aragon. In Aragon, where, for decades, Juan II had been hankering to angle his family's return to power in Castile, the proposal of marriage to Fernando was welcome, but not in Castile. So both Isabel and Fernando eloped at great risk, and within the scope of a grand adventure too long and complicated to relate here. They married in Valladolid, and spent the next couple of years trying to win their way into Enrique's good graces, and they came pretty close.

When Enrique died, near Madrid, in December 1474, Isabel was alone in Segovia, Fernando having gone to Aragon to help out his father. She had to act quickly, before the kingdom declared for Juana "la Beltraneja", and so she jumped to a coronation, complete with the carrying of the sword of justice before her (a male privilege). Fernando stormed back down from Aragon and a huge conflict opened up between the couple for a bit, after which the official treaty of who ruled what, where and how was drawn up, and the famous motto "Tanto monta, monta tanto, Isabel como Fernando" was adopted.

So from the start of her political career, Isabel had taken matters into her own hands.

The question of the succession in Castile at this time wasn't so much a problem of female presence and male absence as it was the question of poor Juana "la Beltraneja"'s legitimacy. Later on, when Juan, only son of the Catholic Kings, died, there was no fuss in Castile about the daughters coming to power. In Aragon, however, it was another story, and the problem of female rulership was a problem.

Maria
elena@...




SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

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


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

>Maria
>  
>  Thanks for all this. Very useful, since females in medieval royal succession is one of my professional research interests. All this tends to bear out my view that allowing a female to succeed, or be declared heir in circumstances where she was likely to succeed, was very much a last resort. Here after Alfonso's death, there was a choice between two females, one of doubtful paternity. Incidentally, after reading Tonsend Miller's book on Enrique, my suspicion is that Alfonso died from botulism poisoning - he seems to have suffered progressive paralysis after eating fish.
>  
>  Regards
>  
>  Ann
===================

No problem: always happy to spout about the Catholic Kings and their children.

Interesting idea about Alfonso. It was a brook trout, as I understand it, which finished him off. He was set on his perogatives, too: according to notes taken by members of the Rozmital entourage, which stopped off in Castile during a sort of diplomatic European tour in 1464, Alfonso was insulted that Rozmital visited Enrique before seeing him -- Alfonso considered himself the king of Castile and should have been visited first, according to him. He therefore refused to admit Rozmital at all, and thereby lost the chance of a personal observation on the part of the Rozmital party.

You've read Miller's bio on Enrique? How do you like it? He's a very bad man, that Mr. Miller: he has a memorable style, and whole sections from his other book on 15th Century Spain, "Castles and the Crown", branded themselves into my brain and my mother's, and his portrait of Miguel Lucas in the Enrique bio made me cry. She loved Miller, and we were both very happy to see that, more times than not, his data could be corroborated (though he sometimes exagerrated). He was about the same era of historical authorship as Garrett Mattingly and Kendall. Seems to have been a tiny golden age of popular, well-written medieval/Renaissance biography.

What's your take on the female regents during this period: Margaret of Austria, Catherine of Aragon, Joana of Portugal, Anne of Beaujeu?

Maria
elena@...

Maria

Again, thanks for your message. I've read Miller's book on Enrique, plus the more recent book by William D. Phillips: Enrique IV and the Crisis of Fifteenth Century Castile, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978. Phillips is wary of Munzer's account of Enrique's impotence, not least because Munzer was writing in the 1490s when the Catholic Kings were anxious to stress the legitimacy of their rule. I've yet to get hold of 'Castles in Spain' - I need to make use of the university inter-library loan system.

My take on female regents? Basically I find it interesting that a female was often entirely acceptable as a regent but not as a ruler. I've yet to find a satisfactory rationale for this. My theory (for what it's worth) is that women were considered incapable of ruling because they were considered incapable of commanding armies, but the fairly numerous cases of accepted and successful female regents seem to go against this.

Regards

Ann


Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

Interesting idea about Alfonso. It was a brook trout, as I understand it, which finished him off. He was set on his perogatives, too: according to notes taken by members of the Rozmital entourage, which stopped off in Castile during a sort of diplomatic European tour in 1464, Alfonso was insulted that Rozmital visited Enrique before seeing him -- Alfonso considered himself the king of Castile and should have been visited first, according to him. He therefore refused to admit Rozmital at all, and thereby lost the chance of a personal observation on the part of the Rozmital party.

You've read Miller's bio on Enrique? How do you like it? He's a very bad man, that Mr. Miller: he has a memorable style, and whole sections from his other book on 15th Century Spain, "Castles and the Crown", branded themselves into my brain and my mother's, and his portrait of Miguel Lucas in the Enrique bio made me cry. She loved Miller, and we were both very happy to see that, more times than not, his data could be corroborated (though he sometimes exagerrated). He was about the same era of historical authorship as Garrett Mattingly and Kendall. Seems to have been a tiny golden age of popular, well-written medieval/Renaissance biography.

What's your take on the female regents during this period: Margaret of Austria, Catherine of Aragon, Joana of Portugal, Anne of Beaujeu?

Maria
elena@...




SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

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


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

>Maria
>  
>  Again, thanks for your message. I've read Miller's book on Enrique, plus the more recent book by William D. Phillips: Enrique IV and the Crisis of Fifteenth Century Castile, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978. Phillips is wary of Munzer's account of Enrique's impotence, not least because Munzer was writing in the 1490s when the Catholic Kings were anxious to stress the legitimacy of their rule. I've yet to get hold of 'Castles in Spain' - I need to make use of the university inter-library loan system.
===========================

I found Munzer via ABEBooks.com, and took a very flying leap through it, but will have to settle down and actually read it. In "Castles and the Crown", Miller of course references Munzer, once in that humanizing way he has: drawing speculations about Juana of Castile when she was very young, he observes that Juana was always fond of music, and that she was an enthusiastic musician. He tells us that Munzer was invited by the Catholic Kings to hear Juana play, "an invitation which Munzer, like thousands in a similar position before and after, hastily declined."
----------------------------------------
>  
>  My take on female regents? Basically I find it interesting that a female was often entirely acceptable as a regent but not as a ruler. I've yet to find a satisfactory rationale for this. My theory (for what it's worth) is that women were considered incapable of ruling because they were considered incapable of commanding armies, but the fairly numerous cases of accepted and successful female regents seem to go against this.
>  
>  Regards
>  
>  Ann
========================
Which leads to speculation about schisms between perception and reality and/or the North/South dichotomy -- or maybe a Continental/British Isles split, to some extent:

Going way back, Ximena, widow of el Cid, ruled Valencia for two years after her husband's death.

There's Eleanor of Acquitaine, but she was too much of an all-around exception to the rule (and so was Joan of Arc).

Moving up, the second wife of Juan II of Aragon, Juana Enriquez (mother of Fernando), campaigned with and without her husband against the extremely recalcitrant Catalans.

Moving further up, Isabel's impetuous friend, Beatriz de Bobadilla, defended the city of Segovia from Philip the Handsome, shouting imprecations at him from the walls (this was the same friend who snatched up a dagger and threatened to stab one of young Isabel's less desirable suitors if he came walking through the door -- you didn't want to mess with Beatriz de Bobadilla).

Moving further up, we have Catherine of Aragon directing the battle of Flodden; and during the annulment chaos, Henry was heard to comment that Catherine was capable of raising an army, like her mother, and leading it successfully against Henry.

Like her or not, approve or not, Margaret of Anjou, a Continental girl, gave her enemies a good run for their money.

By the same token, the occasional acceptance of female authority in Spain, at any rate, may have evolved from their perceived perpetual state of war against the Moors.

Have to sign off now for work,

Maria
elena@...

Maria

Thanks for all this interesting examples - now I really must get on wih marking my mock exam papers (oh how work gets in the way!)

Ann

Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:

----------------------------------------
>
> My take on female regents? Basically I find it interesting that a female was often entirely acceptable as a regent but not as a ruler. I've yet to find a satisfactory rationale for this. My theory (for what it's worth) is that women were considered incapable of ruling because they were considered incapable of commanding armies, but the fairly numerous cases of accepted and successful female regents seem to go against this.
>
> Regards
>
> Ann
========================
Which leads to speculation about schisms between perception and reality and/or the North/South dichotomy -- or maybe a Continental/British Isles split, to some extent:

Going way back, Ximena, widow of el Cid, ruled Valencia for two years after her husband's death.

There's Eleanor of Acquitaine, but she was too much of an all-around exception to the rule (and so was Joan of Arc).

Moving up, the second wife of Juan II of Aragon, Juana Enriquez (mother of Fernando), campaigned with and without her husband against the extremely recalcitrant Catalans.

Moving further up, Isabel's impetuous friend, Beatriz de Bobadilla, defended the city of Segovia from Philip the Handsome, shouting imprecations at him from the walls (this was the same friend who snatched up a dagger and threatened to stab one of young Isabel's less desirable suitors if he came walking through the door -- you didn't want to mess with Beatriz de Bobadilla).

Moving further up, we have Catherine of Aragon directing the battle of Flodden; and during the annulment chaos, Henry was heard to comment that Catherine was capable of raising an army, like her mother, and leading it successfully against Henry.

Like her or not, approve or not, Margaret of Anjou, a Continental girl, gave her enemies a good run for their money.

By the same token, the occasional acceptance of female authority in Spain, at any rate, may have evolved from their perceived perpetual state of war against the Moors.

Have to sign off now for work,

Maria
elena@...








SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel United kingdom vacation

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


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