Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
Further thoughts on Hicks' new book on Anne Neville
2006-02-17 22:30:32
Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
about another comment that the author made.
I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
Making this comment caused me to wonder if Hicks actually hates
Richard. Richard's been accused of a lot of things but words almost
failed me at this. It rather annoyed me, as you can probably tell.
Now I've had time to think about it, I want to raise the following
objections.
1) Edmund Tudor was 26 when he married 12 year old Margaret
Beaufort. He immediately got her pregnant because if she had a child
by him he could keep hold of her lands even if she died.
This is a much worse example of something that by present day
standards would be bordering on child abuse. I believe that even in
the 15th century whilst it was legal for girls to marry at 12 the
consumation of the marriage was sometimes delayed so that she could
mature. IIRC Margaret Beaufort didn't want Margaret Tudor to be sent
off to Scotland to marry a twentysomething James IV while she was too
young, probably based on her own experiences, although I think
Margaret married him in the end at the age of 13. The point is that
neither Edmund Tudor or James IV have ever been accused of taking
advantage of young girls and underage sex. But because it's Richard
III, hey, let's chuck this allegation in for good measure. Never
mind that it's completely anachronistic. It seems a case of one
standard for everyone else and another one for Richard.
2) Even if Richard was having a full physical relationship with Anne
Neville when she was 15, he was only 18 going on 19 himself.
Whatever someone's personal beliefs about sex before marriage and the
age of consent, in the 21st century west as long as the relationship
was consensual it's unlikely that police or the courts would
prosecute such a couple.
3) Hicks, as far as I can tell, has no evidence to prove that any
sexual relationship started when Anne was 15. It could have started
any time between after the battle of Tewkesbury and the wedding
night. The only proof an historian can have for a couple having sex
is if the couple themselves admit it (and even then they can
disagree; remember Katharine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor) or that they
had a baby! Anything else is pure (or should I say impure)
speculation.
Apologies for the rant but I had to get it off my chest.
Joanne
about another comment that the author made.
I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
Making this comment caused me to wonder if Hicks actually hates
Richard. Richard's been accused of a lot of things but words almost
failed me at this. It rather annoyed me, as you can probably tell.
Now I've had time to think about it, I want to raise the following
objections.
1) Edmund Tudor was 26 when he married 12 year old Margaret
Beaufort. He immediately got her pregnant because if she had a child
by him he could keep hold of her lands even if she died.
This is a much worse example of something that by present day
standards would be bordering on child abuse. I believe that even in
the 15th century whilst it was legal for girls to marry at 12 the
consumation of the marriage was sometimes delayed so that she could
mature. IIRC Margaret Beaufort didn't want Margaret Tudor to be sent
off to Scotland to marry a twentysomething James IV while she was too
young, probably based on her own experiences, although I think
Margaret married him in the end at the age of 13. The point is that
neither Edmund Tudor or James IV have ever been accused of taking
advantage of young girls and underage sex. But because it's Richard
III, hey, let's chuck this allegation in for good measure. Never
mind that it's completely anachronistic. It seems a case of one
standard for everyone else and another one for Richard.
2) Even if Richard was having a full physical relationship with Anne
Neville when she was 15, he was only 18 going on 19 himself.
Whatever someone's personal beliefs about sex before marriage and the
age of consent, in the 21st century west as long as the relationship
was consensual it's unlikely that police or the courts would
prosecute such a couple.
3) Hicks, as far as I can tell, has no evidence to prove that any
sexual relationship started when Anne was 15. It could have started
any time between after the battle of Tewkesbury and the wedding
night. The only proof an historian can have for a couple having sex
is if the couple themselves admit it (and even then they can
disagree; remember Katharine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor) or that they
had a baby! Anything else is pure (or should I say impure)
speculation.
Apologies for the rant but I had to get it off my chest.
Joanne
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Further thoughts on Hicks' new book
2006-02-18 00:13:50
as to whether or not hicks hates richard remains to be seen.
i think you'd have to read hick's comment in full context, because it sounds like the publisher is going for shock value to sell the book or the statement wouldn't have been "front and center" for you or anyone else to easily read.
someone in association with the book is not much of a medievalist..or s/he's relying on most people not being aware of the incredible number of child brides contracted to middle age or older men.
marriages among the peers was not for love..it was contractual agreements to increase or secure land holdings or political alliances.
i think sex was pretty much a recreational sport too. or else why would they confine widows after the man had died for a couple of months? if everyone was so chaste, and really only active after a legal marriage, such a practice would not be necessary.
think of the despotic popes of the era..many of them had illegits. as did many of the high ranking church officals. sins of the flesh could be bought off with indulgences.
why not check with your local library and see when they might have the book available. then read the book for free..and if it really suits your fancy..then buy the book. i see no need to reward sensationalism with your money.
roslyn
jotwo2003 <jsummerill@...> wrote:
Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
about another comment that the author made.
I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
Making this comment caused me to wonder if Hicks actually hates
Richard. Richard's been accused of a lot of things but words almost
failed me at this. It rather annoyed me, as you can probably tell.
Now I've had time to think about it, I want to raise the following
objections.
1) Edmund Tudor was 26 when he married 12 year old Margaret
Beaufort. He immediately got her pregnant because if she had a child
by him he could keep hold of her lands even if she died.
This is a much worse example of something that by present day
standards would be bordering on child abuse. I believe that even in
the 15th century whilst it was legal for girls to marry at 12 the
consumation of the marriage was sometimes delayed so that she could
mature. IIRC Margaret Beaufort didn't want Margaret Tudor to be sent
off to Scotland to marry a twentysomething James IV while she was too
young, probably based on her own experiences, although I think
Margaret married him in the end at the age of 13. The point is that
neither Edmund Tudor or James IV have ever been accused of taking
advantage of young girls and underage sex. But because it's Richard
III, hey, let's chuck this allegation in for good measure. Never
mind that it's completely anachronistic. It seems a case of one
standard for everyone else and another one for Richard.
2) Even if Richard was having a full physical relationship with Anne
Neville when she was 15, he was only 18 going on 19 himself.
Whatever someone's personal beliefs about sex before marriage and the
age of consent, in the 21st century west as long as the relationship
was consensual it's unlikely that police or the courts would
prosecute such a couple.
3) Hicks, as far as I can tell, has no evidence to prove that any
sexual relationship started when Anne was 15. It could have started
any time between after the battle of Tewkesbury and the wedding
night. The only proof an historian can have for a couple having sex
is if the couple themselves admit it (and even then they can
disagree; remember Katharine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor) or that they
had a baby! Anything else is pure (or should I say impure)
speculation.
Apologies for the rant but I had to get it off my chest.
Joanne
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.
---------------------------------
i think you'd have to read hick's comment in full context, because it sounds like the publisher is going for shock value to sell the book or the statement wouldn't have been "front and center" for you or anyone else to easily read.
someone in association with the book is not much of a medievalist..or s/he's relying on most people not being aware of the incredible number of child brides contracted to middle age or older men.
marriages among the peers was not for love..it was contractual agreements to increase or secure land holdings or political alliances.
i think sex was pretty much a recreational sport too. or else why would they confine widows after the man had died for a couple of months? if everyone was so chaste, and really only active after a legal marriage, such a practice would not be necessary.
think of the despotic popes of the era..many of them had illegits. as did many of the high ranking church officals. sins of the flesh could be bought off with indulgences.
why not check with your local library and see when they might have the book available. then read the book for free..and if it really suits your fancy..then buy the book. i see no need to reward sensationalism with your money.
roslyn
jotwo2003 <jsummerill@...> wrote:
Further to my post about Hicks' new book, I'd like to add my thoughts
about another comment that the author made.
I can't give the exact quotation because I haven't bought the book
yet so I'll have to paraphrase. Hicks writes that a man like Richard
having a relationship with a fifteen-year-old like Anne today would
be put on the Sex Offender's Register.
Making this comment caused me to wonder if Hicks actually hates
Richard. Richard's been accused of a lot of things but words almost
failed me at this. It rather annoyed me, as you can probably tell.
Now I've had time to think about it, I want to raise the following
objections.
1) Edmund Tudor was 26 when he married 12 year old Margaret
Beaufort. He immediately got her pregnant because if she had a child
by him he could keep hold of her lands even if she died.
This is a much worse example of something that by present day
standards would be bordering on child abuse. I believe that even in
the 15th century whilst it was legal for girls to marry at 12 the
consumation of the marriage was sometimes delayed so that she could
mature. IIRC Margaret Beaufort didn't want Margaret Tudor to be sent
off to Scotland to marry a twentysomething James IV while she was too
young, probably based on her own experiences, although I think
Margaret married him in the end at the age of 13. The point is that
neither Edmund Tudor or James IV have ever been accused of taking
advantage of young girls and underage sex. But because it's Richard
III, hey, let's chuck this allegation in for good measure. Never
mind that it's completely anachronistic. It seems a case of one
standard for everyone else and another one for Richard.
2) Even if Richard was having a full physical relationship with Anne
Neville when she was 15, he was only 18 going on 19 himself.
Whatever someone's personal beliefs about sex before marriage and the
age of consent, in the 21st century west as long as the relationship
was consensual it's unlikely that police or the courts would
prosecute such a couple.
3) Hicks, as far as I can tell, has no evidence to prove that any
sexual relationship started when Anne was 15. It could have started
any time between after the battle of Tewkesbury and the wedding
night. The only proof an historian can have for a couple having sex
is if the couple themselves admit it (and even then they can
disagree; remember Katharine of Aragon and Arthur Tudor) or that they
had a baby! Anything else is pure (or should I say impure)
speculation.
Apologies for the rant but I had to get it off my chest.
Joanne
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.
---------------------------------