Hicks: straight from the horse's mouth

I've now got Hicks' book in front of me as I type. I thought I'd
give some direct quotations.

Inside front cover

"Anne Neville was queen to England's most notorious king, Richard
III. She was immortalised by Shakespeare for the remarkable nature
of her marriage, a union which brought together a sorrowing widow
with her husband's murderer. Anne's misfortunes did not end there.
In addition to killing her first husband, Richard also helped kill
her father, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, imprisoned her mother
and was suspected of poisoning Anne herself."

Chapter Two Who Was Anne Neville?

As part of this chapter Hicks discusses the upbringing of young noble
women. They were expected to be chaste, virgins before marriage and
monogamous afterwards. They were warned against predatory males.
They should curtail inappropriate conversations and preserve their
reputations. Constancy and courage were urged.

"As models they were offered the virgin martyrs…who had successfully
resisted all blandishments, worldly advantage and threats to preserve
their chastity. We may safely presume that Anne was kept unsullied
for her marriage at fourteen."

On page 60 Hicks writes that Isabel and Anne:

"were the products of the sort of upbringing that has been
described. How successfully they internalised its messages we cannot
tell. Anne's moral code, as we shall see, may have been imperfect."

Chapter Three Her Father's Daughter 1469-71

This is Hicks' discussion of the death of Edward of Lancaster, pp97-
98.

"A much later source, Hall's Chronicle, states instead that he was
taken alive, hauled before King Edward to whom he was impertinent:
the king struck him and those about him, the king's brothers Clarence
and Gloucester and Lord Hastings, then despatched him. Since
Gloucester was to be the second partner of the prince's wife Anne
Neville, Hall is the source and inspiration for Shakespeare's belief
that Anne remarried to her first husband's killer…Professor Myers has
applied the accepted academic principle that the earliest accounts
are closest to the original and hence more reliable than the
elaboration of the story down to Hall. A desire by later writers to
blacken the failed tyrant…also may have played a part. Hall's tale
lacked any contemporary authority and was dismissed as fiction.
Recently, however, historians have become aware of an illustrated
French version of the Arrivall, perhaps dating to this very year,
which shows a scene very like that described by Hall. Pinioned, the
prince, identified by his coat of arms, faced King Edward wearing his
crown and was struck down. Whether Gloucester was one of the killers
is not apparent, nor is it material, since it was his role as
Constable of England to preside over the summary military proceedings
that duly despatched those taken in battle and other traitors. In
any case it was the king's responsibility. Like Henry VI, who was
killed soon afterwards, Prince Edward was too dangerous to let live.
It seems therefore that Hall's account may be authentic: that we
should credit this last picture of the spirited, arrogant fearless
adolescent who was Anne's first husband."

Chapter Four Between Princes 1471-5

Page 106

"Also probably it was during this period and at London, most probably
at the Christmas and New Year celebrations of 1471-2 that Anne again
encountered her brother [-in law] Richard, Duke of Gloucester,
resumed their acquaintance, and determined to take him as her second
husband.

Anne cannot have planned all this in advance. Doubtless she was
relieved initially to be rescued and was pleased to lie low."

Page 107

"Having secured everything to which she had rights of inheritance,
naturally George and Isabel did not want to surrender any of it to
the Duchess Isabel's mother, nor indeed to divide it with her sister
Anne…Naturally also George and Isabel wished to prevent Anne marrying
again, for any husband would surely wish to assert her rights and
recover for himself her half-share."

pp 107-8

"They wanted to keep what was theirs…Presumably it was only after
Gloucester had showed an interest in Anne that they concealed her
from the prying eyes of aspirant husbands. This apparently was at
the duke's London house, Coldharbour, near Dowgate. Whether she was
concealed as a maid in the duke's kitchen as Crowland claimed sounds
unlikely - women were not normally employed in great households and
Anne cannot have possessed many relevant skills- but the concealment
story is surely authentic. Crowland's kitchen story is reminiscent
of the Cinderella rags to riches story. It implies that Gloucester
was a knight errant who rescued her, rather than, alternatively a
predatory seducer. We cannot know what the Clarences had in mind for
Anne next. In similar circumstances we know of male heirs who
consigned their nieces to nunneries - … - and of brother-in-laws who
tried to exclude their sisters-in-law from their inheritances. If
the Clarences offered Anne the alternative of taking the veil we must
presume that she declined. As an heiress, in theory, she was
materially secure but she needed a male protagonist and to marry.

The pressure that George and Isabel her protectors could exert on the
fifteen-year-old Anne may have appeared almost irresistible: though
we cannot know of course whether they coerced her at all. The best
evidence of such pressure, perhaps, is that Anne was to greet
Clarence's brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester as her saviour, her
rescuer and that she allowed him to whisk her away to sanctuary. In
medieval parlance this abduction was a rape - as so often committed,
in medieval terms, with the full consent of the lady…independence as
a helpless and destitute femme sole could not do the trick and had no
attraction for her.

Whether Anne was right to see Richard in such a favourable light,
however is not so certain. Doubtless she embarked on the course that
she took with her eyes open. Obviously there was an irony to such a
match. Whether or not Richard had a part in her husband's death and
whether this was publicly known, both of which now appear more likely
in view of the rediscovered Burgundian illumination, and whether or
not he had presided over the elimination of her father-in-law Henry
VI, nevertheless the duke had certainly fought on the side adverse in
the battles at which Anne's father, husband and uncle had been
slain ."

Page 109

"Whatever Richard's limitations - we know him to have been short and
slight and perhaps even a hunchback - Anne had everything to gain
materially from matrimony with him that she could hope to attain."


Page 111

"If Anne was a undoubtedly a victim she was not helpless. Within the
limited scope apparently left to her, she was also in charge. Widows
were legally free of masculine control and free to co tract their own
courtships and marriages…it was Anne's self-conscious decision not to
remain where she was, in Clarence's kitchen or wherever. She also
decided self-consciously not to become a nun and against whatever
future, probably not including marriage, that her brother-in-law
Clarence had in store for her. It was her decision to permit her
abduction to St Martin's, almost certainly with the rider that this
was merely a first step towards marriage to Duke Richard. It was her
decision also to marry far within the prohibited degrees. There can
have been very few fifteen-year-old ladies, let alone princesses who
chose their marriage partners for themselves. Anne did. She
transferred herself from one royal duke to another and duly married
the second, tying her fortunes henceforth to his. All her ambitions
were thereby fulfilled.

Page 112

"How irritating that we cannot know! Evidence of any sexual
attraction - or indeed sexual starvation following the abrupt
termination of Anne's conjugal rights - is irretrievable."

P130

"It is surprising how quickly Anne progressed from her first husband
to her second. If Anne's first marriage was definitely not a love
match - she cannot have known the bride groom before her betrothal -
yet Edward of Lancaster was her husband, and however briefly, he had
shared her bed. Her mourning was brief indeed. Within eight months
at most, Anne had adjusted to her loss - to all her losses, her
father included - and had pledged herself to another. Whilst it is
not difficult to think of other young widows who moved on to further
consorts with such precipitate haste, it was not what was expected -
not seemly conduct - even by fifteenth century standards. Is not a
cynical and calculating materialism on Anne's part implied here? Was
she one of those girls who succumbed to the material or sexual
temptations that the conduct books warned against? Or was Anne
merely an unstable and/or emotional and/or impressionable fifteen-
year-old on whom Duke Richard had imposed his stamp. We cannot be
sure.

One must moreover deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
sentence and registration as a sexual offender would result today for
any man like Duke Richard guilty of sexual intercourse with a fifteen-
year-old girl, but fifteenth century standards permitted such
relations and indeed regarded them as normal and legitimate. In
another way, however, this match did offend contemporary values.
Whilst always aware that Anne and Richard were related within the
prohibited degrees, historians have downplayed the significance."

P132

"Gloucester and Anne were already related in the same degrees as
their siblings Clarence and Isabel, to which a further distant tie
was created by Anne's first wedding to a distant cousin of them both,
and they were yet more closely connected by the marriage of Richard's
brother to Anne's sister…Richard was Anne's brother and Anne was
Richard's sister…any sexual encounter between them, in or out of
wedlock was incestuous, sinful, prohibited, deeply shocking and
probably incapable of being dispensed. Neither Richard nor Anne can
have been ignorant of this. Each should have rebuffed anything
beyond fraternal friendship. To persist nevertheless, to pledge to
each other and to resolve on marriage, required both parties to
reject contemporary standards of morality - to flout what others
thought - and to override the law in pursuit of their own wishes.
Whether Anne was motivated by sexual attraction, ambition or merely
by a desire to escape from an impossible situation, she was, by
contemporary standards, quite wrong."

Page 133

On their marriage

"That they appear to have escaped the penalties for a dozen years
does not alter the case."

P134

"Another, more wide-ranging dispensation was needed before Anne and
Richard could contract a valid union, but they did not wait for
that. That they decided to marry in defiance of cannon law is
astonishing. To marry before securing a valid dispensation - and,
indeed, in full knowledge of it - was a further sin to be absolved."

Page 148

"Originally no doubt Richard and Anne meant to have their union
ratified, hence the initial petition in 1472…Yet, afterwards, Anne
and Richard perhaps, but far more probably Richard himself, decided
not to remedy the defects to a valid marriage and to continue living
together as husband and wife without proceeding with the legal
niceties. There is no evidence of pangs of conscience…"

"Later in Anne's last months, the illicit nature of their
relationship…caused her great anxiety. By then, at least, she knew
her whole married life to be a lie."

Page 149

"As time passed and their marriage was accepted at face value, Anne
and Richard may have hoped to get away with it."

Chapter 7 Past Her Sell-by Date

The Elizabeth of York story

Page 200

"If genuine, Elizabeth's letter indicates that the marriage was
indeed projected and that Elizabeth herself had consented to it -
indeed in highly enthusiastic terms! She fancied her uncle as well
as wanting a crown."

Page 206

"Opposition to his proposed second marriage worried Richard. Perhaps
it caused him to waver, as Elizabeth's letter implies, if not to drop
the project, which he appears extremely reluctant to abandon. It was
opposition that provoked his qualms, not the message itself that what
he projected was incestuous and damnable. That evidently did not
trouble the king. After all, he had done it before. A man who could
marry his sister [in-law] in defiance of convention and indeed
religious law - an incestuous union by the standard of the time - was
unlikely to be deterred by another such union, in this case marriage
to his niece. Of incest Richard was a serial practitioner. To coin
a phrase, he was a 'serial incestor'. Maybe another marriage was to
be celebrated and consummated ahead of the arrival of (or request
for) a dispensation. Could he afford to wait on negotiations at the
papal curia that were bound to be protracted if they were to achieve
their objective. The instant, automatic negative that was to be
expected would be difficult to overcome. Too much depended
politically on the match to enable him to wait on prior papal
approval.

Besides, the Lady Elizabeth was willing enough. Presumably her
mother was too. How imperfect once again appear the moral standards
of the house of York! Did its members regard the prohibited degrees
and papal dispensations as mere technicalities that could be squared
rather than the moral issues and dictates of God that Crowland and
public opinion so respected. Richard could do it and therefore he
would do it."

Chapter 8 Epilogue

Page 217

"Anne went along with Warwick's choice of husband, shacked up with
Duke Richard…"

Page 218

"It was Anne herself…who leapt into the arms, bed and ducal coronet
of Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

"…she was also highly exceptional both in her choice of second
husband and the lie they lived for most of their adult life."

Index

Page 252 under Richard III "serial incestor"

(By the way, I spotted one factual error. Page 147, Hicks says Juana
La Beltraneja was married to Afonso V of Portugal, her cousin, ahead
of a dispensation. They were actually uncle and niece...)

Joanne

--- In , "jotwo2003"
<jsummerill@...> wrote:

[many instructive excerpts from Hick's book]

Well, now we know how he managed to get a whole book out of the little
one can glean about Anne Neville from history -- from these selections
it sounds like 10% historical material -- some of it contradictory,
which he deals with by quoting one item as fact in one place, and a
diametrically opposing one as fact in another place -- and 90%
extrapolation and his own opinion.

Another "history" book that is so slanted that it slides off the desk.

Katy

I must congratulate you for able to read the book. I think that may
be beyond myself.

All I could think when reading those extracts was where is the proof?
where is the proof? and where is the proof?

Also what I disliked was a preachinness in some of the writing.

Like others I wonder why Hicks keep writing about people he obviously
dislike or perhaps even hate.

I do not mean one has to love and worship one's subject because that
leads to biased, inaccurate books too.

What I think and have read from some biographers' own comments is
that it is important to have or try to have an empathy and
understanding for your subject. That seems to be singularly lacking
here.

There is a few obvious exceptions to that last paragraph of cause,
Hitler, Stalin and such.

Helen

--- In , "jotwo2003" -in-law, >
>

All right,

I gave Michael Hicks the benefit of the doubt. I made no comment
until I could read his words verbatim. Now I have.
I'm sorry to have to say the man has totally lost the plot.
He's a very able historian capable of excellent research, but every
time he comes near Richard his brain goes haywire.
This is the worst I've heard. Does he reproduce this Burgundian
illustration, by the way, so the reader can judge for themselves its
likely date and the scene it purports to represent? And does he say
why he takes a Burgundian picture over and above the evidence of
contemporary English chronicles? Because it suits him, I suppose.

The twisting that goes on in these passages to turn Richard into a
paedophile amazes me. He knows perfectly well Anne was probably at
around 16th birthday when they married, and that by this time Anne
had been widowed for just the decent interval of a year. So he
chooses to count instead from the time at which she let Richard take
her to sanctuary (for which, by the way, we dob't have a date), this
implying - so he says - an acceptance of Richard's marriage offer.
There was nothing in contemporary morality to prevent a couple making
plans for remarriage within the one-year cooling off period. Had
there been, then none of them would ever have got round to marrying
after the one year. He even asserts they started sexual relations at
that point! Well, he has too, doesn't he, to make Richard a
paedophile? The whole passage is like a piece of wool the cat's got
at. It takes hours to unravel, then you find it's a lot of separate
little lengths of wool with no joins. His hope is that the average
reader won't take the trouble to sit unpicking the knots and loops to
find out.

We don't know that Richard was short and slight and probably
hunchbacked. We only KNOW he was slight and a bit taller than Von
Poppelau, whose height we don't know. . . .
Clarence and Isabel wanting to keep what was theirs? Poor dears!

After such a vitriolic "analysis" of Anne Neville's sexual
psychology, one can't help wanting to psychoanalyse Michael Hicks
himself. I never thought I'd find myself saying this sort of thing. I
don't generally like personalised historian-bashing but he would
appear to have channelled a lot of personal hang-ups into this. And I
fear he may identify too much with Clarence for his own good.

By the way, why should Hicks insist Anne must have grieved for Edward
of Lancaster or be a slut? She might, for all we know, have hated and
feared the young man who "talks of nothing but cutting off heads and
making war", to quote the Milanese ambassador who met him.

Marie

PS. I just hope the day gets better from here on in.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
> After such a vitriolic "analysis" of Anne Neville's sexual
> psychology, one can't help wanting to psychoanalyse Michael Hicks
> himself. I never thought I'd find myself saying this sort of thing. I
> don't generally like personalised historian-bashing but he would
> appear to have channelled a lot of personal hang-ups into this.


Authors sometimes do subconsciously reveal their own biases and
attitudes in their works...but usually it is fiction writers who do
so. Historians are usually more constrained by the facts.

I was prey to some base thoughts about Hicks, myself. I wonder if he
is married.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> > After such a vitriolic "analysis" of Anne Neville's sexual
> > psychology, one can't help wanting to psychoanalyse Michael Hicks
> > himself. I never thought I'd find myself saying this sort of thing. I
> > don't generally like personalised historian-bashing but he would
> > appear to have channelled a lot of personal hang-ups into this.
>
>
> Authors sometimes do subconsciously reveal their own biases and
> attitudes in their works...but usually it is fiction writers who do
> so. Historians are usually more constrained by the facts.
>
> I was prey to some base thoughts about Hicks, myself. I wonder if he
> is married.
>
> Katy
>
If he is I feel sorry for his wife. It would seem Hicks holds women in low esteem. I have
already posted one message on this subject, for which I apologised and I will say no more
on the subject!!
Eileen

--- In , "jotwo2003" <jsummerill@...> wrote:
>
> I've now got Hicks' book in front of me as I type. I thought I'd
> give some direct quotations.

Thanks Joanne for your very informative posting - as they say 'its a nasty job but someone
has got to do it'!!

If I was you I'd now return the book from where Id got it from & demand my money back
(joking!)
Eileen
>
> Inside front cover
>
> "Anne Neville was queen to England's most notorious king, Richard
> III. She was immortalised by Shakespeare for the remarkable nature
> of her marriage, a union which brought together a sorrowing widow
> with her husband's murderer. Anne's misfortunes did not end there.
> In addition to killing her first husband, Richard also helped kill
> her father, father-in-law, and brother-in-law, imprisoned her mother
> and was suspected of poisoning Anne herself."
>
> Chapter Two Who Was Anne Neville?
>
> As part of this chapter Hicks discusses the upbringing of young noble
> women. They were expected to be chaste, virgins before marriage and
> monogamous afterwards. They were warned against predatory males.
> They should curtail inappropriate conversations and preserve their
> reputations. Constancy and courage were urged.
>
> "As models they were offered the virgin martyrs…who had successfully
> resisted all blandishments, worldly advantage and threats to preserve
> their chastity. We may safely presume that Anne was kept unsullied
> for her marriage at fourteen."
>
> On page 60 Hicks writes that Isabel and Anne:
>
> "were the products of the sort of upbringing that has been
> described. How successfully they internalised its messages we cannot
> tell. Anne's moral code, as we shall see, may have been imperfect."
>
> Chapter Three Her Father's Daughter 1469-71
>
> This is Hicks' discussion of the death of Edward of Lancaster, pp97-
> 98.
>
> "A much later source, Hall's Chronicle, states instead that he was
> taken alive, hauled before King Edward to whom he was impertinent:
> the king struck him and those about him, the king's brothers Clarence
> and Gloucester and Lord Hastings, then despatched him. Since
> Gloucester was to be the second partner of the prince's wife Anne
> Neville, Hall is the source and inspiration for Shakespeare's belief
> that Anne remarried to her first husband's killer…Professor Myers has
> applied the accepted academic principle that the earliest accounts
> are closest to the original and hence more reliable than the
> elaboration of the story down to Hall. A desire by later writers to
> blacken the failed tyrant…also may have played a part. Hall's tale
> lacked any contemporary authority and was dismissed as fiction.
> Recently, however, historians have become aware of an illustrated
> French version of the Arrivall, perhaps dating to this very year,
> which shows a scene very like that described by Hall. Pinioned, the
> prince, identified by his coat of arms, faced King Edward wearing his
> crown and was struck down. Whether Gloucester was one of the killers
> is not apparent, nor is it material, since it was his role as
> Constable of England to preside over the summary military proceedings
> that duly despatched those taken in battle and other traitors. In
> any case it was the king's responsibility. Like Henry VI, who was
> killed soon afterwards, Prince Edward was too dangerous to let live.
> It seems therefore that Hall's account may be authentic: that we
> should credit this last picture of the spirited, arrogant fearless
> adolescent who was Anne's first husband."
>
> Chapter Four Between Princes 1471-5
>
> Page 106
>
> "Also probably it was during this period and at London, most probably
> at the Christmas and New Year celebrations of 1471-2 that Anne again
> encountered her brother [-in law] Richard, Duke of Gloucester,
> resumed their acquaintance, and determined to take him as her second
> husband.
>
> Anne cannot have planned all this in advance. Doubtless she was
> relieved initially to be rescued and was pleased to lie low."
>
> Page 107
>
> "Having secured everything to which she had rights of inheritance,
> naturally George and Isabel did not want to surrender any of it to
> the Duchess Isabel's mother, nor indeed to divide it with her sister
> Anne…Naturally also George and Isabel wished to prevent Anne marrying
> again, for any husband would surely wish to assert her rights and
> recover for himself her half-share."
>
> pp 107-8
>
> "They wanted to keep what was theirs…Presumably it was only after
> Gloucester had showed an interest in Anne that they concealed her
> from the prying eyes of aspirant husbands. This apparently was at
> the duke's London house, Coldharbour, near Dowgate. Whether she was
> concealed as a maid in the duke's kitchen as Crowland claimed sounds
> unlikely - women were not normally employed in great households and
> Anne cannot have possessed many relevant skills- but the concealment
> story is surely authentic. Crowland's kitchen story is reminiscent
> of the Cinderella rags to riches story. It implies that Gloucester
> was a knight errant who rescued her, rather than, alternatively a
> predatory seducer. We cannot know what the Clarences had in mind for
> Anne next. In similar circumstances we know of male heirs who
> consigned their nieces to nunneries - … - and of brother-in-laws who
> tried to exclude their sisters-in-law from their inheritances. If
> the Clarences offered Anne the alternative of taking the veil we must
> presume that she declined. As an heiress, in theory, she was
> materially secure but she needed a male protagonist and to marry.
>
> The pressure that George and Isabel her protectors could exert on the
> fifteen-year-old Anne may have appeared almost irresistible: though
> we cannot know of course whether they coerced her at all. The best
> evidence of such pressure, perhaps, is that Anne was to greet
> Clarence's brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester as her saviour, her
> rescuer and that she allowed him to whisk her away to sanctuary. In
> medieval parlance this abduction was a rape - as so often committed,
> in medieval terms, with the full consent of the lady…independence as
> a helpless and destitute femme sole could not do the trick and had no
> attraction for her.
>
> Whether Anne was right to see Richard in such a favourable light,
> however is not so certain. Doubtless she embarked on the course that
> she took with her eyes open. Obviously there was an irony to such a
> match. Whether or not Richard had a part in her husband's death and
> whether this was publicly known, both of which now appear more likely
> in view of the rediscovered Burgundian illumination, and whether or
> not he had presided over the elimination of her father-in-law Henry
> VI, nevertheless the duke had certainly fought on the side adverse in
> the battles at which Anne's father, husband and uncle had been
> slain ."
>
> Page 109
>
> "Whatever Richard's limitations - we know him to have been short and
> slight and perhaps even a hunchback - Anne had everything to gain
> materially from matrimony with him that she could hope to attain."
>
>
> Page 111
>
> "If Anne was a undoubtedly a victim she was not helpless. Within the
> limited scope apparently left to her, she was also in charge. Widows
> were legally free of masculine control and free to co tract their own
> courtships and marriages…it was Anne's self-conscious decision not to
> remain where she was, in Clarence's kitchen or wherever. She also
> decided self-consciously not to become a nun and against whatever
> future, probably not including marriage, that her brother-in-law
> Clarence had in store for her. It was her decision to permit her
> abduction to St Martin's, almost certainly with the rider that this
> was merely a first step towards marriage to Duke Richard. It was her
> decision also to marry far within the prohibited degrees. There can
> have been very few fifteen-year-old ladies, let alone princesses who
> chose their marriage partners for themselves. Anne did. She
> transferred herself from one royal duke to another and duly married
> the second, tying her fortunes henceforth to his. All her ambitions
> were thereby fulfilled.
>
> Page 112
>
> "How irritating that we cannot know! Evidence of any sexual
> attraction - or indeed sexual starvation following the abrupt
> termination of Anne's conjugal rights - is irretrievable."
>
> P130
>
> "It is surprising how quickly Anne progressed from her first husband
> to her second. If Anne's first marriage was definitely not a love
> match - she cannot have known the bride groom before her betrothal -
> yet Edward of Lancaster was her husband, and however briefly, he had
> shared her bed. Her mourning was brief indeed. Within eight months
> at most, Anne had adjusted to her loss - to all her losses, her
> father included - and had pledged herself to another. Whilst it is
> not difficult to think of other young widows who moved on to further
> consorts with such precipitate haste, it was not what was expected -
> not seemly conduct - even by fifteenth century standards. Is not a
> cynical and calculating materialism on Anne's part implied here? Was
> she one of those girls who succumbed to the material or sexual
> temptations that the conduct books warned against? Or was Anne
> merely an unstable and/or emotional and/or impressionable fifteen-
> year-old on whom Duke Richard had imposed his stamp. We cannot be
> sure.
>
> One must moreover deplore the immorality of the match. A custodial
> sentence and registration as a sexual offender would result today for
> any man like Duke Richard guilty of sexual intercourse with a fifteen-
> year-old girl, but fifteenth century standards permitted such
> relations and indeed regarded them as normal and legitimate. In
> another way, however, this match did offend contemporary values.
> Whilst always aware that Anne and Richard were related within the
> prohibited degrees, historians have downplayed the significance."
>
> P132
>
> "Gloucester and Anne were already related in the same degrees as
> their siblings Clarence and Isabel, to which a further distant tie
> was created by Anne's first wedding to a distant cousin of them both,
> and they were yet more closely connected by the marriage of Richard's
> brother to Anne's sister…Richard was Anne's brother and Anne was
> Richard's sister…any sexual encounter between them, in or out of
> wedlock was incestuous, sinful, prohibited, deeply shocking and
> probably incapable of being dispensed. Neither Richard nor Anne can
> have been ignorant of this. Each should have rebuffed anything
> beyond fraternal friendship. To persist nevertheless, to pledge to
> each other and to resolve on marriage, required both parties to
> reject contemporary standards of morality - to flout what others
> thought - and to override the law in pursuit of their own wishes.
> Whether Anne was motivated by sexual attraction, ambition or merely
> by a desire to escape from an impossible situation, she was, by
> contemporary standards, quite wrong."
>
> Page 133
>
> On their marriage
>
> "That they appear to have escaped the penalties for a dozen years
> does not alter the case."
>
> P134
>
> "Another, more wide-ranging dispensation was needed before Anne and
> Richard could contract a valid union, but they did not wait for
> that. That they decided to marry in defiance of cannon law is
> astonishing. To marry before securing a valid dispensation - and,
> indeed, in full knowledge of it - was a further sin to be absolved."
>
> Page 148
>
> "Originally no doubt Richard and Anne meant to have their union
> ratified, hence the initial petition in 1472…Yet, afterwards, Anne
> and Richard perhaps, but far more probably Richard himself, decided
> not to remedy the defects to a valid marriage and to continue living
> together as husband and wife without proceeding with the legal
> niceties. There is no evidence of pangs of conscience…"
>
> "Later in Anne's last months, the illicit nature of their
> relationship…caused her great anxiety. By then, at least, she knew
> her whole married life to be a lie."
>
> Page 149
>
> "As time passed and their marriage was accepted at face value, Anne
> and Richard may have hoped to get away with it."
>
> Chapter 7 Past Her Sell-by Date
>
> The Elizabeth of York story
>
> Page 200
>
> "If genuine, Elizabeth's letter indicates that the marriage was
> indeed projected and that Elizabeth herself had consented to it -
> indeed in highly enthusiastic terms! She fancied her uncle as well
> as wanting a crown."
>
> Page 206
>
> "Opposition to his proposed second marriage worried Richard. Perhaps
> it caused him to waver, as Elizabeth's letter implies, if not to drop
> the project, which he appears extremely reluctant to abandon. It was
> opposition that provoked his qualms, not the message itself that what
> he projected was incestuous and damnable. That evidently did not
> trouble the king. After all, he had done it before. A man who could
> marry his sister [in-law] in defiance of convention and indeed
> religious law - an incestuous union by the standard of the time - was
> unlikely to be deterred by another such union, in this case marriage
> to his niece. Of incest Richard was a serial practitioner. To coin
> a phrase, he was a 'serial incestor'. Maybe another marriage was to
> be celebrated and consummated ahead of the arrival of (or request
> for) a dispensation. Could he afford to wait on negotiations at the
> papal curia that were bound to be protracted if they were to achieve
> their objective. The instant, automatic negative that was to be
> expected would be difficult to overcome. Too much depended
> politically on the match to enable him to wait on prior papal
> approval.
>
> Besides, the Lady Elizabeth was willing enough. Presumably her
> mother was too. How imperfect once again appear the moral standards
> of the house of York! Did its members regard the prohibited degrees
> and papal dispensations as mere technicalities that could be squared
> rather than the moral issues and dictates of God that Crowland and
> public opinion so respected. Richard could do it and therefore he
> would do it."
>
> Chapter 8 Epilogue
>
> Page 217
>
> "Anne went along with Warwick's choice of husband, shacked up with
> Duke Richard…"
>
> Page 218
>
> "It was Anne herself…who leapt into the arms, bed and ducal coronet
> of Richard, Duke of Gloucester.
>
> "…she was also highly exceptional both in her choice of second
> husband and the lie they lived for most of their adult life."
>
> Index
>
> Page 252 under Richard III "serial incestor"
>
> (By the way, I spotted one factual error. Page 147, Hicks says Juana
> La Beltraneja was married to Afonso V of Portugal, her cousin, ahead
> of a dispensation. They were actually uncle and niece...)
>
> Joanne
>

Wow, How'd you get through all that garbage?
bleh.
Mishka

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Joanne quoted: "It is surprising how quickly Anne
progressed from her first husband to her second. If
Anne's first marriage was definitely not a love
match - she cannot have known the bride groom before
her betrothal - yet Edward of Lancaster was her
husband, and however briefly, he had shared her bed.
Her mourning was brief indeed. Within eight months
at most, Anne had adjusted to her loss - to all her
losses, her father included - and had pledged herself
to another. Whilst it is not difficult to think of
other young widows who moved on to further consorts
with such precipitate haste, it was not what was
expected - not seemly conduct - even by fifteenth
century standards. Is not a cynical and calculating
materialism on Anne's part implied here?

*****

If Anne Neville's conduct was unseemly, so was
Margaret Beaufort's. Here are quotes from "The King's
Mother," by M.K. Jones and M.G. Underwood. In my
opinion, Jones and Underwood treat Margaret Beaufort
with far more fairness and professionalism than Hicks
treats Anne Neville.

p. 37-38: "The validity of a child marriage had a
suspended quality, with the child having the choice of
ratifying or reclaiming (i.e. revoking) the contract
at a future date. ... Margaret was later to recount
to Fisher her own version of these proceedings, which
gave an insight into the way a young girl might try to
make sense of the events around her. According to
Margaret's recollections she had been faced with a
choice between two suitors, John de la Pole and Edmund
Tudor. ... Unable to decide, she had been advised to
pray to St Nicholas ... The saint had intimated to
her that Edmund would be the appropriate choice."

p. 40: "After Edmund Tudor's death another marriage
had been arranged with remarkable speed. In March
1457 Jasper Tudor and Margaret Beaufort had travelled
from Pembroke to the duke of Buckingham's manor of
Greenfield, near Newport in Gwent. The discussions
had concerned the possibility of a marriage with
Buckingham's second son, Henry Stafford. Not yet
fourteen, Lady Margaret was now taking an active part
in planning her future. Her chief concern was to
protect her own interests and those of her infant
son."

p. 58: "On 4 October 1471, her husband had died.
Stafford, who had suffered periodic bouts of illness
over the last two years, never really recovered from
wounds inflicted at the battle of Barnet. It was a
considerable blow for Margaret. At this difficult
time her receiver Reginald Bray took care of the
details of Stafford's burial at Pleshey. But
Margaret's widowhood was to be brief, for within the
prescribed year of mourning she had re-married. Her
new Husband was Thomas Lord Stanley."

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

-
A late reply to the question I know but in the introduction to his RIII
Hicks thanks his wife of thirty years and their three children.

Of cause even if a man loves one woman he can still had low esteem of
women in general.

Helen


-- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> > I was prey to some base thoughts about Hicks, myself. I wonder if
he
> is married.
>
> Katy
>

Marion

Jones & Underwood seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. The fact that Margaret Beaufort was present at the negotiations for here marriage to Stafford doesn't necessarily mean that she was actively involved.

My feeling is that Anne Neville's marriage to Edward of Lancaster was consummated. Apart from his father, Lancaster was the only legitimate male of the House of Lancaster, and apart from the Beauforts, whose place in the succession was distinctly questionable, the only other Lancastrian heirs were John of Gaunt's Spanish and Portuguese descendants through the female line. Therefore, Lancaster needed to father a son asp. The other point is that even if Margaret of Anjou had forbidden Lancaster to consummate the marriage, a 17-year-old youth with any spirit would surely have gone ahead regardless. And Warwick would certainly have wanted the marriage consummated, so if Anne Neville herself had any say in the matter....

Ann


marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
*****

If Anne Neville's conduct was unseemly, so was
Margaret Beaufort's. Here are quotes from "The King's
Mother," by M.K. Jones and M.G. Underwood. In my
opinion, Jones and Underwood treat Margaret Beaufort
with far more fairness and professionalism than Hicks
treats Anne Neville.

p. 37-38: "The validity of a child marriage had a
suspended quality, with the child having the choice of
ratifying or reclaiming (i.e. revoking) the contract
at a future date. ... Margaret was later to recount
to Fisher her own version of these proceedings, which
gave an insight into the way a young girl might try to
make sense of the events around her. According to
Margaret's recollections she had been faced with a
choice between two suitors, John de la Pole and Edmund
Tudor. ... Unable to decide, she had been advised to
pray to St Nicholas ... The saint had intimated to
her that Edmund would be the appropriate choice."

p. 40: "After Edmund Tudor's death another marriage
had been arranged with remarkable speed. In March
1457 Jasper Tudor and Margaret Beaufort had travelled
from Pembroke to the duke of Buckingham's manor of
Greenfield, near Newport in Gwent. The discussions
had concerned the possibility of a marriage with
Buckingham's second son, Henry Stafford. Not yet
fourteen, Lady Margaret was now taking an active part
in planning her future. Her chief concern was to
protect her own interests and those of her infant
son."

p. 58: "On 4 October 1471, her husband had died.
Stafford, who had suffered periodic bouts of illness
over the last two years, never really recovered from
wounds inflicted at the battle of Barnet. It was a
considerable blow for Margaret. At this difficult
time her receiver Reginald Bray took care of the
details of Stafford's burial at Pleshey. But
Margaret's widowhood was to be brief, for within the
prescribed year of mourning she had re-married. Her
new Husband was Thomas Lord Stanley."

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com



SPONSORED LINKS

United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel



---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Marion
>
> Jones & Underwood seem to be making a lot of assumptions here.
The fact that Margaret Beaufort was present at the negotiations for
here marriage to Stafford doesn't necessarily mean that she was
actively involved.

with regard to Stafford, certainly, as Margaret was not yet 14 years
in March 1457 old when Jasper took her over to meet the family.
However, though the dispensation was issued (by the Bishop of
Lichfield) on 6 April 1457, the Stafford marriage didn't actually
take place until 3 January 1458, fourteen months after Edmund Tudor's
death.
However, it seems she married Stanley only nine months after
Stafford's death. And she was then an autonymous adult in mourning a
husband to whom she had been married - apparently very happily - for
almost fourteen years.

So there is no getting away from the fact that Margaret Beaufort
really broke the rules in remarrying Stanley - of her own will -
within a year of Stafford's death.
However, to go back to the the story of her marriage to Stafford,
what this really indicates is that there was a taboo on remarriage
within a year, but no taboo on conducting marriage negotiations
within that period.
Given that Edward of Lancaster died in early May 1471 and the
surviving dispensation for Richard and Anne's marriage was issued in
Rome in late April 1472, it seems highly improbable that Richard and
Anne were married inside the one-year mourning period. Hicks has made
up the "no marriage talk" rule himself simply in order to have some
mud to sling.
Slogan: Don't be deterred by lack of mud. MAKE MUD!

Marie

>
> My feeling is that Anne Neville's marriage to Edward of Lancaster
was consummated. Apart from his father, Lancaster was the only
legitimate male of the House of Lancaster, and apart from the
Beauforts, whose place in the succession was distinctly questionable,
the only other Lancastrian heirs were John of Gaunt's Spanish and
Portuguese descendants through the female line.


And the Duke of Exeter.


Therefore, Lancaster needed to father a son asp. The other point is
that even if Margaret of Anjou had forbidden Lancaster to consummate
the marriage, a 17-year-old youth with any spirit would surely have
gone ahead regardless. And Warwick would certainly have wanted the
marriage consummated, so if Anne Neville herself had any say in the
matter....
>
> Ann
>
>
> marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> *****
>
> If Anne Neville's conduct was unseemly, so was
> Margaret Beaufort's. Here are quotes from "The King's
> Mother," by M.K. Jones and M.G. Underwood. In my
> opinion, Jones and Underwood treat Margaret Beaufort
> with far more fairness and professionalism than Hicks
> treats Anne Neville.
>
> p. 37-38: "The validity of a child marriage had a
> suspended quality, with the child having the choice of
> ratifying or reclaiming (i.e. revoking) the contract
> at a future date. ... Margaret was later to recount
> to Fisher her own version of these proceedings, which
> gave an insight into the way a young girl might try to
> make sense of the events around her. According to
> Margaret's recollections she had been faced with a
> choice between two suitors, John de la Pole and Edmund
> Tudor. ... Unable to decide, she had been advised to
> pray to St Nicholas ... The saint had intimated to
> her that Edmund would be the appropriate choice."
>
> p. 40: "After Edmund Tudor's death another marriage
> had been arranged with remarkable speed. In March
> 1457 Jasper Tudor and Margaret Beaufort had travelled
> from Pembroke to the duke of Buckingham's manor of
> Greenfield, near Newport in Gwent. The discussions
> had concerned the possibility of a marriage with
> Buckingham's second son, Henry Stafford. Not yet
> fourteen, Lady Margaret was now taking an active part
> in planning her future. Her chief concern was to
> protect her own interests and those of her infant
> son."
>
> p. 58: "On 4 October 1471, her husband had died.
> Stafford, who had suffered periodic bouts of illness
> over the last two years, never really recovered from
> wounds inflicted at the battle of Barnet. It was a
> considerable blow for Margaret. At this difficult
> time her receiver Reginald Bray took care of the
> details of Stafford's burial at Pleshey. But
> Margaret's widowhood was to be brief, for within the
> prescribed year of mourning she had re-married. Her
> new Husband was Thomas Lord Stanley."
>
> Marion
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United
kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree. Allowing a month for the galloper to arrive from Rome with the dispensation takes us to late May 1472 at the earliest and more probably some time in June, a clear year and more after Edward of Lancaster's death on 4 May 1471. I'm speculating on this point, but I suspect that in medieval times it might well also have been rather improper to marry within a year of the death of a parent - Warwick was killed on 14 April 1471. Even now, weddings are often postponed if a parent dies, or they take place very quietly. A nice royal example is the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester on 6 November 1935, which went ahead on the original date but was moved from Westminster Abbey to the chapel in Buckingham Palace (destroyed in the Blitz) because of the death of the Duchess's father). I suspect it was decided not to postpone the wedding because the groom's father, George V, was clear in failing health and indeed died on 20 January 1936.

Incidentally, my maternal grandparents married shortly after the death of my grandmother's mother, in 1919, and my grandmother therefore married in mauve (half-mourning).

Ann

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
Given that Edward of Lancaster died in early May 1471 and the
surviving dispensation for Richard and Anne's marriage was issued in
Rome in late April 1472, it seems highly improbable that Richard and
Anne were married inside the one-year mourning period.

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

> So there is no getting away from the fact that Margaret Beaufort
> really broke the rules in remarrying Stanley - of her own will -
> within a year of Stafford's death.
> However, to go back to the the story of her marriage to Stafford,
> what this really indicates is that there was a taboo on remarriage
> within a year, but no taboo on conducting marriage negotiations
> within that period.



I wonder if Margaret Beaufort wasn't something of a special case. She
married Stanley within less than a year -- nine months, actually --
of the death of her revious husband. If the customary year-long gap
between marriages was designed at least in part to allow a pregnancy
to become apparent, so a man could be sure that the first child of
his marriage was actually his, then nine months is barely adequate.

Plus Magaret had taken vows of celibacy before her marriage to
Stanley, which certainly sounds unusual for a bride.

I can't determine whether Henry Stafford had children by his first
wife (Stephen, I'm sure you know) but he had none by Margaret
Beaufort during their 14-year marriage. Stanley had 13 children,
including seven sons, by his first wife. The youngest of these
children was around five years old when he married Margaret
Beaufort. He obviously didn't need any more children, but it appears
he could have fathered more. Margaret Beaufort was about 39.

Margaret Beaufort also seems to have been quite fertile, at least at
one time. She was pregnant by Edmund Tudor when she was 12 years
old, and gave birth to Henry the Weasel when she was barely 13. But
she never had another child.

I wonder if she wasn't injured by childbirth at that very early age.
She may have had a polite understanding with Stafford -- perhaps he
had a mistress -- and before she married Stanley, who probably didn't
need or want more children, she made a formal "don't even think about
it, Buster" holy vow of chastity. If she was incapable of having
another child, there would have been no need for the customary one-
year wait after Staffords death before she married Stanley.

Katy

I too am inclined to think that the birth of Henry Tudor rendered Margaret Beaufort incapable of having any more children. Not only was she extremely young, she was also very small (can't remember how small, but certainly under 5ft tall). I have read more than once that although very young girls (12-13ish) may be capable of having children, they are not yet fully developed physically and the risk of permanent damge is high.

Ann

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:


Margaret Beaufort also seems to have been quite fertile, at least at
one time. She was pregnant by Edmund Tudor when she was 12 years
old, and gave birth to Henry the Weasel when she was barely 13. But
she never had another child.

I wonder if she wasn't injured by childbirth at that very early age.
She may have had a polite understanding with Stafford -- perhaps he
had a mistress -- and before she married Stanley, who probably didn't
need or want more children, she made a formal "don't even think about
it, Buster" holy vow of chastity. If she was incapable of having
another child, there would have been no need for the customary one-
year wait after Staffords death before she married Stanley.

Katy






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


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

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
>
> > So there is no getting away from the fact that Margaret Beaufort
> > really broke the rules in remarrying Stanley - of her own will -
> > within a year of Stafford's death.
> > However, to go back to the the story of her marriage to Stafford,
> > what this really indicates is that there was a taboo on
remarriage
> > within a year, but no taboo on conducting marriage negotiations
> > within that period.
>
>
>
> I wonder if Margaret Beaufort wasn't something of a special case.
She
> married Stanley within less than a year -- nine months, actually --
> of the death of her revious husband. If the customary year-long
gap
> between marriages was designed at least in part to allow a
pregnancy
> to become apparent, so a man could be sure that the first child of
> his marriage was actually his, then nine months is barely adequate.
>
> Plus Magaret had taken vows of celibacy before her marriage to
> Stanley, which certainly sounds unusual for a bride.
>
> I can't determine whether Henry Stafford had children by his first
> wife (Stephen, I'm sure you know) but he had none by Margaret
> Beaufort during their 14-year marriage. Stanley had 13 children,
> including seven sons, by his first wife. The youngest of these
> children was around five years old when he married Margaret
> Beaufort. He obviously didn't need any more children, but it
appears
> he could have fathered more. Margaret Beaufort was about 39.
>
> Margaret Beaufort also seems to have been quite fertile, at least
at
> one time. She was pregnant by Edmund Tudor when she was 12 years
> old, and gave birth to Henry the Weasel when she was barely 13.
But
> she never had another child.
>
> I wonder if she wasn't injured by childbirth at that very early
age.
> She may have had a polite understanding with Stafford -- perhaps he
> had a mistress -- and before she married Stanley, who probably
didn't
> need or want more children, she made a formal "don't even think
about
> it, Buster" holy vow of chastity. If she was incapable of having
> another child, there would have been no need for the customary one-
> year wait after Staffords death before she married Stanley.
>
> Katy
>
I have quickly consulted Castelli. He says that Henry, son of the
first Duke, lived from 1425-1481 and had no children (no other wife
mentioned). I shall try to confirm this properly.

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
>
> > So there is no getting away from the fact that Margaret Beaufort
> > really broke the rules in remarrying Stanley - of her own will -
> > within a year of Stafford's death.
> > However, to go back to the the story of her marriage to Stafford,
> > what this really indicates is that there was a taboo on
remarriage
> > within a year, but no taboo on conducting marriage negotiations
> > within that period.
>
>
>
> I wonder if Margaret Beaufort wasn't something of a special case.
She
> married Stanley within less than a year -- nine months, actually --
> of the death of her revious husband. If the customary year-long
gap
> between marriages was designed at least in part to allow a
pregnancy
> to become apparent, so a man could be sure that the first child of
> his marriage was actually his, then nine months is barely adequate.
>
> Plus Magaret had taken vows of celibacy before her marriage to
> Stanley, which certainly sounds unusual for a bride.

That's often said, but it doesn't seem to be true. According to Jones
& Underwood, she took her first vow of chastity in 1499, and then
established her household independently of Stanley's at Collyweston.
Up until then they had been living as normal man and wife.
The nine-month wait is bately adequate, but let's face it, a very
small & slim woman (which she was) who wasn't looking the slightest
bit pregnant after nine months probably wasn't. After 14 years of
childless marriage to Henry Stafford, it's unlikely anyone really
expected her to be.


>
> I can't determine whether Henry Stafford had children by his first
> wife (Stephen, I'm sure you know) but he had none by Margaret
> Beaufort during their 14-year marriage.

I don't believe he was a widower when he married Margaret Beaufort.
Castelli is certainly wrong about his date of death. He died on 4
October 1471 (Jones & Underwood). He had been ill for a couple of
years apparently, following wounds received (on the Yorkist side) at
Barnet. He was buried in the Stafford family mausoleum at Pleshey.
J&U date Margaret's marriage to Stanley between the drawing up of her
will on 2 June 1472 and the dating of the marriage settlement on 12
June 1472.


Stanley had 13 children,
> including seven sons, by his first wife. The youngest of these
> children was around five years old when he married Margaret
> Beaufort. He obviously didn't need any more children, but it
appears
> he could have fathered more. Margaret Beaufort was about 39.
>
> Margaret Beaufort also seems to have been quite fertile, at least
at
> one time. She was pregnant by Edmund Tudor when she was 12 years
> old, and gave birth to Henry the Weasel when she was barely 13.
But
> she never had another child.
>
> I wonder if she wasn't injured by childbirth at that very early
age.

I very much agree here. I think she was.


> She may have had a polite understanding with Stafford -- perhaps he
> had a mistress -- and before she married Stanley, who probably
didn't
> need or want more children, she made a formal "don't even think
about
> it, Buster" holy vow of chastity. If she was incapable of having
> another child, there would have been no need for the customary one-
> year wait after Staffords death before she married Stanley.

How could she absolutely KNOW she was incapable of anyother child? I
believe she longed for another child and lived in hope. After
Stafford's death she might have been anxious to marry again quickly
for that very reason. One of Stanley's attractions may well have been
his good track record in fathering children. She only took that vow
of celibacy when she was 56 and well through the menopause.

Marie

Ann wrote: Marion, Jones & Underwood seem to be
making a lot of assumptions here. The fact that
Margaret Beaufort was present at the negotiations for
here marriage to Stafford doesn't necessarily mean
that she was actively involved.

****

I assume she was actively involved because I have read
in other sources that 14 was considered old enough to
take responsibility for decisions.

It seems to me that events might have forced Margaret
Beaufort to grow up quickly, and she did because she
was capable of growing rather than withering under
adversity.

So I believe she was capable of active involvement in
the arrangements for her marriage to Henry Stafford,
even if she wasn't quite 14 at the time. I can't
prove that she was or wasn't involved. I believe she
was because it seems in character with her behavior
throughout the rest of her life.

All I've read about Margaret Beaufort suggests that
she was a proactive person, who involved herself in
the financial, legal, and management details of
running her estates.

I see a lot of admirable qualities in Margaret
Beaufort. It's too bad she wasn't supporting the
Yorkist cause.

Marion



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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



> >
> > Plus Magaret had taken vows of celibacy before her marriage to
> > Stanley, which certainly sounds unusual for a bride.
>
> That's often said, but it doesn't seem to be true. According to
Jones
> & Underwood, she took her first vow of chastity in 1499, and then
> established her household independently of Stanley's at
Collyweston.
> Up until then they had been living as normal man and wife.


I got the info that she took her vow of chastity before her marriage
to Stanley from the Wikipedia entry on her. Is that incorrect?
Can/should the Wikipedia be corrected?




> I don't believe he was a widower when he married Margaret Beaufort.
> Castelli is certainly wrong about his date of death. He died on 4
> October 1471 (Jones & Underwood). He had been ill for a couple of
> years apparently, following wounds received (on the Yorkist side)
at
> Barnet. He was buried in the Stafford family mausoleum at Pleshey.
> J&U date Margaret's marriage to Stanley between the drawing up of
her
> will on 2 June 1472 and the dating of the marriage settlement on 12
> June 1472.
>

> >
> > I wonder if she wasn't injured by childbirth at that very early
> age.
>
> I very much agree here. I think she was.
>
>
> > She may have had a polite understanding with Stafford -- perhaps
he
> > had a mistress -- and before she married Stanley, who probably
> didn't
> > need or want more children, she made a formal "don't even think
> about
> > it, Buster" holy vow of chastity. If she was incapable of having
> > another child, there would have been no need for the customary
one-
> > year wait after Staffords death before she married Stanley.
>
> How could she absolutely KNOW she was incapable of anyother child?
I
> believe she longed for another child and lived in hope. After
> Stafford's death she might have been anxious to marry again quickly
> for that very reason. One of Stanley's attractions may well have
been
> his good track record in fathering children. She only took that vow
> of celibacy when she was 56 and well through the menopause.



I was led astray by the Wikipedia article which gives diferent timing
of those vows.

My speculation is that she didn't want to chance another pregnabcy --
that rather than of whether or not she knew she was uncapable of
having another child, or longing for one, she was afraid she was
capable of another pregnancy and feared it.

Perhaps she married a man with so many children, some of them still
quite young, because she longed for children. She also had the
wardship of other children.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Plus Magaret had taken vows of celibacy before her marriage to
> > > Stanley, which certainly sounds unusual for a bride.
> >
> > That's often said, but it doesn't seem to be true. According to
> Jones
> > & Underwood, she took her first vow of chastity in 1499, and then
> > established her household independently of Stanley's at
> Collyweston.
> > Up until then they had been living as normal man and wife.
>
>
> I got the info that she took her vow of chastity before her
marriage
> to Stanley from the Wikipedia entry on her. Is that incorrect?
> Can/should the Wikipedia be corrected?


I think so. The idea that she married Stanley not too long before
Richard became king, and had the chastity arrangement in place from
the start of the marriage, is certainly an idea I had picked up from
older books (perhaps also with that 1481 date for Henry Stafford's
death). But Jones and Underwood have done a lot of painstaking
research. They've certainly studied the marriage contract. Here are
some extracts:-

Page 145: "Her first vow of chastity, undertaken shilst Thomas
Stanley was still alive, is seens as evidence of her personal
distaste for the arrangement. It is a misguided view that begins with
almost every authority misdating the match by some ten years, and
consequently underplaying the significance of this new alliace for
more than a decade before 1485."

Page 153: "However, the couple's relationship was to undergo a
further change at the beginning of 1499, when Margaret undertook a
vow of chastity, with Thomas Stanley's permission, and set up her own
establishment at Collyweston." (footnote gives document ref Lancs
RO, DDK 2/14)

Pages 187 to 188: "The vow before John Fisher by which she confirmed
her state of chastity after [Stanley's death in] 1504 was also
remarkable in that it did not follow an established canonical
form . . ."

It seems there has been the same tendency to extrapolate nunly living
backwards in time with Margaret Beaufort as we find with Cecily
Neville (Cecily only took up the religious rule about 1480).
I don't think it would have been possible to marry, in any case, if
one weren't prepared to consummate.

Marie

Marion

I agree with what you say about Margaret Beaufort, who was certainly a forceful individual in later life. All I was saying is that we cannot assume from her presence at the negotiations that she was actually involved.

One more point about Margaret Beaufort. She was fatherless from infancy - who was her mother and was she still around in the period 1455-58?

Ann

marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
****

I assume she was actively involved because I have read
in other sources that 14 was considered old enough to
take responsibility for decisions.

It seems to me that events might have forced Margaret
Beaufort to grow up quickly, and she did because she
was capable of growing rather than withering under
adversity.

So I believe she was capable of active involvement in
the arrangements for her marriage to Henry Stafford,
even if she wasn't quite 14 at the time. I can't
prove that she was or wasn't involved. I believe she
was because it seems in character with her behavior
throughout the rest of her life.

All I've read about Margaret Beaufort suggests that
she was a proactive person, who involved herself in
the financial, legal, and management details of
running her estates.

I see a lot of admirable qualities in Margaret
Beaufort. It's too bad she wasn't supporting the
Yorkist cause.

Marion



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Margaret Beauchamp was her mother (source: Castelli) but I have no dates. Perhaps Burke's or the CP will have the answer as her father was John, Duke of Somerset.
PS She is, of course, mentioned in a certain yellow booklet.
----- Original Message -----
From: A LYON
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Hicks: straight from the horse's mouth


Marion

I agree with what you say about Margaret Beaufort, who was certainly a forceful individual in later life. All I was saying is that we cannot assume from her presence at the negotiations that she was actually involved.

One more point about Margaret Beaufort. She was fatherless from infancy - who was her mother and was she still around in the period 1455-58?

Ann

marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
****

I assume she was actively involved because I have read
in other sources that 14 was considered old enough to
take responsibility for decisions.

It seems to me that events might have forced Margaret
Beaufort to grow up quickly, and she did because she
was capable of growing rather than withering under
adversity.

So I believe she was capable of active involvement in
the arrangements for her marriage to Henry Stafford,
even if she wasn't quite 14 at the time. I can't
prove that she was or wasn't involved. I believe she
was because it seems in character with her behavior
throughout the rest of her life.

All I've read about Margaret Beaufort suggests that
she was a proactive person, who involved herself in
the financial, legal, and management details of
running her estates.

I see a lot of admirable qualities in Margaret
Beaufort. It's too bad she wasn't supporting the
Yorkist cause.

Marion



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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









------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Marion
>
> I agree with what you say about Margaret Beaufort, who was
certainly a forceful individual in later life. All I was saying is
that we cannot assume from her presence at the negotiations that she
was actually involved.
>
> One more point about Margaret Beaufort. She was fatherless from
infancy - who was her mother and was she still around in the period
1455-58?
>
> Ann

Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe. she had children by two other
marriages as well, which gives Margaret Beaufort an interesting set
of siblings/ nieces & nephews in the half-blood.
Margaret Beauchamp's first husband had been Oliver St John (d.1437).
Her children by him included:-
1) Edith, married Geoffrey Pole. Richard Pole who was married to
Margaret of Salisbury was their son.
2) John St John. His daughter Anne was married to Lord Clifford.
3)Elizabeth, who married William Lord Zouche. Their daughter Margaret
was the wife of Sir william Catesby.
In 1447 Margaret Beaufort's mother married her third husband, Lionel
Lord Welles (d. fighting for Lancaster at Towton). John Viscount
Welles, who went on to marry the Princes Cecily, was the offspring of
that marriage.
Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe herself lived on until the first half
of 1482.

I'd highly recommend 'The King's Mother', by the way. I think it's
shame that there's been something of a campaign of denigration of
Michael Jones, as his work is actually much more sound than it's
often given credit for. Of course it's not perfect - which historian
is? But I do feel that all the criticism has more to do with gut
hostility to his interpretation of Bosworth and Edward IV's birth
than with the quality of his research.

The people singled out after Bosworth for siding with Richard III
were in many cases closely connected with Margaret Beaufort, and I
personally can't help feeling they had turned down her approaches and
were being punished for it. Catesby, of course, was executed three
days after the battle. John Lord Zouche was attainted, so was Roger
Wake who was a brother-in-law of Catesby. Another attaintee, William
Sapcote (who had died at Bosworth), was a neighbour of Margaret
Beaufort's in Lincolnshire. His widow would marry the steward of
Margaret Beaufort's Lincolnshire estates, possibly the only way she
could see of gaining restitution for her young son, Guy Sapcote.

Marie





>
> marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> ****
>
> I assume she was actively involved because I have read
> in other sources that 14 was considered old enough to
> take responsibility for decisions.
>
> It seems to me that events might have forced Margaret
> Beaufort to grow up quickly, and she did because she
> was capable of growing rather than withering under
> adversity.
>
> So I believe she was capable of active involvement in
> the arrangements for her marriage to Henry Stafford,
> even if she wasn't quite 14 at the time. I can't
> prove that she was or wasn't involved. I believe she
> was because it seems in character with her behavior
> throughout the rest of her life.
>
> All I've read about Margaret Beaufort suggests that
> she was a proactive person, who involved herself in
> the financial, legal, and management details of
> running her estates.
>
> I see a lot of admirable qualities in Margaret
> Beaufort. It's too bad she wasn't supporting the
> Yorkist cause.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United
kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Marion
> >
> > I agree with what you say about Margaret Beaufort, who was
> certainly a forceful individual in later life. All I was saying is
> that we cannot assume from her presence at the negotiations that
she
> was actually involved.
> >
> > One more point about Margaret Beaufort. She was fatherless from
> infancy - who was her mother and was she still around in the period
> 1455-58?
> >
> > Ann
>
> Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe. she had children by two other
> marriages as well, which gives Margaret Beaufort an interesting set
> of siblings/ nieces & nephews in the half-blood.
> Margaret Beauchamp's first husband had been Oliver St John
(d.1437).
> Her children by him included:-
> 1) Edith, married Geoffrey Pole. Richard Pole who was married to
> Margaret of Salisbury was their son.
> 2) John St John. His daughter Anne was married to Lord Clifford.
> 3)Elizabeth, who married William Lord Zouche. Their daughter
Margaret
> was the wife of Sir william Catesby.
> In 1447 Margaret Beaufort's mother married her third husband,
Lionel
> Lord Welles (d. fighting for Lancaster at Towton). John Viscount
> Welles, who went on to marry the Princes Cecily, was the offspring
of
> that marriage.
> Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe herself lived on until the first half
> of 1482.
>
> I'd highly recommend 'The King's Mother', by the way. I think it's
> shame that there's been something of a campaign of denigration of
> Michael Jones, as his work is actually much more sound than it's
> often given credit for. Of course it's not perfect - which
historian
> is? But I do feel that all the criticism has more to do with gut
> hostility to his interpretation of Bosworth and Edward IV's birth
> than with the quality of his research.
>
> The people singled out after Bosworth for siding with Richard III
> were in many cases closely connected with Margaret Beaufort, and I
> personally can't help feeling they had turned down her approaches
and
> were being punished for it. Catesby, of course, was executed three
> days after the battle. John Lord Zouche was attainted, so was Roger
> Wake who was a brother-in-law of Catesby. Another attaintee,
William
> Sapcote (who had died at Bosworth), was a neighbour of Margaret
> Beaufort's in Lincolnshire. His widow would marry the steward of
> Margaret Beaufort's Lincolnshire estates, possibly the only way she
> could see of gaining restitution for her young son, Guy Sapcote.
>
> Marie
>
> Thanks, Marie, I have always wanted to pin down Sir Richard Pole's
and John Welles' origins a little more precisely.
My dig on Castelli this morning revealed something else.
Henry VII's strongest (sorry, least weak) claim was through his
mother and her father. Castelli insists that she had an ELDER
PATERNAL half-sister, Thomasina, who married a Lord Grey and had a
child. This unusually named sister and her offspring should have
preceded Margaret B and her son; the surname points a little towards
the middle of the next century!

Stephen
>
>
>
> >
> > marion davis <phaecilia@> wrote:
> > ****
> >
> > I assume she was actively involved because I have read
> > in other sources that 14 was considered old enough to
> > take responsibility for decisions.
> >
> > It seems to me that events might have forced Margaret
> > Beaufort to grow up quickly, and she did because she
> > was capable of growing rather than withering under
> > adversity.
> >
> > So I believe she was capable of active involvement in
> > the arrangements for her marriage to Henry Stafford,
> > even if she wasn't quite 14 at the time. I can't
> > prove that she was or wasn't involved. I believe she
> > was because it seems in character with her behavior
> > throughout the rest of her life.
> >
> > All I've read about Margaret Beaufort suggests that
> > she was a proactive person, who involved herself in
> > the financial, legal, and management details of
> > running her estates.
> >
> > I see a lot of admirable qualities in Margaret
> > Beaufort. It's too bad she wasn't supporting the
> > Yorkist cause.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower
> delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United
> kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote: brevity snip
> Thanks, Marie, I have always wanted to pin down Sir Richard Pole's
and John Welles' origins a little more precisely.
My dig on Castelli this morning revealed something else.
Henry VII's strongest (sorry, least weak) claim was through his
mother and her father. Castelli insists that she had an ELDER
PATERNAL half-sister, Thomasina, who married a Lord Grey and had a
child. This unusually named sister and her offspring should have
preceded Margaret B and her son; the surname points a little towards
the middle of the next century!

Stephen
hello stephen and others..
here's the scoop on thomasina/tacina/tacine.
roslyn
Cokayne calls her the illegitimate daughter of Prince John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. Such was mentioned at the funeral for Lord Grey.

John Steele Gordon writes:

Thomasine (or Tacine) was the daughter of John Beaufort, but not of Margaret Beauchamp. She was illegitimate, the daughter of an unknown woman, presumably French, born during her father's long captivity in France.

This same confusion appears in Faris II, page 333, where John Beaufort
and Margaret Beauchamp are called ancestors of Jane Haviland, when only
John Beaufort is because the descent is through Thomasine and her
husband, Reynold Grey, Lord Grey of Wilton. Faris II gets this correct
on page 360

From Douglas Richardson:

Search Result 2From: Douglas Richardson (royalancestry@...)
Subject: Re: John Steele Gordon - descended from Kings??? View: Complete Thread (4 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 1999/09/21

Hi Michelle:

The name of Lord Grey's wife was Tacine (or Tacyn), not
Tacinda. I have found three contemporary records which
mention this woman. The first is dated in the early
1440's when as Tacyn daughter of John Beaufort she was
naturalized by Parliament. The need for naturalization
suggests that she was born in France while her father was
held a prisoner from 1421 to about 1440. The second is a
fine made at the time of her marriage to Reginald, Lord
Grey, which record is found in the Essex Feet of Fines.
This record calls her Tacina (Latin I presume for
Tacine). Third, there is a Patent Roll item in the mid-
1450's which likewise refers to her as Tacina. Again I
presume this is the Latin form of her name which was left
untranslated.

If anyone is familiar with French given names, I'd
appreciate knowing more about the derivation of the name,
Tacyn/Tacine.

The story of Tacine is surely an interesting one. She was
evidently born in France while her father was held
prisoner. Years later when he was finally released, he
brought her back to England with him, had her naturalized
and then married her off to a peer. Himself he finally
married in mid-age and produced but one legitimate child,
Margaret Beaufort, who in time became the mother of the
future King Henry VII. This would surely make an
interesting movie. Call it the "French Affair."

All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson,

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen Lark <smlark@...> wrote: brevity snip
> > Thanks, Marie, I have always wanted to pin down Sir Richard
Pole's
> and John Welles' origins a little more precisely.
> My dig on Castelli this morning revealed something else.
> Henry VII's strongest (sorry, least weak) claim was through his
> mother and her father. Castelli insists that she had an ELDER
> PATERNAL half-sister, Thomasina, who married a Lord Grey and had a
> child. This unusually named sister and her offspring should have
> preceded Margaret B and her son; the surname points a little
towards
> the middle of the next century!
>
> Stephen
> hello stephen and others..
> here's the scoop on thomasina/tacina/tacine.
> roslyn
> Cokayne calls her the illegitimate daughter of Prince John
Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. Such was mentioned at the funeral for
Lord Grey.
>
> John Steele Gordon writes:
>
> Thomasine (or Tacine) was the daughter of John Beaufort, but not of
Margaret Beauchamp. She was illegitimate, the daughter of an unknown
woman, presumably French, born during her father's long captivity in
France.
>
> This same confusion appears in Faris II, page 333, where John
Beaufort
> and Margaret Beauchamp are called ancestors of Jane Haviland, when
only
> John Beaufort is because the descent is through Thomasine and her
> husband, Reynold Grey, Lord Grey of Wilton. Faris II gets this
correct
> on page 360
>
> From Douglas Richardson:
>
> Search Result 2From: Douglas Richardson (royalancestry@...)
> Subject: Re: John Steele Gordon - descended from Kings??? View:
Complete Thread (4 articles)
> Original FormatNewsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> Date: 1999/09/21
>
> Hi Michelle:
>
> The name of Lord Grey's wife was Tacine (or Tacyn), not
> Tacinda. I have found three contemporary records which
> mention this woman. The first is dated in the early
> 1440's when as Tacyn daughter of John Beaufort she was
> naturalized by Parliament. The need for naturalization
> suggests that she was born in France while her father was
> held a prisoner from 1421 to about 1440. The second is a
> fine made at the time of her marriage to Reginald, Lord
> Grey, which record is found in the Essex Feet of Fines.
> This record calls her Tacina (Latin I presume for
> Tacine). Third, there is a Patent Roll item in the mid-
> 1450's which likewise refers to her as Tacina. Again I
> presume this is the Latin form of her name which was left
> untranslated.
>
> If anyone is familiar with French given names, I'd
> appreciate knowing more about the derivation of the name,
> Tacyn/Tacine.
>
> The story of Tacine is surely an interesting one. She was
> evidently born in France while her father was held
> prisoner. Years later when he was finally released, he
> brought her back to England with him, had her naturalized
> and then married her off to a peer. Himself he finally
> married in mid-age and produced but one legitimate child,
> Margaret Beaufort, who in time became the mother of the
> future King Henry VII. This would surely make an
> interesting movie. Call it the "French Affair."
>
> All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson,
>
>
>
>
>
I have been back to Castelli. He recognises that Thomasine was
illegitimate and her descendants don't seem to include any reluctant
monarchs.
Sorry if I was a little excited but the prospect of blowing another
hole in the Weasel's claim has that effect upon one.