Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Hicks: straight from the horse'

>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

Indeed, let's bring a bit of anachronism into the situation, and say that by our standards Edward of Lancaster was quite possibly the rapist of a child. When should the said child have mourned for him, even for an hour??

To be a little less melodramatic, we have absolutely no evidence that Anne loved Edward - her mourning may have been conventional, and if she was ready to move on within 12 months that makes her human rather than slutty.

Brian





















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


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 , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
>
> >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
>
> Indeed, let's bring a bit of anachronism into the situation, and
say that by our standards Edward of Lancaster was quite possibly the
rapist of a child. When should the said child have mourned for him,
even for an hour??
>
> To be a little less melodramatic, we have absolutely no evidence
that Anne loved Edward - her mourning may have been conventional, and
if she was ready to move on within 12 months that makes her human
rather than slutty.
>
> Brian
>
> I have often wondered whether we should consider executing certain
writers in effigy. Where might we borrow an axe for Starkey and Hicks
or some matches for Weir?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
>
>
>
>

On 26 Feb 2006, at 11:09, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Where might we borrow an axe for Starkey and Hicks
> or some matches for Weir?

I'm sure we could be a bit more inventive than just straight
beheading or burning! :-)
Paul

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

Has anyone seen reviews of Hicks book on Anne Neville in the press?
What sort of reception has it been getting?

Helen

Marie:
> 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.

Ann:
And it's quite possible her marriage to Edward of Lancaster was
never consummated:

1) as we've been discussing the mystical significance of
multiples of seven, and so on, I did notice that no one brought up
the logical point that medieval families would probably have
preferred to postpone consummation until menarche; while there's a
range, of course, the average age was probably closer to sixteen
than twelve.

2) it's also very possible that Margaret of Anjou might have
STRONGLY preferred to delay consummation until Affairs were more
Stable, especially as the Prince of Wales really SHOULD have been
making a state marriage to a foreign princess, not the younger
daughter of a mere Earl. Margaret may well have wanted to keep her
options open.

L.P.H.,

Ann

The engaged couple appeared to be somewhat stupefied. But
they would get over it.

--- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...>
wrote:
>
> Marie:
> > 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.
>
> Ann:
> And it's quite possible her marriage to Edward of Lancaster was
> never consummated:
>
> 1) as we've been discussing the mystical significance of
> multiples of seven, and so on, I did notice that no one brought up
> the logical point that medieval families would probably have
> preferred to postpone consummation until menarche; while there's a
> range, of course, the average age was probably closer to sixteen
> than twelve.

Average age of menarche in the past was actually covered on my PGCE
(teacher training) course, believe it or not. The conclusion was that
the late average age in the more recent past was probably the
aberration (if it was true at all). There was a desire to keep girls
as children for a very long time a couple of generations back - short
socks and childrens' style of clothes till mid teens & all that. The
poor diet of the masses in the industrial era might have had
something to do with it, possibly (they suggested) also psychological
factors, though I doubt that myself.
Anyway, using various references, sociologists had come to the
conclusion that 12 probably had been the average age before the
Victorian era, just as it is now. Indeed, that is probably why the
age of consent was set at 12 for a girl (13 for a boy). After all,
Shakespeare expected his audience to think nothing of a girl just
turning 14 being passionately in love and wanting to consummate her
desires.
Perhaps late puberty was always common amongst the less well fed, but
I should have thought the upper class medieval diet (mostly meat)
would be consistent with early development.
Marie

--- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@...> wrote:
>
> Marie:
> > 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.
>
> Ann:
> And it's quite possible her marriage to Edward of Lancaster was
> never consummated:
>
2) it's also very possible that Margaret of Anjou might have
> STRONGLY preferred to delay consummation until Affairs were more
> Stable, especially as the Prince of Wales really SHOULD have been
> making a state marriage to a foreign princess, not the younger
> daughter of a mere Earl. Margaret may well have wanted to keep her
> options open.
>
Ive always been of thin opinion. Were they in fact married?? I have checked Paul Murry
Kendall and he says:

July 22 - Queen Margaret & Warwick met at Angers - Margaret kept Warwick on his knees
- eventually grudgingly agreed to the marriage but would not let the marriage be
solemnised until Warwick had reconquered England.
July 25 - Anne (15) was betrothed to Prince Edward (16)

Bearing in mind Margarets hatred for Warwick I think it would be more than possible
Margaret would not have agreed to the consummation until their venture had suceeded.

Eileen
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> The engaged couple appeared to be somewhat stupefied. But
> they would get over it.
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@>
wrote:
> >
> > Marie:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ann:
> > And it's quite possible her marriage to Edward of Lancaster
was
> > never consummated:
> >
> 2) it's also very possible that Margaret of Anjou might have
> > STRONGLY preferred to delay consummation until Affairs were more
> > Stable, especially as the Prince of Wales really SHOULD have been
> > making a state marriage to a foreign princess, not the younger
> > daughter of a mere Earl. Margaret may well have wanted to keep
her
> > options open.
> >
> Ive always been of thin opinion. Were they in fact married?? I
have checked Paul Murry
> Kendall and he says:
>
> July 22 - Queen Margaret & Warwick met at Angers - Margaret kept
Warwick on his knees
> - eventually grudgingly agreed to the marriage but would not let
the marriage be
> solemnised until Warwick had reconquered England.
> July 25 - Anne (15) was betrothed to Prince Edward (16)
>
> Bearing in mind Margarets hatred for Warwick I think it would be
more than possible
> Margaret would not have agreed to the consummation until their
venture had suceeded.

Sadly Kendall's now out of date on this one. Evidence has turned up
since that they were married in December. p.147 Ross's 'Edward IV'
has
". . . on 25 July they were solemnly betrothed in Anger Cathedral.1"

Footnote 1 reads: "They could not be formally married, since a
dispensation for their relationship in the fourth degree could not be
obtained as such short notice: they had a common great-grandfather in
John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster. They were later married at Amboise,
probably on 13 December 1470 (Calmette and Perinelle, 139-40)."

I've read more details on this somewhere, but don't for the life of
me know where now. I've never seen any comment, however, on the fact
the 13 December falls in a 'tempus clausus' (if I remember the term
correctly) or forbidden period for marriages, ie Advent. There must
have been a waiver for that too. Not waiting till after Christmas
suggests Louis (and perhaps the Countess of Warwick) was not going to
give Queen Margaret any chance to wriggle out of it.

That doesn't quite answer the question of whether the marriage was
consummated, but I bet Louis and the Countess would have insisted on
that too. Anne was always represented as the widow of Prince Edward.
The genealogical tree in the Beauchamp Pageant (probably the
Countess' own brainchild) illustrates her standing squarely betwen
her two husbands, and Edward of Lancaster is labelled "Prince Edward
son to kyng Henr' the vj first husbond of Anne".

Marie

PS. On the subject of Edward of Midddleham's age, the same tree shows
him as smaller than his cousin Edward of Warwick, who in turn is
smaller than his sister Margaret.

Castelli gives the following dates of birth:

Margaret, Countess of Salisbury: 14 August 1473,
Edward, Earl of Warwick: 25 February 1475,
Edward of Middleham: December 1473.

Obviously, many sources now reckon Edward of Middleham to have been born later, after both his cousins (whose father was three years older than Richard and whose mother was five years older than Anne). Furthermore, Clarence and Isobel's eldest child was born in 1470.
Middleham, therefore, appears to have been born after his cousins and died well before either of them.

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Hicks: straight from the horse'smouth


--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Ann Sharp" <axsc@>
wrote:
> >
> > Marie:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ann:
> > And it's quite possible her marriage to Edward of Lancaster
was
> > never consummated:
> >
> 2) it's also very possible that Margaret of Anjou might have
> > STRONGLY preferred to delay consummation until Affairs were more
> > Stable, especially as the Prince of Wales really SHOULD have been
> > making a state marriage to a foreign princess, not the younger
> > daughter of a mere Earl. Margaret may well have wanted to keep
her
> > options open.
> >
> Ive always been of thin opinion. Were they in fact married?? I
have checked Paul Murry
> Kendall and he says:
>
> July 22 - Queen Margaret & Warwick met at Angers - Margaret kept
Warwick on his knees
> - eventually grudgingly agreed to the marriage but would not let
the marriage be
> solemnised until Warwick had reconquered England.
> July 25 - Anne (15) was betrothed to Prince Edward (16)
>
> Bearing in mind Margarets hatred for Warwick I think it would be
more than possible
> Margaret would not have agreed to the consummation until their
venture had suceeded.

Sadly Kendall's now out of date on this one. Evidence has turned up
since that they were married in December. p.147 Ross's 'Edward IV'
has
". . . on 25 July they were solemnly betrothed in Anger Cathedral.1"

Footnote 1 reads: "They could not be formally married, since a
dispensation for their relationship in the fourth degree could not be
obtained as such short notice: they had a common great-grandfather in
John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster. They were later married at Amboise,
probably on 13 December 1470 (Calmette and Perinelle, 139-40)."

I've read more details on this somewhere, but don't for the life of
me know where now. I've never seen any comment, however, on the fact
the 13 December falls in a 'tempus clausus' (if I remember the term
correctly) or forbidden period for marriages, ie Advent. There must
have been a waiver for that too. Not waiting till after Christmas
suggests Louis (and perhaps the Countess of Warwick) was not going to
give Queen Margaret any chance to wriggle out of it.

That doesn't quite answer the question of whether the marriage was
consummated, but I bet Louis and the Countess would have insisted on
that too. Anne was always represented as the widow of Prince Edward.
The genealogical tree in the Beauchamp Pageant (probably the
Countess' own brainchild) illustrates her standing squarely betwen
her two husbands, and Edward of Lancaster is labelled "Prince Edward
son to kyng Henr' the vj first husbond of Anne".

Marie

PS. On the subject of Edward of Midddleham's age, the same tree shows
him as smaller than his cousin Edward of Warwick, who in turn is
smaller than his sister Margaret.







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

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.


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