John Woodville & his elderly bride

Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess of Norfolk was 80 years
old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??

Is it known if she outlived him?

And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at Bosworth? Was she his
mum?

Anyone know??

Eileen

the dowager duchess of norfolk, aka katherine neville was born circa 1401 and died after 1482. she was married to john mowbray b. 1390. john and katherine were married jan. 1411/12. they had a son john, b. 1415. john sr. died in 1432.

john jr. was the father john mowbray m. elizabeth talbot. they were the parents of anne mowbray m. e4's son richard.

after john b. 1390 died, katherine then married thomas strangways before 1442. she had a daughter joan by him. he died before 1442.

her third husband was john, lord beaumont. he died at the battle of northampton in 1460.

her forth marriage occurred after 1464 to john woodville. he was executed august 12, 1469. ( i don't have in my records why).

so the duchess was over 80 when she died and in her mid to late 60's when married to woodville.

the duke of norfolk title passed on to john howard in 1483. john howard was the son of margaret mowbray sister of john mowbray m. katherine neville.

katherine neville was the aunt to richard neville aka kingmaker. and katherine was also the older sister to cecily neville m. richard d. of york.

nuffin like keepin' it in the family...sigh

roslyn

p.s. note how young katherine was when she had her son john jr.
teenage pregnacy was not uncommon in this era.



eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess of Norfolk was 80 years
old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??

Is it known if she outlived him?

And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at Bosworth? Was she his
mum?

Anyone know??

Eileen

Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses of Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long after.

Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is) but died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's inheritance to his son.

When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied and the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John Howard and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact geneology I think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the family was in disgrace.

Brian


----- Original Message -----
From: eileen
To:
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
Subject: John Woodville & his elderly bride


Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess of Norfolk was 80 years
old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??

Is it known if she outlived him?

And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at Bosworth? Was she his
mum?

Anyone know??

Eileen

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@...> wrote:
>
> Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses of
Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
after.
>
> Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the
latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is) but
died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
inheritance to his son.
>
> When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied and
the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John Howard
and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact geneology I
think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the family
was in disgrace.
>
> Brian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: eileen
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> Subject: John Woodville & his elderly
bride
>
>
> Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess
of Norfolk was 80 years
> old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
>
> Is it known if she outlived him?
>
> And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at
Bosworth? Was she his
> mum?
>
> Anyone know??
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have consulted my usual sources.
Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas makes
the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's brother).

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not 80yrs as I for one have
been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year old is bad enough - umm
shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well consumatted then!! The mind
boggles!!
Eileen
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
> Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses of
> Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
> after.
> >
> > Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the
> latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
> Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is) but
> died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
> properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
> inheritance to his son.
> >
> > When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied and
> the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John Howard
> and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact geneology I
> think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
> aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
> marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the family
> was in disgrace.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: eileen
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> > Subject: John Woodville & his elderly
> bride
> >
> >
> > Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess
> of Norfolk was 80 years
> > old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
> >
> > Is it known if she outlived him?
> >
> > And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at
> Bosworth? Was she his
> > mum?
> >
> > Anyone know??
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I have consulted my usual sources.
> Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas makes
> the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's brother).
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not
80yrs as I for one have
> been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year old
is bad enough - umm
> shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well
consumatted then!! The mind
> boggles!!


It was a political marriage, to get the dowager duchess's property
into John Woodville's hands. Some author aptly called them "the
omnivorous Woodvilles."

Katy

Oh, I see---it was a case of "Don't want to marry her? Why
she's got HUGE tracks of land!" <see "Monty Python and the Holy
Grail" for that reference>

"Meek"

> Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not
80yrs as I for one have
> been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year
old is bad enough - umm
> shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well
consumatted then!! The mind
> boggles!!
> Eileen
> > --- In , "Brian
Wainwright"
> > <Brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
> > Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses
of
> > Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
> > after.
> > >
> > > Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when
the
> > latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
> > Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is)
but
> > died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
> > properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
> > inheritance to his son.
> > >
> > > When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was
remedied and
> > the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John
Howard
> > and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact
geneology I
> > think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
> > aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
> > marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the
family
> > was in disgrace.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: eileen
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> > > Subject: John Woodville & his
elderly
> > bride
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager
Duchess
> > of Norfolk was 80 years
> > > old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
> > >
> > > Is it known if she outlived him?
> > >
> > > And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died
at
> > Bosworth? Was she his
> > > mum?
> > >
> > > Anyone know??
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have consulted my usual sources.
> > Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas
makes
> > the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's
brother).
> >
>

the more i research the medieval era, the more i'm inclined to think that people are people..no matter what era.

what changes are our laws, not human nature.

in our own era we've people like anna nicole smith who married a geriatric multi millionaire.

in the 15thC we see young girls or women married off to rich old lords...a bit more common then than now. and most often these were arranged marriages.

i've read the people of the mid 1400's were shocked at the john woodville's marriage to katherine neville. and it does appear it was arranged. we know john is e. woodville's brother and katherine is e4's aunt...but was it by mutual consent too? on the surface it appears to be typical of consolidating the wealth amongst "certain" families...in this case woodville/neville/plantagent.

was katherine simple minded and unable to "defend" her rights as a woman. or was she physically at risk, and needed a healthy young man to defend her properties..or was katherine, what we in modern terms call a "cougar".

nowadays we have 40, 50, and even 60+ year old women chasing much
young(er) men to frolick with.

when older men chase younger women, we tend to tell jokes..i.e. he traded in his 40 year old wife for two 20's. in fact it is a societal norm to consider him to be verile, while his middle aged wife is "all dried out".

our modern "cougars" are proving middle aged women are far from "dried out", and in fact some have very healthy libidos.

an adage, in reference to the elderly being sexual, i've frequently heard over the years is...just because there is snow on the roof, doesn't mean the fire has gone out.

so, i suppose it begs to be answered..how willing or unwilling was katherine to be hitched a man 40 years her junior.

has anyone ever researched and found documentation regarding the marriage, or the contract to marriage. katherine's first husband john mowbray d. 1461. katherine had children. their rights of inheritance would have had to been protected. if katherine herself wasn't speaking out, then her grandson, john mowbray m. elizabeth talbot, d. of norfolk would certainly have had something to say/demand with regards to his inheritance. however, young john mowbray b. oct 18/1444, may not have YET had the legal right to speak.

the info i have is katherine and john woodville married in january 1465. young john was not 21. which pretty much was the age of majority/legal rights. although he inherited his title, d. of norfolk in 1461 when his father died.

so..the katherine/woodville marriage and the possible marital contract are worth exploring.

i'm researching some of the ancestry of e3 and his descendants. i've noticed a saint pol marriage (jacquetta d'luxemburg's lineage). she m. second richard woodville.

i just did a bit of data entry on jacquetta's plantagenet kinship connection. jacquetta is katherine neville's 5th cousin as well as her mother in law.

therefore, john woodville is katherine's 5th cousin once removed. they are not within the prohibitted degrees of marriage, so no papal dispensation would be required with regard's to his beatrice plantagenet ancestry.

there maybe more plantagenet kinship in jacquetta's chart. i only followed henry iii's daughter beatrice line of descent to jacquetta.

btw..beatrice's bloodline makes elizabeth woodville..e4's
6th cousin
6th cousin twice removed
wife
3rd cousin of her husband
3rd cousin twice removed of her husband


regards
roslyn

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not 80yrs as I for one have
been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year old is bad enough - umm
shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well consumatted then!! The mind
boggles!!
Eileen
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
> Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses of
> Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
> after.
> >
> > Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the
> latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
> Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is) but
> died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
> properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
> inheritance to his son.
> >
> > When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied and
> the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John Howard
> and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact geneology I
> think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
> aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
> marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the family
> was in disgrace.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: eileen
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> > Subject: John Woodville & his elderly
> bride
> >
> >
> > Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess
> of Norfolk was 80 years
> > old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
> >
> > Is it known if she outlived him?
> >
> > And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at
> Bosworth? Was she his
> > mum?
> >
> > Anyone know??
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I have consulted my usual sources.
> Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas makes
> the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's brother).
>

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> the more i research the medieval era, the more i'm inclined to
think that people are people..no matter what era.
>
> what changes are our laws, not human nature.
>
> in our own era we've people like anna nicole smith who married a
geriatric multi millionaire.
>
> in the 15thC we see young girls or women married off to rich old
lords...a bit more common then than now. and most often these were
arranged marriages.
>
> i've read the people of the mid 1400's were shocked at the john
woodville's marriage to katherine neville. and it does appear it was
arranged. we know john is e. woodville's brother and katherine is
e4's aunt...but was it by mutual consent too? on the surface it
appears to be typical of consolidating the wealth amongst "certain"
families...in this case woodville/neville/plantagent.
>
> was katherine simple minded and unable to "defend" her rights as
a woman. or was she physically at risk, and needed a healthy young
man to defend her properties..or was katherine, what we in modern
terms call a "cougar".
>
> nowadays we have 40, 50, and even 60+ year old women chasing much
> young(er) men to frolick with.
>
> when older men chase younger women, we tend to tell jokes..i.e.
he traded in his 40 year old wife for two 20's. in fact it is a
societal norm to consider him to be verile, while his middle aged
wife is "all dried out".
>
> our modern "cougars" are proving middle aged women are far
from "dried out", and in fact some have very healthy libidos.
>
> an adage, in reference to the elderly being sexual, i've
frequently heard over the years is...just because there is snow on
the roof, doesn't mean the fire has gone out.
>
> so, i suppose it begs to be answered..how willing or unwilling
was katherine to be hitched a man 40 years her junior.
>
> has anyone ever researched and found documentation regarding the
marriage, or the contract to marriage. katherine's first husband john
mowbray d. 1461. katherine had children. their rights of inheritance
would have had to been protected. if katherine herself wasn't
speaking out, then her grandson, john mowbray m. elizabeth talbot, d.
of norfolk would certainly have had something to say/demand with
regards to his inheritance. however, young john mowbray b. oct
18/1444, may not have YET had the legal right to speak.
>
> the info i have is katherine and john woodville married in
january 1465. young john was not 21. which pretty much was the age of
majority/legal rights. although he inherited his title, d. of norfolk
in 1461 when his father died.
>
> so..the katherine/woodville marriage and the possible marital
contract are worth exploring.
>
> i'm researching some of the ancestry of e3 and his descendants.
i've noticed a saint pol marriage (jacquetta d'luxemburg's lineage).
she m. second richard woodville.
>
> i just did a bit of data entry on jacquetta's plantagenet kinship
connection. jacquetta is katherine neville's 5th cousin as well as
her mother in law.
>
> therefore, john woodville is katherine's 5th cousin once removed.
they are not within the prohibitted degrees of marriage, so no papal
dispensation would be required with regard's to his beatrice
plantagenet ancestry.
>
> there maybe more plantagenet kinship in jacquetta's chart. i only
followed henry iii's daughter beatrice line of descent to jacquetta.
>
> btw..beatrice's bloodline makes elizabeth woodville..e4's
> 6th cousin
> 6th cousin twice removed
> wife
> 3rd cousin of her husband
> 3rd cousin twice removed of her husband
>
>
> regards
> roslyn
>
In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
was consummated!

> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen
Lark" <stephenmlark@>
> wrote:
> >
> Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not
80yrs as I for one have
> been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year
old is bad enough - umm
> shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well
consumatted then!! The mind
> boggles!!
> Eileen
> > --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> > <Brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
> > Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses
of
> > Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
> > after.
> > >
> > > Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the
> > latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
> > Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is)
but
> > died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
> > properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
> > inheritance to his son.
> > >
> > > When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied
and
> > the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John
Howard
> > and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact
geneology I
> > think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
> > aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
> > marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the
family
> > was in disgrace.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: eileen
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> > > Subject: John Woodville & his
elderly
> > bride
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager
Duchess
> > of Norfolk was 80 years
> > > old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
> > >
> > > Is it known if she outlived him?
> > >
> > > And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at
> > Bosworth? Was she his
> > > mum?
> > >
> > > Anyone know??
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have consulted my usual sources.
> > Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas
makes
> > the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's
brother).
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bear in mind that when Catherine the Great began her liaison with Platon Zubov, she was 65 and he was 22. I don't suppose they sat about drinking tea, as she made him her Foreign Minister, a job for which he had no qualifications whatever.

Ann

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not 80yrs as I for one have
been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year old is bad enough - umm
shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well consumatted then!! The mind
boggles!!
Eileen
> --- In , "Brian Wainwright"
> <Brian@> wrote:
> >
> > Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
> Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses of
> Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
> after.
> >
> > Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the
> latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
> Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is) but
> died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
> properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
> inheritance to his son.
> >
> > When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied and
> the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John Howard
> and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact geneology I
> think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
> aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
> marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the family
> was in disgrace.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: eileen
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> > Subject: John Woodville & his elderly
> bride
> >
> >
> > Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager Duchess
> of Norfolk was 80 years
> > old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
> >
> > Is it known if she outlived him?
> >
> > And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at
> Bosworth? Was she his
> > mum?
> >
> > Anyone know??
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I have consulted my usual sources.
> Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas makes
> the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's brother).
>

Dear Stephen -



I perused the message below but I was unable to pull your original text out
of the quoted message from "fayre rose." Could you please edit it so as to
make your reply more visible and perhaps shorten the text you are quoting to
only include the relevant portion?



That would be great! Thanks!



Best,



Johanne







_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Stephen Lark
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:40 AM
To:
Subject: Re: John Woodville & his elderly bride



--- In richardiiisocietyfo <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[email protected], fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> the more i research the medieval era, the more i'm inclined to
think that people are people..no matter what era.
>
> what changes are our laws, not human nature.
>
> in our own era we've people like anna nicole smith who married a
geriatric multi millionaire.
>
> in the 15thC we see young girls or women married off to rich old
lords...a bit more common then than now. and most often these were
arranged marriages.
>
> i've read the people of the mid 1400's were shocked at the john
woodville's marriage to katherine neville. and it does appear it was
arranged. we know john is e. woodville's brother and katherine is
e4's aunt...but was it by mutual consent too? on the surface it
appears to be typical of consolidating the wealth amongst "certain"
families...in this case woodville/neville/plantagent.
>
> was katherine simple minded and unable to "defend" her rights as
a woman. or was she physically at risk, and needed a healthy young
man to defend her properties..or was katherine, what we in modern
terms call a "cougar".
>
> nowadays we have 40, 50, and even 60+ year old women chasing much
> young(er) men to frolick with.
>
> when older men chase younger women, we tend to tell jokes..i.e.
he traded in his 40 year old wife for two 20's. in fact it is a
societal norm to consider him to be verile, while his middle aged
wife is "all dried out".
>
> our modern "cougars" are proving middle aged women are far
from "dried out", and in fact some have very healthy libidos.
>
> an adage, in reference to the elderly being sexual, i've
frequently heard over the years is...just because there is snow on
the roof, doesn't mean the fire has gone out.
>
> so, i suppose it begs to be answered..how willing or unwilling
was katherine to be hitched a man 40 years her junior.
>
> has anyone ever researched and found documentation regarding the
marriage, or the contract to marriage. katherine's first husband john
mowbray d. 1461. katherine had children. their rights of inheritance
would have had to been protected. if katherine herself wasn't
speaking out, then her grandson, john mowbray m. elizabeth talbot, d.
of norfolk would certainly have had something to say/demand with
regards to his inheritance. however, young john mowbray b. oct
18/1444, may not have YET had the legal right to speak.
>
> the info i have is katherine and john woodville married in
january 1465. young john was not 21. which pretty much was the age of
majority/legal rights. although he inherited his title, d. of norfolk
in 1461 when his father died.
>
> so..the katherine/woodville marriage and the possible marital
contract are worth exploring.
>
> i'm researching some of the ancestry of e3 and his descendants.
i've noticed a saint pol marriage (jacquetta d'luxemburg's lineage).
she m. second richard woodville.
>
> i just did a bit of data entry on jacquetta's plantagenet kinship
connection. jacquetta is katherine neville's 5th cousin as well as
her mother in law.
>
> therefore, john woodville is katherine's 5th cousin once removed.
they are not within the prohibitted degrees of marriage, so no papal
dispensation would be required with regard's to his beatrice
plantagenet ancestry.
>
> there maybe more plantagenet kinship in jacquetta's chart. i only
followed henry iii's daughter beatrice line of descent to jacquetta.
>
> btw..beatrice's bloodline makes elizabeth woodville..e4's
> 6th cousin
> 6th cousin twice removed
> wife
> 3rd cousin of her husband
> 3rd cousin twice removed of her husband
>
>
> regards
> roslyn
>
In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
was consummated!

> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected],
"Stephen
Lark" <stephenmlark@>
> wrote:
> >
> Thanks for all your replies - so actual fact is the bride was not
80yrs as I for one have
> been led to believe - still a twenty year old marrying a 60 year
old is bad enough - umm
> shouldnt have thought it likely the marriage was umm well
consumatted then!! The mind
> boggles!!
> Eileen
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected],
"Brian Wainwright"
> > <Brian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Katherine Neville outlived her 4th and last husband, John
> > Woodville, by many years. Indeed she was one of three Duchesses
of
> > Norfolk at the Richard III coronation. I think she died not long
> > after.
> > >
> > > Her son and grandson succeeded as Duke of Norfolk, but when the
> > latter died he was without a male heir. His daughter, Lady Anne
> > Mowbray, married Richard Duke of York (Edward IV's son, that is)
but
> > died while still a child. Edward effectively annexed the Mowbray
> > properties to the crown by an act of parliament that gave Anne's
> > inheritance to his son.
> > >
> > > When Richard III came to the throne this injustice was remedied
and
> > the Mowbray property partitioned between the right heirs, John
Howard
> > and Lord Berkeley. While I am not 100% sure of the exact
geneology I
> > think these two were descended from the sisters (or was it the
> > aunts??) of Katherine's husband - they made relatively lowly
> > marriages because at the relevant time, under Henry IV, the
family
> > was in disgrace.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: eileen
> > > To: richardiiisocietyfo
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected]
> > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:27 PM
> > > Subject: John Woodville & his
elderly
> > bride
> > >
> > >
> > > Is that the definite truth that John's bride the dowager
Duchess
> > of Norfolk was 80 years
> > > old or was it a mistake/exaggeration??
> > >
> > > Is it known if she outlived him?
> > >
> > > And what relation was she to John Duke of Norfolk who died at
> > Bosworth? Was she his
> > > mum?
> > >
> > > Anyone know??
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have consulted my usual sources.
> > Castelli doesn't make the Mowbrays clickable but van den Pas
makes
> > the Dowager an aunt to our Duke (she married his mother's
brother).
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Johanne Tournier"
<jltournier@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Stephen -
>
>
>
> I perused the message below but I was unable to pull your original
text out
> of the quoted message from "fayre rose." Could you please edit it
so as to
> make your reply more visible and perhaps shorten the text you are
quoting to
> only include the relevant portion?
>
>
>
> That would be great! Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo <mailto:%
40yahoogroups.com>
> [email protected], fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > the more i research the medieval era, the more i'm inclined to
> think that people are people..no matter what era.
> >
> > what changes are our laws, not human nature.
> >
> > in our own era we've people like anna nicole smith who married a
> geriatric multi millionaire.
> >
> > in the 15thC we see young girls or women married off to rich old
> lords...a bit more common then than now. and most often these were
> arranged marriages.
> >
> > i've read the people of the mid 1400's were shocked at the john
> woodville's marriage to katherine neville. and it does appear it
was
> arranged. we know john is e. woodville's brother and katherine is
> e4's aunt...but was it by mutual consent too? on the surface it
> appears to be typical of consolidating the wealth amongst "certain"
> families...in this case woodville/neville/plantagent.
> >
> > was katherine simple minded and unable to "defend" her rights as
> a woman. or was she physically at risk, and needed a healthy young
> man to defend her properties..or was katherine, what we in modern
> terms call a "cougar".
> >
> > nowadays we have 40, 50, and even 60+ year old women chasing much
> > young(er) men to frolick with.
> >
> > when older men chase younger women, we tend to tell jokes..i.e.
> he traded in his 40 year old wife for two 20's. in fact it is a
> societal norm to consider him to be verile, while his middle aged
> wife is "all dried out".
> >
> > our modern "cougars" are proving middle aged women are far
> from "dried out", and in fact some have very healthy libidos.
> >
> > an adage, in reference to the elderly being sexual, i've
> frequently heard over the years is...just because there is snow on
> the roof, doesn't mean the fire has gone out.
> >
> > so, i suppose it begs to be answered..how willing or unwilling
> was katherine to be hitched a man 40 years her junior.
> >
> > has anyone ever researched and found documentation regarding the
> marriage, or the contract to marriage. katherine's first husband
john
> mowbray d. 1461. katherine had children. their rights of
inheritance
> would have had to been protected. if katherine herself wasn't
> speaking out, then her grandson, john mowbray m. elizabeth talbot,
d.
> of norfolk would certainly have had something to say/demand with
> regards to his inheritance. however, young john mowbray b. oct
> 18/1444, may not have YET had the legal right to speak.
> >
> > the info i have is katherine and john woodville married in
> january 1465. young john was not 21. which pretty much was the age
of
> majority/legal rights. although he inherited his title, d. of
norfolk
> in 1461 when his father died.
> >
> > so..the katherine/woodville marriage and the possible marital
> contract are worth exploring.
> >
> > i'm researching some of the ancestry of e3 and his descendants.
> i've noticed a saint pol marriage (jacquetta d'luxemburg's
lineage).
> she m. second richard woodville.
> >
> > i just did a bit of data entry on jacquetta's plantagenet kinship
> connection. jacquetta is katherine neville's 5th cousin as well as
> her mother in law.
> >
> > therefore, john woodville is katherine's 5th cousin once removed.
> they are not within the prohibitted degrees of marriage, so no
papal
> dispensation would be required with regard's to his beatrice
> plantagenet ancestry.
> >
> > there maybe more plantagenet kinship in jacquetta's chart. i only
> followed henry iii's daughter beatrice line of descent to jacquetta.
> >
> > btw..beatrice's bloodline makes elizabeth woodville..e4's
> > 6th cousin
> > 6th cousin twice removed
> > wife
> > 3rd cousin of her husband
> > 3rd cousin twice removed of her husband
> >
> >
> > regards
> > roslyn

In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
was consummated!

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
> was consummated!

Yes but they didnt have face lifts/Botex in those days!!:-) (Probably not a bad thing when
you see some of the results!!)

But seriously - I can fully understand the young John Woodville not having a problem with
a much older but very rich wife - probably they never spent much time together/shared
same bed or even same house. What I would really like to know is how the bride felt when
she had a son and grandson to whom everything should have passed to down to.

Considering John Woodville came from one of the grasping/greedy families the 15thc ever
knew it aint surprising he married her. No wonder the Woodvilles were so hated &
despised - I wonder who was the driving force behind them (before la Woodville became
queen) was it Jacquetta or her husband?

Eileen
>

This is OT, but since Stephen bought it up, I thought I'd put out the
following major announcement. Joan Collins and Linda Evans are now
co-starring in the stage-play "Legends" at Toronto's Royal Alexandra
Theatre. Makes me proud to be Canadian an' all.

Rumour has it that the only thing holding these ladies up its the starch
in their blouses.

Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Johanne Tournier"
> <jltournier@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Stephen -
> >
> >
> >
> > I perused the message below but I was unable to pull your original
> text out
> > of the quoted message from "fayre rose." Could you please edit it
> so as to
> > make your reply more visible and perhaps shorten the text you are
> quoting to
> > only include the relevant portion?
> >
> >
> >
> > That would be great! Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo <mailto:%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > [email protected] <mailto:rum%40yahoogroups.com>, fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > the more i research the medieval era, the more i'm inclined to
> > think that people are people..no matter what era.
> > >
> > > what changes are our laws, not human nature.
> > >
> > > in our own era we've people like anna nicole smith who married a
> > geriatric multi millionaire.
> > >
> > > in the 15thC we see young girls or women married off to rich old
> > lords...a bit more common then than now. and most often these were
> > arranged marriages.
> > >
> > > i've read the people of the mid 1400's were shocked at the john
> > woodville's marriage to katherine neville. and it does appear it
> was
> > arranged. we know john is e. woodville's brother and katherine is
> > e4's aunt...but was it by mutual consent too? on the surface it
> > appears to be typical of consolidating the wealth amongst "certain"
> > families...in this case woodville/neville/plantagent.
> > >
> > > was katherine simple minded and unable to "defend" her rights as
> > a woman. or was she physically at risk, and needed a healthy young
> > man to defend her properties..or was katherine, what we in modern
> > terms call a "cougar".
> > >
> > > nowadays we have 40, 50, and even 60+ year old women chasing much
> > > young(er) men to frolick with.
> > >
> > > when older men chase younger women, we tend to tell jokes..i.e.
> > he traded in his 40 year old wife for two 20's. in fact it is a
> > societal norm to consider him to be verile, while his middle aged
> > wife is "all dried out".
> > >
> > > our modern "cougars" are proving middle aged women are far
> > from "dried out", and in fact some have very healthy libidos.
> > >
> > > an adage, in reference to the elderly being sexual, i've
> > frequently heard over the years is...just because there is snow on
> > the roof, doesn't mean the fire has gone out.
> > >
> > > so, i suppose it begs to be answered..how willing or unwilling
> > was katherine to be hitched a man 40 years her junior.
> > >
> > > has anyone ever researched and found documentation regarding the
> > marriage, or the contract to marriage. katherine's first husband
> john
> > mowbray d. 1461. katherine had children. their rights of
> inheritance
> > would have had to been protected. if katherine herself wasn't
> > speaking out, then her grandson, john mowbray m. elizabeth talbot,
> d.
> > of norfolk would certainly have had something to say/demand with
> > regards to his inheritance. however, young john mowbray b. oct
> > 18/1444, may not have YET had the legal right to speak.
> > >
> > > the info i have is katherine and john woodville married in
> > january 1465. young john was not 21. which pretty much was the age
> of
> > majority/legal rights. although he inherited his title, d. of
> norfolk
> > in 1461 when his father died.
> > >
> > > so..the katherine/woodville marriage and the possible marital
> > contract are worth exploring.
> > >
> > > i'm researching some of the ancestry of e3 and his descendants.
> > i've noticed a saint pol marriage (jacquetta d'luxemburg's
> lineage).
> > she m. second richard woodville.
> > >
> > > i just did a bit of data entry on jacquetta's plantagenet kinship
> > connection. jacquetta is katherine neville's 5th cousin as well as
> > her mother in law.
> > >
> > > therefore, john woodville is katherine's 5th cousin once removed.
> > they are not within the prohibitted degrees of marriage, so no
> papal
> > dispensation would be required with regard's to his beatrice
> > plantagenet ancestry.
> > >
> > > there maybe more plantagenet kinship in jacquetta's chart. i only
> > followed henry iii's daughter beatrice line of descent to jacquetta.
> > >
> > > btw..beatrice's bloodline makes elizabeth woodville..e4's
> > > 6th cousin
> > > 6th cousin twice removed
> > > wife
> > > 3rd cousin of her husband
> > > 3rd cousin twice removed of her husband
> > >
> > >
> > > regards
> > > roslyn
>
> In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
> was consummated!
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>


>
> Considering John Woodville came from one of the grasping/greedy
families the 15thc ever
> knew it aint surprising he married her. No wonder the Woodvilles
were so hated &
> despised - I wonder who was the driving force behind them (before
la Woodville became
> queen) was it Jacquetta or her husband?


Well, I'm sure Richard Woodville had a large helping of ambition
himself -- he was the son of a knight who was the Duke of Bedford's
chamberlain, and he married the widowed duchess, Jacquetta of
Luxembourg. (Surely there is an interesting story behind that, plus
the fact that the duchess gave her duke no children, but she and
Woodvile had 16, all of whom survived to adulthood and were in nee
of land and titles.)

But he was executed in 1469, and the Woodville social climbing, or
more accurately social pole-vaulting, had only just begun at that
time. I'd say that in Richard Woodville and Jacquetta,
ambitionwise, it as a case of tinder meeting spark.

In view of the avaricious ambition later displayed, I also onder
what role Jacquetta had in the "chance" meeting of Edward the-IV-to-
be and her daughter.

Katy

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@>
> wrote:
> >
> > In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it
probably
> > was consummated!
>
> Yes but they didnt have face lifts/Botex in those days!!:-)
(Probably not a bad thing when
> you see some of the results!!)
>
> But seriously - I can fully understand the young John Woodville not
having a problem with
> a much older but very rich wife - probably they never spent much
time together/shared
> same bed or even same house. What I would really like to know is
how the bride felt when
> she had a son and grandson to whom everything should have passed to
down to.


Ah, now maybe the son and heir is the key to it. Katherine wasn't an
heiress, of course - she had a lot of brothers. Her lands were the
dowers she had acquired by her three previous marriages, and she held
these for life to the detriment of the sons and heirs (her own son in
the case of the duchy of norfolk, and her stepson in the Beaumont
case). So she may well have considered that an energetic young
brother of the queen would have been a very useful tool in the fight
to hold on to her property in her feeble old age.
Besides, she obviously liked being married, having done it so
often. . . .

I wonder, by the way, if she was quite as young as the genealogies
suggest when she married for the first time. I think the ages of
Ralph Neville's children are pretty much guesswork and I have a hunch
that she, rather than Salisbury, may actually have been the eldest,
in which case she would have been born around 1399.



>
> Considering John Woodville came from one of the grasping/greedy
families the 15thc ever
> knew it aint surprising he married her. No wonder the Woodvilles
were so hated &
> despised - I wonder who was the driving force behind them (before
la Woodville became
> queen) was it Jacquetta or her husband?
>
> Eileen
> >
>

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>>
> In view of the avaricious ambition later displayed, I also onder
> what role Jacquetta had in the "chance" meeting of Edward the-IV-to-
> be and her daughter.
>
> Katy
>
Yeah - if true it certainly sounds contrived to say the least - who do you blame though -
those that wanted to further themselves by making Elizabeth Edward's queen - or Edward
himself, a man who kept his brain in his pants! His reputation as a man who would do/
agree to anything as long as he got his leg over must have gone before him for them to
even dream that one up. Who paid for it in the end - his sons, brother, Clarences children,
the whole plantagent dynasty.

Eileen (cross again)

eileen, in response to who was more of a force behind the woodville marriages?

it is difficult to say. kingmaker hated poppa because of his influence upon the throne. poppa woodville has/had plantagenet and beauchamp ancestry. so he wasn't a peasant, but he also wasn't upper nobility. he SECRETLY wed jacquetta aka momma.

momma, was also quite a mover and shaker in her social circles. h6 created poppa baron rivers in 1448. e4 upgraded him to earl.

here are the woodville children's known marriages (some unverified)
1 Richard Woodville 1405 - 1469
.. +Jacquetta de Luxembourg 1416 - 1472
........ 2 Elizabeth Woodville 1437 - 1492
............ +John de Grey 1435 - 1461
married bef 1461

........ *2nd Husband of Elizabeth Woodville:
............ +Edward IV Plantagenet 1442 - 1483
secretly married may 1464**
=========================
........ 2 Anne Woodville 1456 - 1489
+William Bouchier 1452 - 1480
married bef. aug 15, 1467 ***

........ *2nd Husband of Anne Woodville
............ +George de Grey 1450 - 1503
married bef 1483***

====================
........ 2 Margaret Woodville 1439 - 1490
............ +Thomas FitzAlan 1450 - 1524
married OCTOBER 1464***

note the age difference. i wonder if this is the marriage that the bride was so much older than the groom, and often confused with catherine and henry stafford, d. of buckingham.

thomas's father william is the 16th earl of arundel, and reputed godfather of arthur waite/wayte aka plantagenet, baron d'lisle.

thomas's mother, joan was the sister of kingmaker neville...

margaret m. thomas was the first of the woodville influenced marriages after e.woodville m. e4.

was this how poppa woodville managed to get up kingmakers's nose so to speak. we are often told, it was the announcement of e4's marriage to woodville in september 1464 that set kingmaker on the road to rebellion.

now compound that insult to injury when kingmaker's sister's son is forced to marry beneath himself to another woodville...and if eleanor talbot's precontract became known at this time. kingmaker would now have a few sticks in his hornet's nest to cause a roaring buzz.

kingmaker's wife, eleanor beauchamp had a sister, margaret. margaret was the mother of eleanor talbot.

======================
........ 2 John Woodville 1445 - 1469
............ +Katherine Neville 1397 - 1478
married feb 1465***
================
........ 2 Anthony Woodville 1442 - 1483
............ +Elizabeth Scales 1440 - 1473
married bef 1462
........ *2nd Wife of Anthony Woodville:
............ +Mary Fitz Lewis 1465 -
married bef. 1480 ***

==========================
........ 2 Catherine Woodville 1458 - 1497
............ +Henry de Stafford 1455 - 1483
married feb 1465****
........ *2nd Husband of Catherine Woodville
............ +Jaspar Tudor 1430 - 1495
married aft 1483
........ *3rd Husband of Catherine Woodville:
............ +Richard Wingfield
married aft. 1495
==========================
........ 2 Edward Woodville 1450 - 1490
no known marriage record...but secret marriages were also a woodville thing..:-))
======================
........ 2 Richard Woodville 1440 - 1490/91
no known marriage record....ditto
==================
........ 2 Lewis Woodville 1458 - 1460
died young, never married.
===================
........ 2 Mary Woodville 1459 - 1481
............ +William Herbert 1450/51 - 1491
married bef. 1476***
==========================
........ 2 Lionell Woodville 1446 - 1484
no marriage record, bishop of salisbury
======================
........ 2 Eleanor Woodville 1452 -
no marriage record, however often shown as joan/eleanor m. anthony de grey 1466...see joan below
=========================
........ 2 Martha Woodville 1453 -
............ +John Bromley 1440 -
can't find marriage date. and bromley doesn't appear to be much of a "peer" he is styled sir. so the marriage may have taken place prior to 1464.
==========================
........ 2 Jacquetta Woodville 1444 - 1509
............ +John Le Strange 1444 - 1479
married before 1463
========================
........ 2 Joan Woodville 1447 - 1465
............ +Anthony de Grey 1443 -
see eleanor above. are these daughters one in the same? and.or often confused. did anthony marry both?
marriage dates for this possible dual personality are recorded as 1466****
===================
........ 2 Thomas Woodville 1451 -
............ +Anne Holland
alison weir and the hull data base are the sources for this marriage. i can find nothing to confirm it. nor can i find anne holland's ancestry. it is interesting to note that e. woodville's son thomas de grey, marquis of dorset also marries anne de holand, daughter of e4's older sister anne and henry de holand, d. of exeter.

have researchers confused woodville's son thomas with her brother thomas? also, i can not find a marriage date for this supposed holland/woodville marriage.
=============================

of the 16 woodville children, and all their marriages, there are only 9 marriages that appear to be influenced by the woodville clan after e4's marriage to their daughter..and e4 and e.woodville's marriage is one of those nine.

some of the nine marriages are also 2nd or 3rd marriages for a woodville child. look for *** the marriages that occurred from may 1464 to 1483

regards
roslyn

eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
> was consummated!

Yes but they didnt have face lifts/Botex in those days!!:-) (Probably not a bad thing when
you see some of the results!!)

But seriously - I can fully understand the young John Woodville not having a problem with
a much older but very rich wife - probably they never spent much time together/shared
same bed or even same house. What I would really like to know is how the bride felt when
she had a son and grandson to whom everything should have passed to down to.

Considering John Woodville came from one of the grasping/greedy families the 15thc ever
knew it aint surprising he married her. No wonder the Woodvilles were so hated &
despised - I wonder who was the driving force behind them (before la Woodville became
queen) was it Jacquetta or her husband?

Eileen
>

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> eileen, in response to who was more of a force behind the woodville marriages?
>
> it is difficult to say. kingmaker hated poppa because of his influence upon the throne.
poppa woodville has/had plantagenet and beauchamp ancestry. so he wasn't a peasant,
but he also wasn't upper nobility. he SECRETLY wed jacquetta aka momma.

Thanks for all that info Roslyn

On a lighter note - everytime I think of Jacquetta I get a mental picture of Sylvester
Stallone's mum Jackie pop into my head!! ;-)

Eileen

>
> momma, was also quite a mover and shaker in her social circles. h6 created poppa
baron rivers in 1448. e4 upgraded him to earl.
>
> here are the woodville children's known marriages (some unverified)
> 1 Richard Woodville 1405 - 1469
> .. +Jacquetta de Luxembourg 1416 - 1472
> ........ 2 Elizabeth Woodville 1437 - 1492
> ............ +John de Grey 1435 - 1461
> married bef 1461
>
> ........ *2nd Husband of Elizabeth Woodville:
> ............ +Edward IV Plantagenet 1442 - 1483
> secretly married may 1464**
> =========================
> ........ 2 Anne Woodville 1456 - 1489
> +William Bouchier 1452 - 1480
> married bef. aug 15, 1467 ***
>
> ........ *2nd Husband of Anne Woodville
> ............ +George de Grey 1450 - 1503
> married bef 1483***
>
> ====================
> ........ 2 Margaret Woodville 1439 - 1490
> ............ +Thomas FitzAlan 1450 - 1524
> married OCTOBER 1464***
>
> note the age difference. i wonder if this is the marriage that the bride was so much
older than the groom, and often confused with catherine and henry stafford, d. of
buckingham.
>
> thomas's father william is the 16th earl of arundel, and reputed godfather of arthur
waite/wayte aka plantagenet, baron d'lisle.
>
> thomas's mother, joan was the sister of kingmaker neville...
>
> margaret m. thomas was the first of the woodville influenced marriages after
e.woodville m. e4.
>
> was this how poppa woodville managed to get up kingmakers's nose so to speak. we
are often told, it was the announcement of e4's marriage to woodville in september 1464
that set kingmaker on the road to rebellion.
>
> now compound that insult to injury when kingmaker's sister's son is forced to marry
beneath himself to another woodville...and if eleanor talbot's precontract became known
at this time. kingmaker would now have a few sticks in his hornet's nest to cause a roaring
buzz.
>
> kingmaker's wife, eleanor beauchamp had a sister, margaret. margaret was the mother
of eleanor talbot.
>
> ======================
> ........ 2 John Woodville 1445 - 1469
> ............ +Katherine Neville 1397 - 1478
> married feb 1465***
> ================
> ........ 2 Anthony Woodville 1442 - 1483
> ............ +Elizabeth Scales 1440 - 1473
> married bef 1462
> ........ *2nd Wife of Anthony Woodville:
> ............ +Mary Fitz Lewis 1465 -
> married bef. 1480 ***
>
> ==========================
> ........ 2 Catherine Woodville 1458 - 1497
> ............ +Henry de Stafford 1455 - 1483
> married feb 1465****
> ........ *2nd Husband of Catherine Woodville
> ............ +Jaspar Tudor 1430 - 1495
> married aft 1483
> ........ *3rd Husband of Catherine Woodville:
> ............ +Richard Wingfield
> married aft. 1495
> ==========================
> ........ 2 Edward Woodville 1450 - 1490
> no known marriage record...but secret marriages were also a woodville thing..:-))
> ======================
> ........ 2 Richard Woodville 1440 - 1490/91
> no known marriage record....ditto
> ==================
> ........ 2 Lewis Woodville 1458 - 1460
> died young, never married.
> ===================
> ........ 2 Mary Woodville 1459 - 1481
> ............ +William Herbert 1450/51 - 1491
> married bef. 1476***
> ==========================
> ........ 2 Lionell Woodville 1446 - 1484
> no marriage record, bishop of salisbury
> ======================
> ........ 2 Eleanor Woodville 1452 -
> no marriage record, however often shown as joan/eleanor m. anthony de grey
1466...see joan below
> =========================
> ........ 2 Martha Woodville 1453 -
> ............ +John Bromley 1440 -
> can't find marriage date. and bromley doesn't appear to be much of a "peer" he is
styled sir. so the marriage may have taken place prior to 1464.
> ==========================
> ........ 2 Jacquetta Woodville 1444 - 1509
> ............ +John Le Strange 1444 - 1479
> married before 1463
> ========================
> ........ 2 Joan Woodville 1447 - 1465
> ............ +Anthony de Grey 1443 -
> see eleanor above. are these daughters one in the same? and.or often confused. did
anthony marry both?
> marriage dates for this possible dual personality are recorded as 1466****
> ===================
> ........ 2 Thomas Woodville 1451 -
> ............ +Anne Holland
> alison weir and the hull data base are the sources for this marriage. i can find nothing
to confirm it. nor can i find anne holland's ancestry. it is interesting to note that e.
woodville's son thomas de grey, marquis of dorset also marries anne de holand, daughter
of e4's older sister anne and henry de holand, d. of exeter.
>
> have researchers confused woodville's son thomas with her brother thomas? also, i can
not find a marriage date for this supposed holland/woodville marriage.
> =============================
>
> of the 16 woodville children, and all their marriages, there are only 9 marriages that
appear to be influenced by the woodville clan after e4's marriage to their daughter..and e4
and e.woodville's marriage is one of those nine.
>
> some of the nine marriages are also 2nd or 3rd marriages for a woodville child. look
for *** the marriages that occurred from may 1464 to 1483
>
> regards
> roslyn
>
> eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@>
> wrote:
> >
> > In other words: was she a medieval Joan Collins? If so, it probably
> > was consummated!
>
> Yes but they didnt have face lifts/Botex in those days!!:-) (Probably not a bad thing
when
> you see some of the results!!)
>
> But seriously - I can fully understand the young John Woodville not having a problem
with
> a much older but very rich wife - probably they never spent much time together/shared
> same bed or even same house. What I would really like to know is how the bride felt
when
> she had a son and grandson to whom everything should have passed to down to.
>
> Considering John Woodville came from one of the grasping/greedy families the 15thc
ever
> knew it aint surprising he married her. No wonder the Woodvilles were so hated &
> despised - I wonder who was the driving force behind them (before la Woodville became
> queen) was it Jacquetta or her husband?
>
> Eileen
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>