Re: What went on with Stillington and the previous betrothal...

Hi Dora,

I just joined this group a few weeks ago, but have been "lurking". I'm
kind of in the same boat as you. I read Daughter of Time years ago, and
have forgotten several of her points. I have started reading a book by
Alison Weir on the Princes in the Tower, but I don't think she is very
convincing. Anyway, I too would like to take each fact as presented in
the various books and research it till I can accept one view or the
other.

In the meantime, I have an idea about betrothals, and why sometimes they
were allowed to be broken, and other times, not allowed to. I think that
betrothals broken, let's say, by the king of France rejecting Elizabeth
of York, would not be considered *solemn* betrothals, but rather
betrothal negociations. So the king broke off the negotiations, not the
betrothal itself. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

However, I've always had trouble believing the story about Edward IV's
secret betrothal to (whoever it was) before his *other* secret betrothal
and marriage to Elizabeth Grey. Why did the first betrothal have to be
secret? Apparently it was to a young lady of good family (I don't have
my Josephine Tey by me).

Gloria

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 17:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Dora Smith
<tiggernut24@...> writes:
I just started properly researching whether Richard
III killed his nephews. I read Josephine Tey's novel
some time ago and forgot everything in it, and I am
now in the middle of Kay Penman's novel on the
subject. So I'm not yet knowledgeable enough for
intelligent discussion. But I could use some help
finding some of the facts.

The mystery fascinates me because neither the facts
nor any of the theories appear to make any logical
sense.

To be convincing, the argument that Richard III did
not kill his nephews has to counter in particular two
questions. First question is, what went on between
when the boys went missing and when Henry VII took the
throne? Elizabeth Woodville seems to have been very
strange, and I don't know that she wasn't allied with
the Tudor party! But since she and I think Margaret
Beaufort (I'm not that far along in the story but I've
been doing some searching on the web) raised a
rebellion partly on the grounds of suspicion that
something had happened to the princes since noone had
seen them, clearly the Lancaster forces didn't dream
it up later as propaganda. Winston Churchill said
all of England was wondering what had happened to the
princes, but I don't know the truth of that.
Certainly the disappearance of the princes before
Richard III was killed is one of the weak links in the
argument that he didn't disappear them. And
Elizabeth Woodville didn't kill her own sons!

The other question that needs answering is what went
on with Stillington and the allegation that Henry was
previously betrothed and therefore his children were
illegitimate? Penman is at the point where I am in
the story building the case that Stillington was
simply a nervous and hyperscrupulous cleric doing what
such people do at an inopportune moment, but I can't
accept that since it appears to be speculation on her
part. Who was he? Was he already a supporter of
Richard? Waht is the evidence that such a betrothal
ever took place? Is there any evidence that George
blabbing about it in his cups or discovering the
matter got him executed?

I am wondering for that matter what was really up with
such an issue out made of a previous betrothal. If
betrothals were the equivalent of marriage in church
law, it must be the only time in history anyone ever
remembered that! The king of France had just broken
his betrothal to Elizabeth of York, and noone said a
word about church law! Penman in her earlier books
writes of one broken royal betrothal after another,
with no bones made about it save injured dignity and
broken relations. Where did this really come from?

Yours,
Dora

Betrothals were slightly different to what Edward IV is believed by
some to have entered into with Eleanor Butler. A promise to marry
someone which was then followed by sex meant that in the eyes of the
church they were already married and for either party to then decide
to marry someone else would require a dispensation to break the
previously made agreement. To be fair if Edward had entered into
such an arrangement then his marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville was
dodgy on legal grounds however a pre-contract could have been
dispensed with had Edward wanted to probably fairly easily if he had
applied to the Vatican for it. Incidentally the Pre-contract wasn't
the only grounds listed by Richard for invalidating the marriage -
the attack came on the grounds that the marriage was made in secret,
without the consent of the Lords and through the witchcraft of
Jaquetta Duchess of Bedford and Elizabeth Wydeville aswell as the
pre-contract. However while all of the above were common complaints
consent from the lords of the realm was not a requirement in law and
neither did secrecy invalidate marriages as a rule the witchcraft
was a common accusation against Ladies of noble birth who upset
someone and can't be treated with much seriousness to be honest.
Incidentally all of the above could have been used to attack any
agreement Edward may have entered into with Eleanor Butler.

Betrothals between Royals on the whole were regarded as fact rather
than negotiations to be honest. Elizabeth of York was betrothed by
treaty which was signed by both Edward and Louis. Louis simply
reneged when he got a better offer - it wasn't simply breaking off a
negotiation it was breaking a treaty. But it was common - Elizabeth
of York's granddaughter Mary was betrothed to Charles V in the
1520's when still a child however Charles V went and married someone
else - his arguement was that as there was no sign of Henry paying
the dowery and no sign of Mary being sent to the Hapsburg court he
simply assumed that the betrothal was no longer in existance.

Tim



> In the meantime, I have an idea about betrothals, and why
sometimes they
> were allowed to be broken, and other times, not allowed to. I
think that
> betrothals broken, let's say, by the king of France rejecting
Elizabeth
> of York, would not be considered *solemn* betrothals, but rather
> betrothal negociations. So the king broke off the negotiations,
not the
> betrothal itself. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> However, I've always had trouble believing the story about Edward
IV's
> secret betrothal to (whoever it was) before his *other* secret
betrothal
> and marriage to Elizabeth Grey. Why did the first betrothal have
to be
> secret? Apparently it was to a young lady of good family (I don't
have
> my Josephine Tey by me).
>
> Gloria
>
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 17:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> writes:
> I just started properly researching whether Richard
> III killed his nephews. I read Josephine Tey's novel
> some time ago and forgot everything in it, and I am
> now in the middle of Kay Penman's novel on the
> subject. So I'm not yet knowledgeable enough for
> intelligent discussion. But I could use some help
> finding some of the facts.
>
> The mystery fascinates me because neither the facts
> nor any of the theories appear to make any logical
> sense.
>
> To be convincing, the argument that Richard III did
> not kill his nephews has to counter in particular two
> questions. First question is, what went on between
> when the boys went missing and when Henry VII took the
> throne? Elizabeth Woodville seems to have been very
> strange, and I don't know that she wasn't allied with
> the Tudor party! But since she and I think Margaret
> Beaufort (I'm not that far along in the story but I've
> been doing some searching on the web) raised a
> rebellion partly on the grounds of suspicion that
> something had happened to the princes since noone had
> seen them, clearly the Lancaster forces didn't dream
> it up later as propaganda. Winston Churchill said
> all of England was wondering what had happened to the
> princes, but I don't know the truth of that.
> Certainly the disappearance of the princes before
> Richard III was killed is one of the weak links in the
> argument that he didn't disappear them. And
> Elizabeth Woodville didn't kill her own sons!
>
> The other question that needs answering is what went
> on with Stillington and the allegation that Henry was
> previously betrothed and therefore his children were
> illegitimate? Penman is at the point where I am in
> the story building the case that Stillington was
> simply a nervous and hyperscrupulous cleric doing what
> such people do at an inopportune moment, but I can't
> accept that since it appears to be speculation on her
> part. Who was he? Was he already a supporter of
> Richard? Waht is the evidence that such a betrothal
> ever took place? Is there any evidence that George
> blabbing about it in his cups or discovering the
> matter got him executed?
>
> I am wondering for that matter what was really up with
> such an issue out made of a previous betrothal. If
> betrothals were the equivalent of marriage in church
> law, it must be the only time in history anyone ever
> remembered that! The king of France had just broken
> his betrothal to Elizabeth of York, and noone said a
> word about church law! Penman in her earlier books
> writes of one broken royal betrothal after another,
> with no bones made about it save injured dignity and
> broken relations. Where did this really come from?
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
>

Incidentally the Pre-contract wasn't
the only grounds listed by Richard for invalidating
the marriage -
the attack came on the grounds that the marriage was
made in secret,
without the consent of the Lords and through the
witchcraft of
Jaquetta Duchess of Bedford and Elizabeth Wydeville
aswell as the
pre-contract. However while all of the above were
common complaints
consent from the lords of the realm was not a
requirement in law and
neither did secrecy invalidate marriages as a rule the
witchcraft
was a common accusation against Ladies of noble birth
who upset
someone and can't be treated with much seriousness to
be honest.
Incidentally all of the above could have been used to
attack any
agreement Edward may have entered into with Eleanor
Butler


-------------------------------------------------
Huh...?

Can you please elaborate on the witchcraft thing and
the Elizabeth Woodville thing? Are you for real? Are
Jaquetta Duchess of Bedford and Elizabeth Wydeville
supposed to have BEWITCHED Edward into marrying
Elizabeth Woodville? If so, I'm most interested of
all in who hatched this idea and how it managed to
catch on!

Thanks,
Dora


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

OK, now I've got that part down, it becomes awfully
convenient... Just who was Stillington, what was
his motive, and how did the furor about the marriage
contract come about? I know that Stillington and two
others told all about it in church on Sunday or
something but how did this exactly get kindled into a
fire?

Dora



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

I THOUGHT until I read it that there was nothing to
really learn by reading the Titulus Regius.

It's a piece. The Congressional debates on invading
Iraq (the first time) don't hold a candle to it.

Not only was Edward IV bewitched into marrying
Elizabeth Woodville, but if I read the document right,
ir argues that "Our virgins, our lands and our wives
aren't safe from teh Woodvilles!" At least, that is
who I THINK they're talking about.

It reminds me of chicanery I've seen go on in
organizations, like work and church. It happens when
the group or the people who control it have already
decided they want to get rid of somebody, and a
preconsensus exists on what the group is willing to
believe.

I now wonder more than ever - is there any particular
reason why the council and the parliament would have
particularly felt inclined to believe this stuff?
Seems like the only way they could have been
convinced.

Richard III could make good short term political
calls, and I saw something to the effect that there
was a point in the chain of events when people were
feeling scared by teh Woodvilles' behavior - but were
they ever THAT scared and focused on just one threat?

Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

--- In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
>
> Not only was Edward IV bewitched into marrying
> Elizabeth Woodville, but if I read the document right,
> ir argues that "Our virgins, our lands and our wives
> aren't safe from teh Woodvilles!" At least, that is
> who I THINK they're talking about.

Well, the Woodvilles were seen as rapacious. Elizabeth managed to
marry her siblings into every major noble house, whether they liked
it or not. Some think she was responsible for a political murder or
two ( the Irish guy comes to mind, can't remeber his name right
now). So it would not be too far off to picture her and her
associates as willing to "take over" the country. And in fact,
that is what they tried to do by not telling Richard of his
brother's death (he only heard about it 2 weeks after it happened)
and trying to ace him out of the position
of Protector.
>
> I now wonder more than ever - is there any particular
> reason why the council and the parliament would have
> particularly felt inclined to believe this stuff?
> Seems like the only way they could have been
> convinced.

Certainly the aspect of a minor as King had to enter the thoughts
of the Council members. The last time they had a child for a ruler,
everything went bad (Henry VI). For the sake of national stability
they probably preferred the idea of a mature man with proven
administrative abilities to a boy-King with a family that had
already stolen the Crown jewels from the Tower! So any excuse would
do.
>
> Richard III could make good short term political
> calls, and I saw something to the effect that there
> was a point in the chain of events when people were
> feeling scared by teh Woodvilles' behavior - but were
> they ever THAT scared and focused on just one threat?

There are indications that the Woodvilles had armed their
faction and were settling in for a fight. Londoners could not have
been happy about that. Richard's premption by trumping their hand
by intervening the "escort" bringing young Edward to London
forestalled any battle. Richard was a forward-thinking ruler who
had the good of the common people at heart. His institution of the
bail system and the doing away with forced "beneficent payments"
which were just another way of saying "bribes" were in the interest
of the commons.
Trying to interpret political motives of 15th century people in
terms of today's mores is always a tricky business. You may scoff
at the imputations of witchcraft but 200 years later that was still
a very real spectre i.e. Salem Witch Trials. It is diddicult for us
in the secular world to give credence to what we see as childish
fears. However, many uneducated people of the 15th century saw
wictchcraft as an explanation for things they could not understand.

Janet



>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/