Richard III discussion
Book Discussions
>
Question
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ishita
(new)
Oct 10, 2012 08:28AM
So I have been wonderuing if thre is any truth about Richard wanting to marry Elizabth, his neice!Some books like that od Sandra Worth indicates something like that where as Sharon Key Penman vehemently opposes it. What is the historical truth?
reply
|
flag
Mod
I agree.....I hope someone has an answer!
There are documented rumors that Richard wanted to marry his niece, which Richard felt obliged to publicly deny. There is also a letter, which exists only as a paraphrase by George Buck of a supposed lost original, where Elizabeth talks of longing for a marriage and frets over how long it is taking the queen to die. That letter has been interpreted by some as meaning that Elizabeth was anxious to marry her uncle, but others have suggested it refers to a Portuguese marriage which Richard was arranging for her. Since we have only Buck's word for its contents, and since the text of his own book was corrupted over the years, it's really difficult to know exactly what to make of the letter. There is evidence that Richard was negotiating for marriages for both himself and Elizabeth following the death of Anne. I personally doubt he planned to marry Elizabeth, as it would make a mockery of his own denunciation of his brother's marriage and would deprive him of the chance of making a useful foreign alliance.
I agree with that! If he legitimized Elizabeth by marrying her then the Princes would be legitimized too and that would counter his own claim......I am chalking it out as a Tudor propaganda.....Maybe people thought differently back then but an uncle marrying a niece is too abhorrent to make sense.....If he was negotiating his own marriage so soon after Anne's death, does that mean he did not love her as all the books have us believe? It's the love story that makes him so dear to me (I am a silly romantic).....Everything is so contradictory; will we ever find out the truth of any of it?
I don't think his negotiating a new marriage has any bearing on whether or not he loved Anne. He needed a legitimate heir, and given the time that royal marriage negotiations involved, it behooved him to start the process early. Making a new marriage also would allow him to secure a useful foreign ally. There's no evidence that he did marry Anne for love--it was a practical arrangement for both parties--but there's also no evidence that he didn't love her.
Although I don't believe that Richard was considering Elizabeth as a wife (because I too agree that it would legimitize her and thus the princes and Edward which Richard was denying); I do however believe that Elizabeth may have developed some sort of father-like crush feelings on Richard. I also believe that Richard truly loved Anne from what I've read and I don't fault him for thinking about future heirs and remarrying when Anne was dying and his son was dead.
Political expediency seems to have ruled the day.....They were all trying to survive in a time which I can only guess about. Even though there is of course no historical proof of Anne and Richard's marriage being a love match, I am clinging to it! In the book Seventh Son, the author takes a more practical view point that he married for gain but learned to love.
But I am glad that there is very little to indicate R's involvement with Elizabth!!
I also agree with Susan's assessment and agree that Richard had practical reasons for marrying Anne to begin with (she inherited half her father's estates and this became Richard's power base). I think he was monogamous once they were married because unlike his brother Edward, there's no extant documentation that he indulged in any extra-circular activities. From that, one may conclude that if it didn't become a love match, he must have at least liked and respected his wife.
Wasn't one of his acknowledged illegitimate children born after he married? That's not to say he and Anne didn't have a good marriage, I tend to think they did.Anne didn't so much as inherit half her father's estates as collude in taking them from her mother, as well as her mother's not inconsiderable fortune and title. (Which went to Isobel, I know, but she and Clarence were colluding as well!) Looked at from Richard and Anne's point of view, it was a sensible course of action. Looked at from the pov of the Countess of Warwick, she lost all her property and was declared dead in parliament. So Richard's power base was built on some pretty shonky doings. I don't think he'd have married Anne without this, so it was very much in her interests to 'inherit' half her mother's property (and through her, her father's). It very much wasn't in her mother's interests!
It's been suggested by Hicks that John of Pontefract might have been born after Richard's marriage. We don't know when the illegitimate children were born or even if they had the same mother.
I've read that John may have been either conceived in 1471, April or October of 1473, or March 1474 because John was still underage in 1485. There is speculation that Alice Burgh was the mother based on life annunities and grants. The other illegimate child, Katherine, has an unknown birthdate, as well.
The earliest year I've seen for John of Gloucester's birth was 1470 and the most common year was 1471. The earliest date for R3's marriage to Anne Neville was April, 1472 based on the recent discovery of the partial dispensation for Richard & Anne's marriage. That would have meant that John was born before R3's marriage. If John was born in 1472, then he could have been conceived prior to the "wedding." Any later and Richard was not yet faithful.
Joan wrote: "The earliest year I've seen for John of Gloucester's birth was 1470 and the most common year was 1471. The earliest date for R3's marriage to Anne Neville was April, 1472 based on the recent discov..."Hmmm that makes it suspect that John was born during the marriage. It may have been before... so many possibilities!
I've seen 1470/1471 proposed for John's birth as well, but never with a source. Peter Hammond, who's compiled pretty much all that seems to be known about John, doesn't suggest a birth year for him, nor do any of the primary sources he cites mention his age, except to state that he was under 21 in 1485. I suspect that the 1470/71 dates are the inventions of Ricardians who are eager to prove Richard a faithful husband.
One place I saw the 1471 date is from RoyaList Online but they don't give the source of their info. I don't think this list is Ricardian since it covers the peerage (alphabetically).
I take these royal genealogical sites with a great deal of salt, and this one seems especially suspect. It has Anne Boleyn giving birth to a "Henry Tudor, Duke of Cornwall" in 1534 (while Anne is said to have miscarried of a son, the child wasn't given a name, much less a title), and it leaves out a child of Mary Tudor, Queen of France and Duchess of Suffolk. And those are just the errors I caught at a glance! It also has John and Katherine both being born in 1471, and it has John dying in 1485, whereas he's said by Buck to have been executed about the same time as Perkin Warbeck.
There has been a debate going on about the Countess Warwick's fate at the RIII forum , of which I am a member. Most of the commentators agree that the three York boys contrived to pass the law to declare the countess dead. Mostly because Edward did not bring the attainder against the countess and this was the only way the crown could get hold of the lands and then distribute them to the dukes. Richard had to collude if he wanted to protect Anne's interest. I am too pro Richard to provide an unbiased opinion but the arguments at the forum were detailed with citations and I am having my eyes opened by how much people actually know about these things!
I too am a member of that forum, but have been too busy to participate lately. I like to go to primary sources to see if there is anything to substantiate or disprove such statements. There is no mention of declaring Countess Warwick dead in Croyland, one such primary source that can be found on the American Branch's online library here: It is my intention here to insert an account of the dissensions which arose during the Michaelmas Term between the two brothers of the king, already mentioned and which were with difficulty quieted. After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's. In consequence of this, such violent discussion arose between the brothers, and so many arguments were, with the greatest acuteness, put forth on either side, in the king's presence, who sat in judgment in the council-chamber, that all present, and the lawyers even, were quite surprised that these princes should find arguments in such abundance by means of which to support their respective causes. In fact, these three brothers, the king and the two dukes, were possessed of such surpassing talents that, if they had been able to live without dissensions, such a threefold cord could never have been broken without the utmost difficulty. At last, their most loving brother, king Edward, agreed to act as mediator between them; and in order that the discord between princes of such high rank might not cause any hindrance to the carrying out of his royal intentions in relation to the affairs of France, the whole misunderstanding was at last set at rest, upon the following terms: the marriage of the duke of Gloucester with Anne before-named was to take place, and he was to have such and so much of the earl's lands as should be agreed upon between them through the mediation of arbitrators; while all the rest were to remain in the possession of the duke of Clarence. The consequence was, that little or nothing was left at the disposal of the real lady and heiress, the countess of Warwick, to whom the whole of her life the most noble inheritance of the Warwicks and the Despensers properly belonged. However, I readily pass over a matter so incurable as this, without attempting to find a cause for it, and so leave these strong-willed men to the impulse of their own wills; thinking it better to set forth the remaining portion of this narrative, so far as it occurs to my memory, with unbiased words, and, so far as I am aware, without any admixture of falsehood therewith.
[bolding mine]
I would think that such a bold and ostensibly ludicrous action would not have gone unannotated.
It didn't go unrecorded. It was in an Act of Parliament, which was enrolled on the Patent Rolls on June 6, 1474 at Richard's own request. You can find it on page 455:http://tinyurl.com/cpte4ru
Very clearly stated Rolls of Parliament. The countess was to be treated as is she were 'naturally dead' and her daughters were to inherit her stuff.
Oops, I couldn't find it when I searched earlier. Must not have looked for the right reference or was in too much haste. What does "naturally dead" mean? Didn't Richard give the countess a small pension or some such? So, to declare someone dead and then keep them on the payroll seems ludicrous to me.Also, it's now thought that Richard and Anne were married in April, 1472--why wait two years?
There seems to have been some hard negotiations going on between Clarence and Gloucester, that might be why it took as long as it did. To suggest that the countess be left destitute would be a little coldhearted, considering what she'd already been through. Whether it was Richard himself, or whether Anne was having a little word in his ear from time to time, she was certainly looked after to some extent by them. That she was stripped of all her property without any charges laid against her, without forfeiture or attainder, I find difficult. In this context 'naturally dead' means as if she had actually died. That left the way open for her daughters to inherit and their husbands to benefit.
He allotted her 80 pounds in 1484, which was hardly generous considering the wealth she once enjoyed. It wasn't until Henry VII's reign that the countess was restored to her land. It's true that she was required to deed most of her lands back over to Henry at that point, but she was at least allowed to keep her manor of Erdington and later was granted a life estate in much of her lands.
Karen wrote: "That she was stripped of all her property without any charges laid against her, without forfeiture or attainder, I find difficult. In this context 'naturally dead' means as if she had actually died. That left the way open for her daughters to inherit and their husbands to benefit. "Would the daughters have been able to inherit with forfeiture or attainder? It sounds like "naturally dead" was Richard and George's legal loophole.
No, the point of forfeiture and attainder was to remove the property not only from the current holders but their heirs.
Karen wrote: "...the point of forfeiture and attainder was to remove the property not only from the current holders but their heirs."That's what I thought. So the only way for the daughters to inherit the property would be if both parents were dead and since the Countess was alive, this was a legal way around it.
So, without being the proverbial fly-on-the-wall, I can imagine that this "deal" was devised with input from the sisters, and was perhaps the only way for Anne to get her "share" of the estates and still appease George.
The sisters needn't have had anything to do with it. Their approval wasn't the least required.
Hmm, I didn't say their approval was required, I was just speculating.
We shouldn't discount the Warwick's daughters entirely. For all we know they could have been willing partners . As for the Countess, she was being fed and clothed by her daughter , I am sure she did not lack in anything..........
As for the Countess, she was being fed and clothed by her daughter , I am sure she did not lack in anything"She was certainly being fed and clothed, but the fact remains that she had been deprived of her rightful inheritance by her sons-in-law. If it had been the Woodvilles who benefited from this, I doubt that Richard III's admirers would take such a rosy view of the situation.
Yes. True.Bring an widow with a husband under attainder( Was Warwick attained?) sort of screwed the lady.......
Btw, Susan are you in the RIII forum on yahoo? There was a long discussion on this and topic. Edward and his brothers were not above engaging in questionable dealings...... I would like to absolve Richard but so far it does not look too promising. Lol. Other than the fact that as the youngest brother could he have much say in this matter? Or went along with it to just get it over with?! How much can we really put on the shoulder of a teenager?!
I'm not a member of the Yahoo group. I was for a time, but I found it very off-putting. I am a member of the Richard III Society, though.Even if Warwick had been attainted (I don't think he was), the countess would have been entitled to her jointure, as well as to the lands she had inherited in her own right--hence the need to declare her legally dead.
Richard was young, but this was an age where people assumed adult responsibilities early (remember, Edward IV had seized the throne and won the battle of Towton when he was only around 18, and Richard had held a position of command at Tewkesbury) There's no indication that Richard was being manipulated by his older brothers or was helpless to stand against them. To the contrary, he's recorded as arguing very vigorously for his and Anne's share of the Warwick inheritance, and he took care to protect himself against Clarence by having Parliament declare that if his marriage to Anne was declared invalid, he would still be allowed to hold her estates. I don't believe that Richard was acting any more deplorably than George as far as the Countess of Warwick was concerned, but too many Ricardians condemn one brother and absolve the other.
It should also be remembered that during this same period, Richard was bullying the elderly Countess of Oxford into conveying her estates to him for a very inadequate consideration. He was no helpless babe in the woods.
I am not saying he was. And the Oxford land was forfeit and he was not " bullying" her but considering that Edward had given him those properties he was seeing that the lands were transferred to him through the crown. Didn't he give the Oxford Countess a stripepend of $200/year? In my thinking E4 has much to answer for. People blame Richard for every little thing but Edward was much more ruthless and without his active involvement the Warwick countess or that of Oxford would not have to face their predicaments........ But I am biased in my thinking:)Why did you find the group off putting? If you are in the Society, I assume you are a Ricardian? You are partial to him for sure:)
Oxford's land was forfeit, but not that of his mother. Richard did give her an annuity of 500 marks in exchange for her lands (which were worth between 600 to 700 pounds per year). He didn't have to pay it for long, since the countess died in December 1473.
Joan wrote: "The earliest year I've seen for John of Gloucester's birth was 1470 and the most common year was 1471. The earliest date for R3's marriage to Anne Neville was April, 1472 based on the recent discov..."My understanding was that Richard did not get a dispensation so I'd like to know more about this partial dispensation. How does that work?
The dispensation was found in the Vatican archives only a few years ago. It's thought by some historians that it didn't cover all of the ways in which Richard and Anne were related to each other, and therefore was inadequate.
