Richard and Anne wedding date

Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-05 15:36:10
Karen O
I read on this forum's website a wedding date for them of Feb 1473. That's a long time to be in sanctuary for her. Is this based on the dates of dispensations? Do we have solid evidence for both? I don't belong to the society so can't read articles.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-05 17:37:49
Hilary Jones
We have no solid evidence but I would be wary of Feb 1473 as it was not usually permitted to marry in Lent. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 15:36
Subject: Richard and Anne wedding date

I read on this forum's website a wedding date for them of Feb 1473. That's a long time to be in sanctuary for her. Is this based on the dates of dispensations? Do we have solid evidence for both? I don't belong to the society so can't read articles.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-05 19:18:05
A J Hibbard
There is an article in the December 2016 Ricardian Bulletin in which Annette Carson & Marie Barnfield develop a timeline, arriving at a proposed date for the marriage of the second half of January or February 1473. They do take account of the Lenten marriage prohibition, which they indicate would have been March 3 to April 18 in 1473. Perhaps Marie will comment further.

A J

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

We have no solid evidence but I would be wary of Feb 1473 as it was not usually permitted to marry in Lent. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 15:36
Subject: Richard and Anne wedding date

  I read on this forum's website a wedding date for them of Feb 1473. That's a long time to be in sanctuary for her. Is this based on the dates of dispensations? Do we have solid evidence for both? I don't belong to the society so can't read articles.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-10 17:01:29
justcarol67
Karen wrote:

"I read on this forum's website a wedding date for them of Feb 1473. That's a long time to be in sanctuary for her. Is this based on the dates of dispensations? Do we have solid evidence for both? I don't belong to the society so can't read articles."

Carol responds:

Hi, Karen. Check our Files. A lot of interesting articles are there, including the one on dispensations.

Carol

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-10 17:02:28
Karen O
Why so long? 
On Jun 5, 2017 2:18 PM, "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
 

There is an article in the December 2016 Ricardian Bulletin in which Annette Carson & Marie Barnfield develop a timeline, arriving at a proposed date for the marriage of the second half of January or February 1473. They do take account of the Lenten marriage prohibition, which they indicate would have been March 3 to April 18 in 1473. Perhaps Marie will comment further.

A J

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

We have no solid evidence but I would be wary of Feb 1473 as it was not usually permitted to marry in Lent. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2017, 15:36
Subject: Richard and Anne wedding date

  I read on this forum's website a wedding date for them of Feb 1473. That's a long time to be in sanctuary for her. Is this based on the dates of dispensations? Do we have solid evidence for both? I don't belong to the society so can't read articles.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-11 16:12:33
mariewalsh2003

Hi Karen,


This is my reasoning with Annette Carson. The evidence is:-


1) For reasons of etiquette, Richard probably did not propose to the widowed Anne until early 1472 - Crowland got the autumns of 1471 and 1472 mixed up, as is proved by the fact that he says Anne was hidden by Clarence in the Michaelmas term of the first year of Edward's 2nd reign (i.e. 1471), but says this was also the autumn that the first parliament of his 2nd reign opened; there was no parliament in 1471 - that first parliament began in October 1472. We have no contemporary reference to Richard's suit earlier than February 1472, when John Paston recorded that Clarence was saying Richard could marry Anne but wouldn't get a penny to go with her.

2) Clarence agreed to some sort of property division in March 1472, which Richard and Anne seem to have accepted (Clarence seems to have tried to go back on it after the marriage had taken place).

3) The dispensation, issued in Rome in April 1472, would not have arrived until June 1472 and could have been even later.

4) Richard seems to have spent the summer of 1472 in the North

5) Richard was definitely in Yorkshire in early October 1472, just before coming south for parliament. He seems to have reached London about 14 October.

6) We contend, because of these facts, and because of what I have noted above about Crowland's confusion over the autumns of 1471 and 1472, that it was in October 1472, when Richard returned to London looking for Anne, that Clarence hid her, and so sometime later that year when Richard found her and took her to sanctuary.

7) Marriages were not allowed (or only under very special circumstances) between the beginning of Advent and 13 January. Then they were forbidden again from beginning of Lent until some time after Easter. Since writing the article I have also discovered that Richard visited Southampton during December, and probably Lydd in Kent as well, which would seem to confirm that the couple were not married that month. In early January Richard was busy with the Countess of Oxford.

8) The earliest reference to Anne as Richard's duchess is in an amendment that King Edward added to the passage of a parliamentary Bill. This appears in the roll that covers the first two sessions of that parliament - i.e. it was no later than 8 April 1473.

9) That only leaves the period 14 Jan to beginning of March 1473 for the marriage to take place (Easter was unusually late in 1473 - 18 April).

So perhaps we have it wrong, but that is the reasoning. Anne wouldn't have been in sanctuary for more than two or three months at the most.

Marie

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 18:02:26
Karen
So it seems quite a delay from the dispensation to the marriage. Waiting on the property settlement and then seems to have wed her without one?
On Jun 11, 2017 11:12 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Hi Karen,


This is my reasoning with Annette Carson. The evidence is:-


1) For reasons of etiquette, Richard probably did not propose to the widowed Anne until early 1472 - Crowland got the autumns of 1471 and 1472 mixed up, as is proved by the fact that he says Anne was hidden by Clarence in the Michaelmas term of the first year of Edward's 2nd reign (i.e. 1471), but says this was also the autumn that the first parliament of his 2nd reign opened; there was no parliament in 1471 - that first parliament began in October 1472.  We have no contemporary reference to Richard's suit earlier than February 1472, when John Paston recorded that Clarence was saying Richard could marry Anne but  wouldn't get a penny to go with her.

2) Clarence agreed to some sort of property division in March 1472, which Richard and Anne seem to have accepted (Clarence seems to have tried to go back on it after the marriage had taken place).

3) The dispensation, issued in Rome in April 1472, would not have arrived until June 1472 and could have been even later.

4) Richard seems to have spent the summer of 1472 in the North

5) Richard was definitely in Yorkshire in early October 1472, just before coming south for parliament. He seems to have reached London about 14 October.

6) We contend, because of these facts, and because of what I have noted above about Crowland's confusion over the autumns of 1471 and 1472, that it was in October 1472, when Richard returned to London looking for Anne, that Clarence hid her, and so sometime later that year when Richard found her and took her to sanctuary.

7) Marriages were not allowed (or only under very special circumstances) between the beginning of Advent and 13 January. Then they were forbidden again from beginning of Lent until some time after Easter. Since writing the article I have also discovered that Richard visited Southampton during December, and probably Lydd in Kent as well, which would seem to confirm that the couple were not married that month. In early January Richard was busy with the Countess of Oxford.

8) The earliest reference to Anne as Richard's duchess is in an amendment that King Edward added to the passage of a parliamentary Bill. This appears in the roll that covers the first two sessions of that parliament - i.e. it was no later than 8 April 1473.

9) That only leaves the period 14 Jan to beginning of March 1473 for the marriage to take place (Easter was unusually late in 1473 - 18 April).

So perhaps we have it wrong, but that is the reasoning. Anne wouldn't have been in sanctuary for more than two or three months at the most.

Marie


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 18:02:36
Karen
Thank you. I would have thinking of her at St Martin's for almost a year. I have read it was a place for desperados to find d sanctuary. Assuming Richard had to pay to.keep her there. Not necessarily believing Clarence hid her. Believe she ran away. Could it be there were still some of her father s people in London, rather like a safe house to flee to in an emergency? Just speculation. Unlikely Richard could have found her quickly without her getting word to.him. Makes me think she was a bit of a rebel.

On Jun 11, 2017 11:12 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Hi Karen,


This is my reasoning with Annette Carson. The evidence is:-


1) For reasons of etiquette, Richard probably did not propose to the widowed Anne until early 1472 - Crowland got the autumns of 1471 and 1472 mixed up, as is proved by the fact that he says Anne was hidden by Clarence in the Michaelmas term of the first year of Edward's 2nd reign (i.e. 1471), but says this was also the autumn that the first parliament of his 2nd reign opened; there was no parliament in 1471 - that first parliament began in October 1472.  We have no contemporary reference to Richard's suit earlier than February 1472, when John Paston recorded that Clarence was saying Richard could marry Anne but  wouldn't get a penny to go with her.

2) Clarence agreed to some sort of property division in March 1472, which Richard and Anne seem to have accepted (Clarence seems to have tried to go back on it after the marriage had taken place).

3) The dispensation, issued in Rome in April 1472, would not have arrived until June 1472 and could have been even later.

4) Richard seems to have spent the summer of 1472 in the North

5) Richard was definitely in Yorkshire in early October 1472, just before coming south for parliament. He seems to have reached London about 14 October.

6) We contend, because of these facts, and because of what I have noted above about Crowland's confusion over the autumns of 1471 and 1472, that it was in October 1472, when Richard returned to London looking for Anne, that Clarence hid her, and so sometime later that year when Richard found her and took her to sanctuary.

7) Marriages were not allowed (or only under very special circumstances) between the beginning of Advent and 13 January. Then they were forbidden again from beginning of Lent until some time after Easter. Since writing the article I have also discovered that Richard visited Southampton during December, and probably Lydd in Kent as well, which would seem to confirm that the couple were not married that month. In early January Richard was busy with the Countess of Oxford.

8) The earliest reference to Anne as Richard's duchess is in an amendment that King Edward added to the passage of a parliamentary Bill. This appears in the roll that covers the first two sessions of that parliament - i.e. it was no later than 8 April 1473.

9) That only leaves the period 14 Jan to beginning of March 1473 for the marriage to take place (Easter was unusually late in 1473 - 18 April).

So perhaps we have it wrong, but that is the reasoning. Anne wouldn't have been in sanctuary for more than two or three months at the most.

Marie


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 18:51:58
mariewalsh2003


Hi Karen,


Good points, and interrelated. I think one of the keys is that Richard and Anne were contenting themselves with whatever property settlement they got out of Clarence in March 1472 - the problem is that we don't know the details of it. There were only two property settlements: that one and the one of May 1474, and there is proof they married before the latter. Why Richard waited so long after the issue of the dispensation is another question - the sources are too patchy. We don't know exactly when the dispensation reached him, for one thing. A message from Rome would typically arrive in about 6 weeks if the messenger travelled at a comfortable speed and didn't have any other errands to worry about on the way. Henry VII on occasion got a politically urgent dispensation across to him in under a month. I have also seen a dispensation that took six months from issue in Rome to being ratified by the local bishop in England.


Six weeks would take us to something like 4 June (I haven't worked it out exactly), but we don't know where Richard was most of that summer, and we don't know when the dispensation actually arrived. We have a statement in the Paston Letters in early May that he was about to set off for the North, and then no further evidence until the start of October when, as luck would have it, a flurry of different sources enable us to track his journey from Yorkshire down to London. It's possible he'd received the dispensation over the summer and made contact with Clarence, and Clarence managed to string him along, saying Anne was unwell or something. Or maybe Clarence intercepted the dispensation. Or perhaps it took a long while to arrive.

Here's a possibility. Two days before the dispensation was issued, Cardinal Bessarion, a friend of Archbishop Neville, reportedly left Rome on a mission to Louis XI, Charles of Burgundy and Edward IV, to persuade them to settle their differences and join a crusade to retake Constantinople (which is where Bessarion originally came from). Now, given that he was heading towards England and was a friend of Archbishop Neville, it is possible that a messenger was sent after him to give him Richard and Anne's dispensation to deliver when he got to England. The problem is that Bessarion seems to have taken quite a circuitous route, and didn't reach Louis' court until early June. He got a bad reception there, and then went on to Burgundy, where he also got a bad reception. He also discovered, of course, that Archbishop Neville was not at the centre of power in England, but in prison at Hammes charged with treason. So he visited Neville in prison, taught him a new board game to give him something to do, and set off back to Rome. (He only got as far as Ravenna, where he died in November.) If he had the dispensation with him, he would presumably have found someone take it across to England before he turned home, but that would have been quite late in the summer. Now this is absolute and total speculation - I have no evidence at all that Bessarion was carrying the dispensation, but it is an example of the sort of reasons why its arrival might have been delayed. Another possibility is that Clarence intercepted it and didn't tell Richard it had arrived. If I were writing a novel I'd not be short of possible scenarios.


Hicks notwithstanding, I think we have to see the 1474 deal as the result of Clarence's whingeing and his fears about the Countess of Warwick being restored to her lands, not as something that Richard drove through. After all, she was living with Richard and Anne, not with him. Another thing I discovered in my attempts to trace Richard's movements is that Richard cannot even have been in parliament on the day the Act was passed because he had still been at Pontefract two days earlier.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 19:02:08
mariewalsh2003

Well, sanctuaries housed all sorts of people. It would be a bit like Elizabeth Woodville in Westminster Sanctuary I think. Philippa Gregory notwithstanding, EW lived in the Abbot's house, which was within the sanctuary precincts, not in the common sanctuary house. Anne would similarly have been housed salubriously at St. Martin's well away from desperadoes. She wasn't the only person of note, nor even the only lady, to use that partcular sanctuary by any means. York's chamberlain Sir William Oldhall had taken refuge there in the 1450s. In 1472 the Countess of Oxford (Margaret Neville) was there, and she'd probably been there ever since Barnet. Also, a few years later one of the side chapels in St Martin's was chosen as the venue for the hasty marriage of a young ward who'd suddenly become an heiress as the result of her brother's unexpected death, her guardian fearing that the girl's stepfather, who'd previously seized her brother, would do the same with her. So I think tales of its naughtiness have been exaggerated.


It depends who Anne trusted, doesn't it? A lot of folk connected with her and Richard would have been just as closely connected with George and Isabel. Perhaps someone like Richard's attorney, Morgan Kidwelly, who seems to have been based in London, would have been a good option if she knew where he lived.



Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 22:30:26
romanenemo
What is that story about the Countess of Oxford ? I gogled 'Countess of Oxford Richard III' and I the fist page that was displayed was this one :http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/richardiii.html. I can't believe that. I suppose it's based upon Tudor sources.I remember now that there was something in Horspool about Richard having taken the elderly Countess' lands in exchange for a meagre allowance. Kendall doesn't talk about that episode at all.What is the real story ?

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 22:37:04
b.eileen25
Well firstly Higginbotham hates Richard with a vengeance. You may know this already.
I believe Bertram Fields has written something about this subject in his book Blood Royal.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-12 23:45:08
Karen O
Legally then, was Anne in the legal guardianship of Clarence or just his sister in law living with the family?   
On Jun 12, 2017 2:02 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Well, sanctuaries housed all sorts of people. It would be a bit like Elizabeth Woodville in Westminster Sanctuary I think. Philippa Gregory notwithstanding, EW lived in the Abbot's house, which was within the sanctuary precincts, not in the common sanctuary house. Anne would similarly have been housed salubriously at St. Martin's well away from desperadoes. She wasn't the only person of note, nor even the only lady, to use that partcular sanctuary by any means. York's chamberlain Sir William Oldhall had taken refuge there in the 1450s. In 1472 the Countess of Oxford (Margaret Neville) was there, and she'd probably been there ever since Barnet. Also, a few years later one of the side chapels in St Martin's was chosen as the venue for the hasty marriage of a young ward who'd suddenly become an heiress as the result of her brother's unexpected death, her guardian fearing that the girl's stepfather, who'd previously seized her brother, would do the same with her. So I think tales of its naughtiness have been exaggerated.


It depends who Anne trusted, doesn't it? A lot of folk connected with her and Richard would have been just as closely connected with George and Isabel. Perhaps someone like Richard's attorney, Morgan Kidwelly, who seems to have been based in London, would have been a good option if she knew where he lived.



Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 02:26:07
mariewalsh2003
She was of age, but I think the key is that Edward had placed her with Clarence. He didn't let any of the womenfolk of the Lancastrian leaders go free right at the start - he regarded them all as complicit. So Clarence had good grounds for acting as Anne's legal guardian - or at least minder - in the beginning, but once Edward had agreed to Anne marrying Richard he should really have butted out. The problem was that Edward had already granted Clarence all the Beauchamp and Salisbury lands and Clarence was desperate to keep them.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 07:36:29
romanenemo
Well, I didn't know her, but anyone having read her page can't have any doubt about this lady's opinion. The problem is that Horspool's account is rather hostile too, and Kendall doesn't speak about that. I wanted to have a ricardian point of view on that episode. I will try to find some other account, maybe in the book you mentioned (thank you). But I've already started Annette Carson's book, so that will have to wait.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 07:57:49
romanenemo
From all what I've read already, I'm a bit surprised at Edward's behavior. In all that affair, he did support Richard, but not as assiduously as it would have seemed fit, considering all what Richard had just been through in order to put him back on the throne, and especially his important role at Tewkesbury. Whereas Clarence was a turncoat, who had only deserted Warwick because there hadn't been anything for him at his side anymore.And yet, Edward showered Clarence with prized possession, and kept sending Richard in mission, which gave Clarence the opportunity of delaying the wedding, and even of hiding Anne.Or is it Anne who hid herself ? I find it difficult to buy the idea that Clarence forced her to live as a kitchen maid. Maybe it's because of that story that so many fictions about Anne make a pushover of her. I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 10:00:23
ricard1an
Many years ago our R3 branch had a talk about Anne Neville by the then chairman of the West Midlands branch of the Society. His opinion was that Anne was probably quite a tough cookie. It was a very long time ago so I can't remember everything he said but one thing I do remember that he cited as evidence was her being descended from the Nevilles, who as we know were tough cookies so it was very possible that her Neville genes would suggest that she could have been quite tough. I think he also mentioned everything that she had gone through at quite an early age and had come through it all. His name was Neil but I can't remember his surname. Sadly I think he has died and the West Midlands Branch no longer exists.
Mary

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 10:04:17
b.eileen25
Romanemio..I don't really know much about this episode but I'm sure others will be able to help you, Perhaps it wasn't Richard's finest hour but it was certainly something seemed to happen a lot, I have read something of what higginbotham wrote about Richard and since then I would rather stick pins in my eyes than read anything she has to write,

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 10:56:14
romanenemo
Yes, that's exactly the kind of writing I begin to discover with surprise, accounts given in a violently partisan way, without any critical spirit toward the sources that are mostly of Tudor area and thus biased. How strange, considering all this happened centuries ago. Richard's story is fascinating, but IMO such emotional reactions are rather surprising.About the episode with the Countess of Oxford, what I know for sure is that Horspool seems to think that 500 marks a year wasn't enough for all the possessions the Countess of Oxford surrendered to Richard. The agreement would be written 'in the record of the proceedings in Chancery of Hilary Term'. But the source he quotes is some book called 'Calendars of the Proceeding in Chancery, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth' so is the text of that record really contemporary of Richard ? Horspool seems to think so, but he says as well that Richard, in this, didn't behave differently than the other magnates of the time. And the rest of the story, the threats etc..., comes from a biased source, the complaint made by the Earl of Oxford after Richard's death. However, it doesn't seem to be an episode that does much credit to Richard. Apparently, chivalric conduct didn't apply to the elderly mother of an enemy.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 11:34:27
b.eileen25
Agreed. I like my historians unbiased..they make more sense and more believable.
Re OXford. I hope someone else can add to this. Hard to find anything much about it. If it is the case that Richard treated her unkindly it wouldn't be surprising in that day and age. HE was rather young at the time and I wonder if he would have acted in an entirely different way further down the line. HOwever as we have often said in here he wasn't a saint BUT others behaved far more badly than this...particularly his own brother..look how he treated the widowed duchess of Norfolk.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 12:32:23
Hilary Jones
Strangely enough of course our friend Stillington was Dean of St Martin's. His brother Thomas was certainly in the 'set' that Richard inherited from Warwick so Anne would be in friendly territory. Never thought of this before. I wonder how well Stillington knew Anne and whether the acquaintance continued through to 1483? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 June 2017, 19:02
Subject: Re: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

Well, sanctuaries housed all sorts of people. It would be a bit like Elizabeth Woodville in Westminster Sanctuary I think. Philippa Gregory notwithstanding, EW lived in the Abbot's house, which was within the sanctuary precincts, not in the common sanctuary house. Anne would similarly have been housed salubriously at St. Martin's well away from desperadoes. She wasn't the only person of note, nor even the only lady, to use that partcular sanctuary by any means. York's chamberlain Sir William Oldhall had taken refuge there in the 1450s. In 1472 the Countess of Oxford (Margaret Neville) was there, and she'd probably been there ever since Barnet. Also, a few years later one of the side chapels in St Martin's was chosen as the venue for the hasty marriage of a young ward who'd suddenly become an heiress as the result of her brother's unexpected death, her guardian fearing that the girl's stepfather, who'd previously seized her brother, would do the same with her. So I think tales of its naughtiness have been exaggerated.
It depends who Anne trusted, doesn't it? A lot of folk connected with her and Richard would have been just as closely connected with George and Isabel. Perhaps someone like Richard's attorney, Morgan Kidwelly, who seems to have been based in London, would have been a good option if she knew where he lived.



Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 12:37:41
Hilary Jones
The best account of the Countess of Oxford situation I've found is in, of all people, Wilkinson. She makes the very good points that, firstly the lady was likely to use her monies to help her attainted son, a proclaimed traitor and that secondly, it was actually Edward who encouraged the 'confiscation' for exactly that reason. Otherwise, it would be like condoning the funding of treachery. H


From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 7:36
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

Well, I didn't know her, but anyone having read her page can't have any doubt about this lady's opinion. The problem is that Horspool's account is rather hostile too, and Kendall doesn't speak about that. I wanted to have a ricardian point of view on that episode. I will try to find some other account, maybe in the book you mentioned (thank you). But I've already started Annette Carson's book, so that will have to wait.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 12:50:58
b.eileen25
Well that makes a lot of sense! Can you remind me of what Wilkinson book you speak of Hilary...I have one..somewhere...

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 13:06:49
Karen O
Did you ever wonder if Eleanor Talbot constructed a deposition of sorts about her marriage to Richard's brother and sent it to his Duchess, her first cousin?  I do.    I'm not convinced Richard was ignorant of the first marriage. He just may have kept his mouth shut.Remember there were only three witnesses to this quasi hand fasting that became a legal marriage. Of course he said nothing. I don't know if he expected Stllington to show up and testify. Love to.know that.
On Jun 13, 2017 7:32 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Strangely enough of course our friend Stillington was Dean of St Martin's. His brother Thomas was certainly in the 'set' that Richard inherited from Warwick so Anne would be in friendly territory. Never thought of this before. I wonder how well Stillington knew Anne and whether the acquaintance continued through to 1483? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 12 June 2017, 19:02
Subject: Re: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

  Well, sanctuaries housed all sorts of people. It would be a bit like Elizabeth Woodville in Westminster Sanctuary I think. Philippa Gregory notwithstanding, EW lived in the Abbot's house, which was within the sanctuary precincts, not in the common sanctuary house. Anne would similarly have been housed salubriously at St. Martin's well away from desperadoes. She wasn't the only person of note, nor even the only lady, to use that partcular sanctuary by any means. York's chamberlain Sir William Oldhall had taken refuge there in the 1450s. In 1472 the Countess of Oxford (Margaret Neville) was there, and she'd probably been there ever since Barnet. Also, a few years later one of the side chapels in St Martin's was chosen as the venue for the hasty marriage of a young ward who'd suddenly become an heiress as the result of her brother's unexpected death, her guardian fearing that the girl's stepfather, who'd previously seized her brother, would do the same with her. So I think tales of its naughtiness have been exaggerated.
It depends who Anne trusted, doesn't it? A lot of folk connected with her and Richard would have been just as closely connected with George and Isabel. Perhaps someone like Richard's attorney, Morgan Kidwelly, who seems to have been based in London, would have been a good option if she knew where he lived.



Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 13:06:49
b.eileen25
To,think that the one thing I thought Richard was a bit out of order in, actually made a lot of sense...

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 13:07:13
Hilary Jones
'Richard - The Young King to Be' Tucked in amongst the saints and Hicks misconceptions are quite a few good points. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 12:51
Subject: Re: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

Well that makes a lot of sense! Can you remind me of what Wilkinson book you speak of Hilary...I have one..somewhere...

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne wedd

2017-06-13 13:17:17
Doug Stamate
Romanenemo wrote: What is that story about the Countess of Oxford ? I gogled 'Countess of Oxford Richard III' and I the fist page that was displayed was this one :http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/richardiii.html. I can't believe that. I suppose it's based upon Tudor sources. I remember now that there was something in Horspool about Richard having taken the elderly Countess' lands in exchange for a meagre allowance. Kendall doesn't talk about that episode at all. What is the real story ? Doug here: The non-Higginbotham sources I located via Google, have Edward IV taking the Countess' lands, giving some of them to Richard, and even taking some back from Richard. One article here: http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2005_vol15_ross_richard_de_vere.pdf suggests that many of the problems concerning the Countess' estates may have been due to using out-of-date documents. As my life is too short to waste it on reading anything by Higginbotham, I can't refute any of her claims, but only say that Countess' husband and eldest son were executed for treason by Edward IV, thus potentially placing all of their property at the king's disposal. Problems seemed to have developed when it came to determining exactly which properties were the Countess' in her own right with, apparently, Edward, where in doubt, deciding in his own favor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 13:25:06
b.eileen25
Oh I haven't got that one..I'll take your word for it HIlary....

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 13:27:21
Hilary Jones
I wouldn't buy it. Borrow it if you can or get it really cheap. As Paul would say too many saints H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017, 1:25 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Oh I haven't got that one..I'll take your word for it HIlary....

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 13:37:43
Paul Trevor Bale
Exactly H. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 14:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

I wouldn't buy it. Borrow it if you can or get it really cheap. As Paul would say too many saints H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017, 1:25 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Oh I haven't got that one..I'll take your word for it HIlary....

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne wedd

2017-06-13 13:50:55
Karen O
From what I have read her son was actively engaged in treason and she was funding him. Richard exerted considerable pressure on her , including threatening to keep her confined at Middleham.     
On Jun 13, 2017 8:17 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Romanenemo wrote: What is that story about the Countess of Oxford ? I gogled 'Countess of Oxford Richard III' and I the fist page that was displayed was this one :http://www.susanhigginbotham. com/subpages/richardiii.html.  I can't believe that. I suppose it's based upon Tudor sources. I remember now that there was something in Horspool about Richard having taken the elderly Countess' lands in exchange for a meagre allowance. Kendall doesn't talk about that episode at all. What is the real story ?   Doug here: The non-Higginbotham sources I located via Google, have Edward IV taking the Countess' lands, giving some of them to Richard, and even taking some back from Richard. One article here: http://www.richardiii.net/ downloads/Ricardian/2005_ vol15_ross_richard_de_vere.pdf suggests that many of the problems concerning the Countess' estates may have been due to using out-of-date documents. As my life is too short to waste it on reading anything by Higginbotham, I can't refute any of her claims, but only say that Countess' husband and eldest son were executed for treason by Edward IV, thus potentially placing all of their property at the king's disposal. Problems seemed to have developed when it came to determining exactly which properties were the Countess' in her own right with, apparently, Edward, where in doubt, deciding in his own favor. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne

2017-06-13 14:11:56
Doug Stamate
Karen wrote: Did you ever wonder if Eleanor Talbot constructed a deposition of sorts about her marriage to Richard's brother and sent it to his Duchess, her first cousin? I do. I'm not convinced Richard was ignorant of the first marriage. He just may have kept his mouth shut. Remember there were only three witnesses to this quasi hand fasting that became a legal marriage. Of course he said nothing. I don't know if he expected Stllington to show up and testify. Love to.know that. Doug here: I seriously doubt Richard knew about his brother's marriage to Eleanor Talbot, if only because of what Richard did after hearing of his brother's death. Had Richard known he, and not his nephew, was the heir to throne, I can't see Richard heading south with such a small group of supporters. Even if one presumes Richard had some sort of evidence to support his claim in his possession, there's still be the matter of convincing EW and her family/supporters, which could get quite messy. Especially if, and there's no way to determine Richard thought otherwise, EW and her family/supporters didn't know about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler. Needless to say, I also don't think EW knew about Edward's marriage before Stillington made his, um, presentation to the Council. Any friction between EW/her/family/supporters and Clarence can just as easily be explained by George's thoughts, and actions, about who really should be sitting on the throne  himself. Which also leads me to believe Clarence didn't know about his brother's marriage problems  he'd have been spreading the word as fast as possible. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richar

2017-06-13 14:15:43
Doug Stamate
Karen wrote: From what I have read her son was actively engaged in treason and she was funding him. Richard exerted considerable pressure on her , including threatening to keep her confined at Middleham. Another excellent reason to keep the Countess short of ready cash! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 14:22:20
b.eileen25
No..I really wont bother. Your explanation is enough and im convinced already.Ive got books coming out of the everywhere at the mo anyway. Just ordered two more..mancini and Testamunta Vetusta..

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 14:24:11
romanenemo
Thank you Hilary, Doug and Karen. Actually it's very likely that the countess would have funded his son, and the seizure of her properties could be explained like this. Too bad Richard didn't do that to Margaret Beaufort as well, instead of relying on her husband to keep an eye on the way she spent her money.I'll read the article available on the net, and maybe the book if I can get it cheap.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne wedd

2017-06-13 15:33:13
A J Hibbard
There is a much more sensible article about this situation written by Anne F Sutton "Richard of Gloucester's Lands in East Anglia," in Richard III and East Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men. I believe I have seen the book (proceedings of one of the Richard III Society's triennial conferences, in 2005) available in a digital format online.

As Doug hints at, negotiations were complicated, and took years because the Countess's estates were already heavily committed. Edward IV may not have realized that fact at the time he granted the lands to Richard.

Sutton also supposes that the Countess well knew that if she were to reclaim her lands, she must make it clear that she was under coercion - hence the demonstrations of tears & the claim of being afraid of being forced to travel north at her age.

Also it's worth remembering that the dramatic story as relayed by the likes of Hicks & Higginbotham wasn't recorded until 1495. By then both principals were long dead, the event itself was 20 years in the past and the testimony therefore based on old memories.

A J

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:
 

From what I have read her son was actively engaged in treason and she was funding him. Richard exerted considerable pressure on her , including threatening to keep her confined at Middleham.     
On Jun 13, 2017 8:17 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

    Romanenemo wrote: What is that story about the Countess of Oxford ? I gogled 'Countess of Oxford Richard III' and I the fist page that was displayed was this one :http://www.susanhigginbotham. com/subpages/richardiii.html.  I can't believe that. I suppose it's based upon Tudor sources. I remember now that there was something in Horspool about Richard having taken the elderly Countess' lands in exchange for a meagre allowance. Kendall doesn't talk about that episode at all. What is the real story ?   Doug here: The non-Higginbotham sources I located via Google, have Edward IV taking the Countess' lands, giving some of them to Richard, and even taking some back from Richard. One article here: http://www.richardiii.net/down loads/Ricardian/2005_vol15_ ross_richard_de_vere.pdf suggests that many of the problems concerning the Countess' estates may have been due to using out-of-date documents. As my life is too short to waste it on reading anything by Higginbotham, I can't refute any of her claims, but only say that Countess' husband and eldest son were executed for treason by Edward IV, thus potentially placing all of their property at the king's disposal. Problems seemed to have developed when it came to determining exactly which properties were the Countess' in her own right with, apparently, Edward, where in doubt, deciding in his own favor. Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne wedd

2017-06-13 16:12:42
b.eileen25
Thanks AJ..will try to find that.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne wedd

2017-06-13 17:06:02
Paul Trevor Bale
Not to forget either AJ that twenty yeas later her son had led an army against Richard at Bosworth and was high in Tudor's regard. And of course Richard was dead and nobody in 1495 thought twice about slandering the dead!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 16:07, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> a écrit :

There is a much more sensible article about this situation written by Anne F Sutton "Richard of Gloucester's Lands in East Anglia," in Richard III and East Anglia: Magnates, Gilds and Learned Men. I believe I have seen the book (proceedings of one of the Richard III Society's triennial conferences, in 2005) available in a digital format online.

As Doug hints at, negotiations were complicated, and took years because the Countess's estates were already heavily committed. Edward IV may not have realized that fact at the time he granted the lands to Richard.

Sutton also supposes that the Countess well knew that if she were to reclaim her lands, she must make it clear that she was under coercion - hence the demonstrations of tears & the claim of being afraid of being forced to travel north at her age.

Also it's worth remembering that the dramatic story as relayed by the likes of Hicks & Higginbotham wasn't recorded until 1495. By then both principals were long dead, the event itself was 20 years in the past and the testimony therefore based on old memories.

A J

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

From what I have read her son was actively engaged in treason and she was funding him. Richard exerted considerable pressure on her , including threatening to keep her confined at Middleham.
On Jun 13, 2017 8:17 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Romanenemo wrote: What is that story about the Countess of Oxford ? I gogled 'Countess of Oxford Richard III' and I the fist page that was displayed was this one :http://www.susanhigginbotham. com/subpages/richardiii.html. I can't believe that. I suppose it's based upon Tudor sources. I remember now that there was something in Horspool about Richard having taken the elderly Countess' lands in exchange for a meagre allowance. Kendall doesn't talk about that episode at all. What is the real story ? Doug here: The non-Higginbotham sources I located via Google, have Edward IV taking the Countess' lands, giving some of them to Richard, and even taking some back from Richard. One article here: http://www.richardiii.net/down loads/Ricardian/2005_vol15_ ross_richard_de_vere.pdf suggests that many of the problems concerning the Countess' estates may have been due to using out-of-date documents. As my life is too short to waste it on reading anything by Higginbotham, I can't refute any of her claims, but only say that Countess' husband and eldest son were executed for treason by Edward IV, thus potentially placing all of their property at the king's disposal. Problems seemed to have developed when it came to determining exactly which properties were the Countess' in her own right with, apparently, Edward, where in doubt, deciding in his own favor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 17:11:24
Karen
She knows that there was a a market out there for Richard haters. She is pandering to her base. I've seen her blog and it is populated by her fan girls. So I reviewed her books on Amazon. Amazon won't delete them.
On Jun 12, 2017 5:37 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
 

Well firstly Higginbotham hates Richard with a vengeance.  You may know this already.


I believe Bertram Fields has written something about  this subject in his book Blood Royal.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 19:01:53
b.eileen25
She had some sort of role in the American Society. I know someone who protested about it but were told she was 'useful '...I believe she has since departed.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 20:53:11
justcarol67

romanenero wrote:

"I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband."

Carol responds:

It also explains how Richard found her, which would have been nearly impossible if George had hidden her. How would he possibly know to search a cook shop or tavern? Once he discovered that she was missing, he would probably have thought that George had forced her into a nunnery or hidden her abroad. He would never have found her in a cook shop unless she contacted him, which would have been much easier if she had hidden herself than if George's minions were watching her every move. Hope this makes sense.

Carol


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 21:10:01
justcarol67
romanenemo wrote:

"But the source he quotes is some book called 'Calendars of the Proceeding in Chancery, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth' so is the text of that record really contemporary of Richard ? Horspool seems to think so, but he says as well that Richard, in this, didn't behave differently than the other magnates of the time. And the rest of the story, the threats etc..., comes from a biased source, the complaint made by the Earl of Oxford after Richard's death. However, it doesn't seem to be an episode that does much credit to Richard. Apparently, chivalric conduct didn't apply to the elderly mother of an enemy."

Carol responds:

I've forgotten the details, but IIRC Richard made sure among other things that the countess's debts were paid, that she could live in comfort, and that her younger son could attend Oxford. The countess was both a woman and a Neville, and Richard seems to have had a soft spot for both. (See, for example, his treatment of Hastings's widow, also a Neville.) If he did take the countess's property (or, rather, the management of it), it must have been because Edward pressured him to as a means of providing income for his young brother, who at the time had little property of his own. Certainly, Edward would have taken her property one way or another.

The proceedings quoted relate to the Earl of Oxford's testimony long after the fact. (He was imprisoned by Edward at the time and consequently not present.) He had some "witnesses" make unprovable claims that Richard had extorted the property from his mother so he could get it back. (His mother was dead.) Richard, of course, could not defend himself against those arguments, being also dead and an attainted "traitor." The result was, of course, a favorable settlement for Oxford, who had been the deciding factor in Henry's victory at Bosworth. And very much a biased source!

Carol

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 21:28:08
justcarol67
Carol earlier:

"The countess was both a woman and a Neville, and Richard seems to have had a soft spot for both. (See, for example, his treatment of Hastings's widow, also a Neville.)"

Carol again:

Sorry--it was Oxford's wife, not his mother, who was a Neville. Should have checked my facts before posting.

Carol

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 21:32:19
romanenemo
Doug wrote :Needless to say, I also don't think EW knew about Edward's marriage before Stillington made his, um, presentation to the Council. Any friction between EW/her/family/supporters and Clarence can just as easily be explained by George's thoughts, and actions, about who really should be sitting on the throne  himself. Which also leads me to believe Clarence didn't know about his brother's marriage problems  he'd have been spreading the word as fast as possible.

Romane here :
For Elizabeth, I agree that she didn't need to know about Edward's marriage to do what she did to keep the power. But if she knew, it could allow to see her in a more sympathetic light, as her actions would have been an attempt to protect her son's interests. I don't know. The points of view about her are almost as different as those about Richard.
But as for Clarence, it would explain so many things if his death was linked, one way or another, to the pre-contract ! Why did Edward, who had always forgiven him everything, suddenly decide to put him to death, apparently because of an obscure conspiracy involving a so-called astrologer, Stacey, and one Thomas Burdett, and because of Clarence's protest before the parliament on their behalf ? Was it worse than what Clarence had done before, such as siding with Edward's enemy, making him prisoner and trying to supersede him ?
I've read somewhere (Kendall of Horsepool ? ) that Burdett had links with Stillington. Clarence apparently had links with Stilligton as well. Maybe Clarence didn't know, but Edward feared that he did ? Or Clarence had some vague suspicion, talked about it like the fool he was, and Edward thought that he knew more than he did ?
That way such a fratricide could be better explained, and the fact that according some sources (Mancini I think), Richard held Elizabeth Woodville responsible for what had happened to Clarence. If she had known about the pre-contract, and feared that Clarence knew as well, she would have urged Edward to silence Clarence for good.
Who knows ?
Romane


---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Karen wrote:Did you ever wonder if Eleanor Talbot constructed a deposition of sorts about her marriage to Richard's brother and sent it to his Duchess, her first cousin? I do. I'm not convinced Richard was ignorant of the first marriage. He just may have kept his mouth shut.Remember there were only three witnesses to this quasi hand fasting that became a legal marriage. Of course he said nothing. I don't know if he expected Stllington to show up and testify. Love to.know that. Doug here:I seriously doubt Richard knew about his brother's marriage to Eleanor Talbot, if only because of what Richard did after hearing of his brother's death.Had Richard known he, and not his nephew, was the heir to throne, I can't see Richard heading south with such a small group of supporters. Even if one presumes Richard had some sort of evidence to support his claim in his possession, there's still be the matter of convincing EW and her family/supporters, which could get quite messy. Especially if, and there's no way to determine Richard thought otherwise, EW and her family/supporters didn't know about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler.Needless to say, I also don't think EW knew about Edward's marriage before Stillington made his, um, presentation to the Council. Any friction between EW/her/family/supporters and Clarence can just as easily be explained by George's thoughts, and actions, about who really should be sitting on the throne  himself. Which also leads me to believe Clarence didn't know about his brother's marriage problems  he'd have been spreading the word as fast as possible.Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 22:04:42
romanenemo
So the proceedings I quoted were not contemporary ? I suspected as much, but Horspool is not clear, he says "But it is te evidence of Richard's own chancery petition, with its unlikely account of Countess Elizabeth's being 'advised' to accept his less than generous offer, which does more to substantiate the likelihood of the latter account."So I wasn't sure that the source concerning the financial agreement was not contemporary.Anyway, there is also the fact that the Countess might have funded her son, the fact that Edward was probably the one who initiated all this, and above all the complete unreliability of the sources that you pointed out perfectly well.


---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :

romanenemo wrote:

"But the source he quotes is some book called 'Calendars of the Proceeding in Chancery, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth' so is the text of that record really contemporary of Richard ? Horspool seems to think so, but he says as well that Richard, in this, didn't behave differently than the other magnates of the time. And the rest of the story, the threats etc..., comes from a biased source, the complaint made by the Earl of Oxford after Richard's death. However, it doesn't seem to be an episode that does much credit to Richard. Apparently, chivalric conduct didn't apply to the elderly mother of an enemy."

Carol responds:

I've forgotten the details, but IIRC Richard made sure among other things that the countess's debts were paid, that she could live in comfort, and that her younger son could attend Oxford. The countess was both a woman and a Neville, and Richard seems to have had a soft spot for both. (See, for example, his treatment of Hastings's widow, also a Neville.) If he did take the countess's property (or, rather, the management of it), it must have been because Edward pressured him to as a means of providing income for his young brother, who at the time had little property of his own. Certainly, Edward would have taken her property one way or another.

The proceedings quoted relate to the Earl of Oxford's testimony long after the fact. (He was imprisoned by Edward at the time and consequently not present.) He had some "witnesses" make unprovable claims that Richard had extorted the property from his mother so he could get it back. (His mother was dead.) Richard, of course, could not defend himself against those arguments, being also dead and an attainted "traitor." The result was, of course, a favorable settlement for Oxford, who had been the deciding factor in Henry's victory at Bosworth. And very much a biased source!

Carol

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 22:40:57
mariewalsh2003

Romane wrote:

From all what I've read already, I'm a bit surprised at Edward's behavior. In all that affair, he did support Richard, but not as assiduously as it would have seemed fit, considering all what Richard had just been through in order to put him back on the throne, and especially his important role at Tewkesbury. Whereas Clarence was a turncoat, who had only deserted Warwick because there hadn't been anything for him at his side anymore.

And yet, Edward showered Clarence with prized possession, and kept sending Richard in mission, which gave Clarence the opportunity of delaying the wedding, and even of hiding Anne.Or is it Anne who hid herself ? I find it difficult to buy the idea that Clarence forced her to live as a kitchen maid. Maybe it's because of that story that so many fictions about Anne make a pushover of her. I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband
Marie:I actually agree that Clarence is unlikely to have hid her in a shop unless she wanted to avoid Richard - she could have escaped too easily, or got word out. I've been trying to think myself into Clarence's mind today (not a pleasant place to be), and I think maybe he was surprised Richard actually wanted to go ahead with the marriage because he seems to have handed some of his manors directly to Richard - and Richard alone in March 1472 so Richard had nothing more to gain financially from the marriage. Given George's personality, I suspect he would have been bewildered and suspected Richard of wanting even more of the lands. He very likely tried to bully Anne into refusing to go ahead with the marriage, possibly even telling her horror stories about Richard, and maybe she said okay at one point, either to shut him up or because he'd got her genuinely frightened about Richard having turned into a monster, and that was his grounds for claiming she must have been married by force. If Clarence was trying to hide Anne, he would have done better locking her up in some strong country fortress rather than letting her loose in a London cookshop. So I agree that she is more likely to have run away.George must have been double alarmed when Richard got to bring the Countess of Warwick to Middleham, and there were rumours that the King was about to restore her to her property to give it to the Gloucesters.
Incidentally, I suspect Edward had foolishly promised George the entire Warwick inheritance when he was trying to entice him back on to the Yorkist side. At that time, of course, Anne was the Lancastrian Princess of Wales.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-13 22:55:21
mariewalsh2003

Re the Countess of Oxford, I believe it may not have been Richard's finest hour, but discussion of this subject has suffered from the fact that it was Michael Hicks who first drew attention to it. It's actually clear from the depositions that #Richard arrested the Countess on the King's orders. It's also clear from the same that she was in communication with her son, who was planning to invade England. As I alluded to in previous post, traitors' womenfolk were normally controlled in some way. Being placed under house arrest with a minder was normal. The Countess seems to have been in the Tower before, in the 1460s. She was summoned to appear before the royal council not long after her run-in with Richard as well, though we don't have the records of the event.

My take on it is that Richard was tasked with placing her in a more secure setting than the nunnery where she was then living, and preventing her using her income to help finance her son's treason. It was only her advanced age that made this difficult. By limiting her spending power, Richard made it possible to leave her where she was. Incidentally, Horspool may be forgetting that Richard had agreed, for his part, to honour certain charges on the Countess's estates (annuities, etc) and support her son Richard at Cambridge. Hicks says Richard didn't support Richard de Vere, but Hicks is maybe unaware that Richard de Vere actually ran off to join his brother the Earl. My hunch is that Richard's gift of one of these manors, Fowlmere, to Queens' College, Cambridge, may have been in part a way of honouring a promise to the Countess, who was by then dead. Her main officer, Piers Baxter, had been a Queens' man, and the prayers that were to be funded with the income from Fowlmere included prayers for the old countess of Oxford and her executed husband.

Perhaps, as I've suggested before on this forum, the Katherine Haute to whom Richard paid an annuity out of these lands was a former servant of the Countess of Oxford, and this is another of the charges Richard picked up.

But yes, there's no getting round it, Richard did benefit financially from the arrangement, although King Edward had probably planned to grant the lands to him anyway when the Countess died.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 09:49:26
Paul Trevor Bale
How would Richard have found her you ask? Spies everywhere, though not yet as sophisticated as during Elizabeth Tudors time, but in existence. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 21:53, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :


romanenero wrote:

"I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband."

Carol responds:

It also explains how Richard found her, which would have been nearly impossible if George had hidden her. How would he possibly know to search a cook shop or tavern? Once he discovered that she was missing, he would probably have thought that George had forced her into a nunnery or hidden her abroad. He would never have found her in a cook shop unless she contacted him, which would have been much easier if she had hidden herself than if George's minions were watching her every move. Hope this makes sense.

Carol


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 09:57:58
Pamela Furmidge
The thing about the cookshop idea is how could a nobly born girl, recently Princess of Wales, be expected to work in a kitchen and not be completely a 'sore thumb' person. What would she know about scrubbing, cleaning, cooking etc. Clarence would have done better to put her in a nunnery or in a remote property somewhere out of London.
----Original message----







How would Richard have found her you ask? Spies everywhere, though not yet as sophisticated as during Elizabeth Tudors time, but in existence.
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 21:53, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :






romanenero wrote:
"I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband."
Carol responds:
It also explains how Richard found her, which would have been nearly impossible if George had hidden her. How would he possibly know to search a cook shop or tavern? Once he discovered that she was missing, he would probably have thought that George had forced her into a nunnery or hidden her abroad. He would never have found her in a cook shop unless she contacted him, which would have been much easier if she had hidden herself than if George's minions were watching her every move. Hope this makes sense.
Carol













Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 12:28:00
Gilda Elise
She used to be the American branch non-fiction librarian.





On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:01 PM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:


She had some sort of role in the American Society. I know someone who protested about it but were told she was 'useful '...I believe she has since departed.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 13:17:37
Karen O
He couldn't possibly have had spies in Every house and business. In Clarence's house? Maybe. The most logical answer is Anne got word to him.    Now, consider that this private business then became public with Clarence calling his brother a rapist/abductor. I bet she was the talk if London. Humiliating.
On Jun 14, 2017 4:49 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:
 

How would Richard have found her you ask? Spies everywhere, though not yet as sophisticated as during Elizabeth Tudors time, but in existence. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 21:53, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

 


romanenero wrote:

"I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband."

Carol responds:

It also explains how Richard found her, which would have been nearly impossible if George had hidden her. How would he possibly know to search a cook shop or tavern? Once he discovered that she was missing, he would probably have thought that George had forced her into a nunnery or hidden her abroad. He would never have found her in a cook shop unless she contacted him, which would have been much easier if she had hidden herself than if George's minions were watching her every move. Hope this makes sense.

Carol


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 15:29:34
Karen
I believe perhaps she snuck out in disguise. She would be pretty useless but perhaps the cookshop was a Warrick safehouse. It wouldn't make sense to have obvious people be your underground railroad in case of trouble. I like Anne for running away. Now as to why. I can think of only two reasons. It being a given that George was a rat, he either threatened to shove her in a convent or he was going to ruin her reputation by seduction or assault.Blaming Anne for it would be a standard tactic. There is a painting of Anne and Isabelle at some big function after the marriage. They are arm in arm. Sisterhood must have won out over marriage. Isabelle must have helped her escape.
On Jun 14, 2017 4:57 AM, "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <> wrote:
 

The thing about the cookshop idea is how could a nobly born girl, recently Princess of Wales, be expected to work in a kitchen and not be completely a 'sore thumb' person. What would she know about scrubbing, cleaning, cooking etc. Clarence would have done better to put her in a nunnery or in a remote property somewhere out of London.
----Original message----







How would Richard have found her you ask? Spies everywhere, though not yet as sophisticated as during Elizabeth Tudors time, but in existence.
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 juin 2017 à 21:53, justcarol67@yahoo.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :






romanenero wrote:
"I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband."
Carol responds:
It also explains how Richard found her, which would have been nearly impossible if George had hidden her. How would he possibly know to search a cook shop or tavern? Once he discovered that she was missing, he would probably have thought that George had forced her into a nunnery or hidden her abroad. He would never have found her in a cook shop unless she contacted him, which would have been much easier if she had hidden herself than if George's minions were watching her every move. Hope this makes sense.
Carol











Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard and Anne wedd

2017-06-14 17:42:57
Doug Stamate
Romane, These are only my opinions, but I believe them to be backed by what we do know of these events. It's my view that what happened to George was due to the misfiring of a plan Edward initiated to finally put George in his place. As you noted, George had sided with Warwick and had even gotten himself to put in as the heir of Edward of Lancaster. George obviously thought he should be the one sitting on the throne, not his brother Edward. Since the reconciliation that had taken place between George and Edward, George had continually placed himself in opposition to his brother's wishes/plans. He did all he could to prevent Richard's marriage to Anne and followed that by trying to keep all the Neville lands for himself, instead of splitting them with Richard and Anne. His behavior in regards to Edward's wife and her family was, to say the least, impolite and, in itself verged on treason. Claiming that he was afraid to dine with Edward's in-laws, which would cause problems in any family, were made worse by the family, in this case, being that of the king. Then there's George's actions after his wife's death. George was responsible for the murder of two people he accused of poisoning his wife, Isabel. He was also, apparently, planning on sending his young son out of the country without Edward's knowledge or permission; an act that was often the precursor to rebellion (ensuring that one's children couldn't be used as hostages against oneself). All the above has led me to believe that what Edward planned was to strip George of everything, the property George controlled as the father of Isabel's child and any property George held in his own right, having received it from Edward. This was where the Attainder came in. By attainting George for treasonous actions against him, Edward could take back from George any lands/property Edward had given him. Edward could also place Isabel's property under the control of someone other than George, to be managed for Isabel's, and George's, son, but without George having any say. IOW, George would finally have to recognize that Edward was King and that everything George possessed, the position George occupied in the country, all of it was only because George was Edward's brother and Edward was the king. IOW, the passing of the Attainder, in and of itself, would force George to face the fact that he wasn't the king, wasn't going to be the king and at long last adjust himself to that fact. I personally think Edward was quite willing to keep George in the Tower as long as it took for George to come to his senses and accept the situation. Now, I can't say that members of the Woodville faction, even EW herself, didn't view the Attainder as a way of removing someone who could, and almost certainly would, cause trouble when Edward died, but I don't think that view was colored by any knowledge of Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler. Just ensuring a smooth transition from the reign of Edward IV to the reign of Edward V provided enough of a reason. Alive, George was capable of almost anything in his quest for the crown, as he'd demonstrated when he sided with Warwick. What might he do when Edward died? Especially if Edward's son wasn't yet an adult? Edward may not have concerned himself about it, but that doesn't mean his wife and others hadn't contemplated the possibility of his dying before Edward's son reached his majority. Then there were the members of Parliament pressuring Edward to carry out George's execution; the ones who'd been convinced the Attainder was necessary for the safety of the King and the peace of the realm. If George had done what the Attainder claimed he'd done, then he certainly was a traitor and deserved to die. And, finally, Edward gave in and signed the warrant for George's execution. Doug Romane here : For Elizabeth, I agree that she didn't need to know about Edward's marriage to do what she did to keep the power. But if she knew, it could allow to see her in a more sympathetic light, as her actions would have been an attempt to protect her son's interests. I don't know. The points of view about her are almost as different as those about Richard. But as for Clarence, it would explain so many things if his death was linked, one way or another, to the pre-contract ! Why did Edward, who had always forgiven him everything, suddenly decide to put him to death, apparently because of an obscure conspiracy involving a so-called astrologer, Stacey, and one Thomas Burdett, and because of Clarence's protest before the parliament on their behalf ? Was it worse than what Clarence had done before, such as siding with Edward's enemy, making him prisoner and trying to supersede him ? I've read somewhere (Kendall of Horsepool ? ) that Burdett had links with Stillington. Clarence apparently had links with Stilligton as well. Maybe Clarence didn't know, but Edward feared that he did ? Or Clarence had some vague suspicion, talked about it like the fool he was, and Edward thought that he knew more than he did ? That way such a fratricide could be better explained, and the fact that according some sources (Mancini I think), Richard held Elizabeth Woodville responsible for what had happened to Clarence. If she had known about the pre-contract, and feared that Clarence knew as well, she would have urged Edward to silence Clarence for good. Who knows ?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 18:04:46
Doug Stamate
Pamela wrote:
"The thing about the cookshop idea is how could a nobly born girl, recently
Princess of Wales, be expected to work in a kitchen and not be completely a
'sore thumb' person. What would she know about scrubbing, cleaning, cooking
etc. Clarence would have done better to put her in a nunnery or in a remote
property somewhere out of London."

Doug here:
Scrubbing pots and pans is fairly easy task to learn, after all.
FWIW, I tend not to believe that it was Clarence who hid her, but rather
that Anne hid herself. She'd only need to remain hidden until a messenger
got to Richard and he could escort her to sanctuary. There is the question
of why she didn't seek sanctuary on her own. Possibly that was because she
realized Clarence would search there first?
Doug


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 18:38:49
Karen O
    Certainly she would need the Duke of Gloucester s clout or she is just a runaway and perhaps dragged back to Clarence. Also she might need money or she would possibly not get very good accommodation. After all, she has little status at this time.. I hope Richard gave her a nice wedding. 
On Jun 14, 2017 1:04 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 



Pamela wrote:
"The thing about the cookshop idea is how could a nobly born girl, recently
Princess of Wales, be expected to work in a kitchen and not be completely a
'sore thumb' person. What would she know about scrubbing, cleaning, cooking
etc. Clarence would have done better to put her in a nunnery or in a remote
property somewhere out of London."

Doug here:
Scrubbing pots and pans is fairly easy task to learn, after all.
FWIW, I tend not to believe that it was Clarence who hid her, but rather
that Anne hid herself. She'd only need to remain hidden until a messenger
got to Richard and he could escort her to sanctuary. There is the question
of why she didn't seek sanctuary on her own. Possibly that was because she
realized Clarence would search there first?
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-14 23:30:24
Karen
This is why I believe she ran, because surely Clarence would have enough brains to.put her somehere Richard would never find her.
On Jun 14, 2017 1:04 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 



Pamela wrote:
"The thing about the cookshop idea is how could a nobly born girl, recently
Princess of Wales, be expected to work in a kitchen and not be completely a
'sore thumb' person. What would she know about scrubbing, cleaning, cooking
etc. Clarence would have done better to put her in a nunnery or in a remote
property somewhere out of London."

Doug here:
Scrubbing pots and pans is fairly easy task to learn, after all.
FWIW, I tend not to believe that it was Clarence who hid her, but rather
that Anne hid herself. She'd only need to remain hidden until a messenger
got to Richard and he could escort her to sanctuary. There is the question
of why she didn't seek sanctuary on her own. Possibly that was because she
realized Clarence would search there first?
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-15 13:55:08
Hilary Jones
Your last sentence is a very good point, Marie. In fact the negotiations before Barnet must have been very interesting, given that Cecily in particular wanted her favourite nephew Warwick 'talked round' as well? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 22:41
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

Romane wrote:From all what I've read already, I'm a bit surprised at Edward's behavior. In all that affair, he did support Richard, but not as assiduously as it would have seemed fit, considering all what Richard had just been through in order to put him back on the throne, and especially his important role at Tewkesbury. Whereas Clarence was a turncoat, who had only deserted Warwick because there hadn't been anything for him at his side anymore.And yet, Edward showered Clarence with prized possession, and kept sending Richard in mission, which gave Clarence the opportunity of delaying the wedding, and even of hiding Anne.Or is it Anne who hid herself ? I find it difficult to buy the idea that Clarence forced her to live as a kitchen maid. Maybe it's because of that story that so many fictions about Anne make a pushover of her. I agree that as Paul said in another discussion, the story of the cookshop is so fantastic that it must be true, but maybe it's her who took shelter there in disguise. It's the version of the story Sharon Penman chose, and it seems more plausible. If it is what happened, it means that Clarence must have made life intolerable for her, or even threatened her. And it means also that far from being the meek creature she's often turned into, she was as courageous and strong-willed as her future husband
Marie:I actually agree that Clarence is unlikely to have hid her in a shop unless she wanted to avoid Richard - she could have escaped too easily, or got word out. I've been trying to think myself into Clarence's mind today (not a pleasant place to be), and I think maybe he was surprised Richard actually wanted to go ahead with the marriage because he seems to have handed some of his manors directly to Richard - and Richard alone in March 1472 so Richard had nothing more to gain financially from the marriage. Given George's personality, I suspect he would have been bewildered and suspected Richard of wanting even more of the lands. He very likely tried to bully Anne into refusing to go ahead with the marriage, possibly even telling her horror stories about Richard, and maybe she said okay at one point, either to shut him up or because he'd got her genuinely frightened about Richard having turned into a monster, and that was his grounds for claiming she must have been married by force. If Clarence was trying to hide Anne, he would have done better locking her up in some strong country fortress rather than letting her loose in a London cookshop. So I agree that she is more likely to have run away.George must have been double alarmed when Richard got to bring the Countess of Warwick to Middleham, and there were rumours that the King was about to restore her to her property to give it to the Gloucesters.
Incidentally, I suspect Edward had foolishly promised George the entire Warwick inheritance when he was trying to entice him back on to the Yorkist side. At that time, of course, Anne was the Lancastrian Princess of Wales.


Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-15 14:12:18
Hilary Jones
Re your penultimate paragraph Romane, Stillington was indeed Bishop (Bath & Wells) in the area of some of Clarence's lands (Farleigh Hungerford in Wilts which had been taken from the attainted Hungerfords) but I think a lot of 'scenes' with him and Clarence come from novels; it's a good tale that Stillington told Clarence about Eleanor but we don't even know if Clarence was aware of the Eleanor story, as you say. And, as we've discussed on here, it would actually be useless knowledge until Edward was dead.
However, one person who would certainly have an association with Burdet was Anne Beauchamp. The Burdets were High Sheriffs of Warks who had had associations with the Beauchamps for years. The whole issue around the death of Isabel, Ankarette Twynyho, Burdet I believe needs a lot more investigation. For a start, Clarence was a sitting duck for hate in Farleigh. He was surrounded by 'old' Lancastrian families, those attainted by Edward etc. He could have been set up. Certainly his mental deterioration after the death of Isabel was extreme - and someone who knew him could have predicted the effect this would have. I fear there may be nearly as much myth around George as around Richard; but then I'm a known 'excuser' for him. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 21:32
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

Doug wrote :Needless to say, I also don't think EW knew about Edward's marriage before Stillington made his, um, presentation to the Council. Any friction between EW/her/family/supporters and Clarence can just as easily be explained by George's thoughts, and actions, about who really should be sitting on the throne  himself. Which also leads me to believe Clarence didn't know about his brother's marriage problems  he'd have been spreading the word as fast as possible.

Romane here :
For Elizabeth, I agree that she didn't need to know about Edward's marriage to do what she did to keep the power. But if she knew, it could allow to see her in a more sympathetic light, as her actions would have been an attempt to protect her son's interests. I don't know. The points of view about her are almost as different as those about Richard.
But as for Clarence, it would explain so many things if his death was linked, one way or another, to the pre-contract ! Why did Edward, who had always forgiven him everything, suddenly decide to put him to death, apparently because of an obscure conspiracy involving a so-called astrologer, Stacey, and one Thomas Burdett, and because of Clarence's protest before the parliament on their behalf ? Was it worse than what Clarence had done before, such as siding with Edward's enemy, making him prisoner and trying to supersede him ?
I've read somewhere (Kendall of Horsepool ? ) that Burdett had links with Stillington. Clarence apparently had links with Stilligton as well. Maybe Clarence didn't know, but Edward feared that he did ? Or Clarence had some vague suspicion, talked about it like the fool he was, and Edward thought that he knew more than he did ?
That way such a fratricide could be better explained, and the fact that according some sources (Mancini I think), Richard held Elizabeth Woodville responsible for what had happened to Clarence. If she had known about the pre-contract, and feared that Clarence knew as well, she would have urged Edward to silence Clarence for good.
Who knows ?
Romane


---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Karen wrote:Did you ever wonder if Eleanor Talbot constructed a deposition of sorts about her marriage to Richard's brother and sent it to his Duchess, her first cousin? I do. I'm not convinced Richard was ignorant of the first marriage. He just may have kept his mouth shut.Remember there were only three witnesses to this quasi hand fasting that became a legal marriage. Of course he said nothing. I don't know if he expected Stllington to show up and testify. Love to.know that. Doug here:I seriously doubt Richard knew about his brother's marriage to Eleanor Talbot, if only because of what Richard did after hearing of his brother's death.Had Richard known he, and not his nephew, was the heir to throne, I can't see Richard heading south with such a small group of supporters. Even if one presumes Richard had some sort of evidence to support his claim in his possession, there's still be the matter of convincing EW and her family/supporters, which could get quite messy. Especially if, and there's no way to determine Richard thought otherwise, EW and her family/supporters didn't know about Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler.Needless to say, I also don't think EW knew about Edward's marriage before Stillington made his, um, presentation to the Council. Any friction between EW/her/family/supporters and Clarence can just as easily be explained by George's thoughts, and actions, about who really should be sitting on the throne  himself. Which also leads me to believe Clarence didn't know about his brother's marriage problems  he'd have been spreading the word as fast as possible.Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

2017-06-15 14:14:59
Hilary Jones
She was a Howard - the 'half' cousin of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2017, 21:28
Subject: Re: Richard and Anne wedding date

Carol earlier:

"The countess was both a woman and a Neville, and Richard seems to have had a soft spot for both. (See, for example, his treatment of Hastings's widow, also a Neville.)"

Carol again:

Sorry--it was Oxford's wife, not his mother, who was a Neville. Should have checked my facts before posting.

Carol


Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.