http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/ Richard III Society Forum - Discussion area for 15th 16th century history Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:33:05 GMT Annette Carson http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11168 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11168 Yes, true, the only support for the latter theory is the charge that Edward IV brought against Clarence. Annette ... From: mariewalsh2003 To: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:01:10 GMT mariewalsh2003 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11167 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11167 Ah, yes, now Lander's not denying that Warwick was using the illegitimacy claim in 1469 in order to put Clarence forward for the ththrone. His argument is that Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:50:57 GMT Annette Carson http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11166 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11166 I've found the reference now, which cannot of course be counted as evidence, but it seems indicative of what was going on: There's a reference in Calmette et Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:14:47 GMT mariewalsh2003 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11165 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11165 ... Could you possibly, Annette? I probably wouldn't have thought that much of it when I read it in your book as I have only recently read Lander's article. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:17:20 GMT Annette Carson http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11164 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11164 Marie - I believe that there was a contemporaneous report by a foreign ambassador (?French) about Clarence being adopted as heir at the readeption - I thought Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:05:48 GMT mariewalsh2003 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11163 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11163 ... Hi Pamela, The golden rule was that a woman should not lose status by marriage - she might gain it but could not lose it. Jacquetta continued to be Duchess Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:47:16 GMT Pamela Furmidge http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11162 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11162 Would the fact that Jacquetta married a "lowly" knight after her first husband's death reduce considerably her influence on world affairs?   A woman's Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:29:28 GMT fayre rose http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11161 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11161 adding to jacquetta's connections. she was the duke of bedford's widow. cecily and her husband had been part of the anglo-french court in the 1430/40's. it is Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:49:26 GMT mariewalsh2003 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11160 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11160 ... Eleanor was still well and truly alive when the Woodville marriage took place. I still stress, we don't know whether the promise was exchanged in the Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:22:40 GMT Janet Trimbath http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11159 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11159 Marie wrote: "It is a legal term for a marriage AS CITED AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE: ie it is 'pre-' NOT in the sense of being 'prelimnary' to a Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:25:53 GMT Stephen Lark http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11158 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11158 I couldn't think WHO you mean;) ... From: mariewalsh2003 To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:22 PM Subject: [Richard Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:22:24 GMT mariewalsh2003 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11157 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11157 ... Sorry, Janet. There still seem to be crossed wires on this point. "Precontract" is NOT (as most historians, not specialists in canon law, have supposed) a Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:54:12 GMT Brian http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11156 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11156 ... Quite right Janet, you have it exactly. Technically the law is still the same, certainly in the UK. If you don't consummate your marriage it can be Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:05:20 GMT Janet Trimbath http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11155 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11155 My understanding of all these previous posts is that the "consummation" of the vows is what made the pre-contract a marriage. After all, that is what E4 was Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:59:02 GMT Paul Trevor Bale http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11154 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/richardiiisocietyforum/message/11154 King Richard III is a special subject on Mastermind tonight BBC2 at 20.00 in the UK. Paul Richard liveth yet [Non-text portions of this message have been