Richard III (Possibly) an Earlier Henry VIII?

At his Christmas court of 1484-1485, Richard III made the announcement that he was no longer having conjugal relations with his queen, Anne Neville. Due to the fact that their only son was already dead, this would be tantamount to publicly both discarding his wife and humiliating her (ring any Tudor bells?).
As the Kingmaker’s daughter – and I believe, unfairly portrayed in history as a perpetual victim – I could see Anne putting up as much of a fight as Catherine of Aragon, if only on a national rather than an international level. With a surviving Anne (who conveniently died, and the blackening of Richard’s reputation said he had poisoned her), would Richard be able to get a dissolution of his marriage as easily as might be hoped? And what would this mean of heirs born of a second marriage with his first wife still living?
Would he be forced to take a domestic-born wife (I have my doubts that he was truly considering his niece, although she would solve a lot of his problems), or would a foreign court (like Portugal, perhaps) be willing to trade off a spinster princess for him?

Bumping back to front page

Bump again...

I'll bite.

It's very difficult to say, but I don't think the Papacy would be as reluctant to grant Richard a divorce as they were Henry fifty years later. Anne's father may have been powerful, but he's long dead now. Moreover, the Pope isn't a hostage in his own city to the nephew of the queen the English king wants to discard. I've seen a few things about a potential Portuguese match, so that's not totally out of left field.

Incidentally, there is a decent argument to be made that Richard's marriage was not legitimate anyway. While he did get permission to marry his cousin (in the second degree, was it?), he didn't get the nod to marry the sister of his brother's wife. I've heard tell that, at the time, the church would have considered both Neville girls Richard's sister once George married Isabel. The Papal exemption never mentioned this line of relation, so there's a bit of an issue there. Richard may well use this line of argument to get an annulment.

Geordie said:

I'll bite.

It's very difficult to say, but I don't think the Papacy would be as reluctant to grant Richard a divorce as they were Henry fifty years later. Anne's father may have been powerful, but he's long dead now. Moreover, the Pope isn't a hostage in his own city to the nephew of the queen the English king wants to discard. I've seen a few things about a potential Portuguese match, so that's not totally out of left field.

Incidentally, there is a decent argument to be made that Richard's marriage was not legitimate anyway. While he did get permission to marry his cousin (in the second degree, was it?), he didn't get the nod to marry the sister of his brother's wife. I've heard tell that, at the time, the church would have considered both Neville girls Richard's sister once George married Isabel. The Papal exemption never mentioned this line of relation, so there's a bit of an issue there. Richard may well use this line of argument to get an annulment.

Click to expand...

Ferdinand and Isabella at some point made the offer of their eldest daughter, Isabel, for Edward of Middleham, but the boy died soon after the offer was extended. With Anne being discarded might the Catholic monarchs offer Isabel? And would she be considered a better option than Joana of Portugal?

So, all in all, Richard's argument that EIV's kids were illegitimate (due to a precontract to a woman who was dead before any of the sons were born, which would've meant that the marriage of their parents was valid) could be applied to his own son (illegitimate because of being born of an incestuous union/in contravention of canon law), leaving Clarence's kids as the only truly LEGITIMATE heirs in the male line of their generation (and weren't they excluded due to their father's attainder, too?).

Could Richard (if EoM still dies) hold the belief that his marriage is cursed (a la Henry) due to the dispensation not dotting all the i's and crossing the t's?

Also, what might Anne (that shadowy figure) make of all this? Granted, she's not Catherine of Aragon, but in a way she's still a bit of a Sancia Starke figure to the north of England? Willingly step aside? Or put up a fight?

Few thoughts

By Christmas 1485 an annulment would be very unlikely - Anne was clearly seriously ill by then (the likeliest cause of her death in March was TB - and she fell ill after Edward of Middleham's death in 1484) - even if Richard was willing to damage his already poor reputation further the chances are Anne would be dead before the case was heard.

If Anne lives then:

Their marriage was dispensed but I don't think there would be any great papal objection to dissolving the match as faced Henry VIII.

As to Anne's attitude much depends on what she was offered (she has nothing in her own name despite her and her sisters vast inheritance - her father's lands being granted to his son in laws by Parliamentary Act not by virtue of the marriages - and despite the strong objection of their mother who is still living in 1485).

I don't necessarily think a dispensed marriage would affect any future offspring given unlike in Henry VIII's case there are no surviving children from Richard and Anne's marriage. (it didn't for example in the case of Louis XII's annulment and his wife strongly objected)

It might weaken Richard's grip on the north but not by much - he has had two decades running the area and the power lies with him not his cast aside wife with no great political power base and no strong family support left.

Richard's biggest problem (whether Anne is around or not) is that his actions post 1483 seriously weakened the Plantagenet's dynastically.

1483 succession male line descendants of Richard Duke of York:

Edward V
Richard of York
Elizabeth
Cecily
Anne
Catherine
Bridget
Edward (son of Clarence)
Margaret (dau of Clarence)
Richard of Gloucester
Edward of Middleham

By 1485
It was Richard III and then no-one left in the male line (even though his barring of Clarence's children was not legally valid) -

His future second wife is going to need to produce an heir preferably male speedily because otherwise I can see strong support for Clarence's son succeeding and his potential for rebellion as he ages is going to be very strong.

If it creates any more turmoil, that's going to likely generate a few more defectors for Henry VII, who will have to be dealt with at some point.

On the other hand, if Henry dies then you go back to the issue of the Lancastrians essentially having run out of male heirs as well.

But I agree that the Pope seems unlikely to cause trouble (unless he wants to needlessly antagonize Richard), especially since Richard has a decent legal argument that can be used as justification. Anne really doesn't have enough domestic or international support to call on, and will probably have to be content with being pensioned off somewhere. I suppose she could flee to the Tudors and offer all sorts of testimony (real or fake doesn't matter) about the evils of Richard, but that's about it, and would be difficult to pull off.

On The Precontract of Ed.IV

Does anyone know why Stillington (the bishop who supposedly told Richard III about his brother's precontract) acted as he did? He was twice EIV's chancellor, his Lord Privy Seal, was on the council for EV PLUS he owed his position to Edward, having been dismissed from his bishopric by Henry VI during his restoration, and reinstated following Edward's.

Also, in my TL with Richard's stepdaughter slated to be the next queen, would he pay any attention to "an evil bishop" (as Commines calls him), I mean, it's not like he can marry his stepdaughter to her uterine half-brother.

No takers??

Well, Stillington had had some falling out with Edward IV later in his reign.

And of course, if Richard wanted to become king (which it seems he did, at least OTL), it's not hard to see why a reasonably ambitious man (and you don't get to be a bishop and Lord Chancellor without some ambition) might decide to give him that opportunity.

Just a Rube said:

Well, Stillington had had some falling out with Edward IV later in his reign.

And of course, if Richard wanted to become king (which it seems he did, at least OTL), it's not hard to see why a reasonably ambitious man (and you don't get to be a bishop and Lord Chancellor without some ambition) might decide to give him that opportunity.

Click to expand...

Does anyone actually specify WHY EIV fell out with Stillington in the first place? He supposedly wen to Clarence with this info quite some time (over a decade) after EIV married Elizabeth Grey, which to me seems to indicate he had a reason for sitting on the info until he didn't. And if the precontract had been an issue when the marriage had taken place, why didn't the lady herself or her family ever sign onto that idea?

There is only one source (de commines) who names Stillington as the Bishop who was Richard's source for the pre-contract nonsense. I suspect it might be that he was possibly the only name de commines had.

Stillington was briefly imprisoned by the King in 1478 around the time of Clarence's fall but had been restored to favour and was on the council of Edward V at Edward IV's death.
If he was that dangerous or had that kind of knowledge I suspect he would have been still in prison if not dead rather than sitting on the Council - under Henry VII he was restored again to his church positions (which is unusual if he had that kind of knowledge about Henry's Queen's legitimacy) - he fell again for involving himself in the Simnel plot.

Which then brings us back to how/from whom Clarence heard about the marriage being invalid in the first place? Why would he even need to further discredit his brother (the rumors of EIV's dubious paternity, Jacquetta of Luxemburg's witchcraft etc) were all still swirling ever since the Yorks had first taken the throne and the marriage. Why not dust the witchcraft one off, Jacquetta's dead so it's not like she can fight back (the queen might, but she can only do so through EIV)? Why go scrounge up a whole new rumor?

It is unlikely Clarence made any allegations relating to the royal marriage at his fall though - his fall began when he perverted royal justice to have his wife,s lady in waiting tried and executed for killing the duchess with little evidence other of his retainers where later arrested and condemned for imagining the kings death etc ..Clarence defended them and Edwards patience finally ran out

Edwards marriage was so shocking at the time that allegations about it being in secret, the result of witchcraft were used in Lancastrian propaganda and were common Richard was merely building on the rumour using what was pretty common knowledge of his brothers healthy appetite for attractive women. He was in effect making a series of charges about the marriage to give a strong case against his brothers widow and her children.
Titulus Regius is very clear - Edwards reign was corrupt, licentious and a disaster, the pretended marriage was made without the consent of the lords, secretly and in a profane place and then the pre contract was added in and for good measure alongside hints at Edward and George being illegitimate that Richard is English born and the true son of the duke of york.

Bumping this thread to ask another question concerning Gloucester:
In my TL Anne Neville has a surviving daughter by her Lancastrian husband. If something untoward were to happen to her soon after EIV dies, if said daughter were not yet married to EV, could Richard make a grab for the throne and marry his stepdaughter instead of his niece?

Kellan Sullivan said:

Bumping this thread to ask another question concerning Gloucester:
In my TL Anne Neville has a surviving daughter by her Lancastrian husband. If something untoward were to happen to her soon after EIV dies, if said daughter were not yet married to EV, could Richard make a grab for the throne and marry his stepdaughter instead of his niece?

Click to expand...

Really unlikely. He married her mother and had a child (or more) by her. Church and popular opinion will consider this much worse than trying to marrying his niece. But as stephfather of the Lancastrian heiress and Queen and uncle to the young King, Duke Richard will be in a much stronger position and will likely stay as advisor of the King and Lord of the North and likely will be named Regent of England... He will not have any reason for destroying the union of the two rival claims and bring back anarchy in England. Afterall he can not marry his son to the boy half-sister and can not neutralize the Lancastrians in any other way...

Just finished. It would be interesting to see what Richard might do as time goes by.

isabella said:

Really unlikely. He married her mother and had a child (or more) by her. Church and popular opinion will consider this much worse than trying to marrying his niece. But as stephfather of the Lancastrian heiress and Queen and uncle to the young King, Duke Richard will be in a much stronger position and will likely stay as advisor of the King and Lord of the North and likely will be named Regent of England... He will not have any reason for destroying the union of the two rival claims and bring back anarchy in England. Afterall he can not marry his son to the boy half-sister and can not neutralize the Lancastrians in any other way...

Click to expand...

Might in a scenario like OTL EIV's death, Gloucester be more willing to allow for a temporary sidelining by the Wydevilles knowing that he has a means - through his stepdaughter - of influencing the new king? And how long before the new king starts treating Gloucester the same way his dad treated Warwick?