John Neville, 1st Marquis of Montagu, fights for King Edward IV

[isabella]

Middleham was part of the estate of the Earl's of Westmorland - it was the part transferred to Joan Beaufort by her husband and therefore passed to the younger line of the Neville family - Warwick inherited from his father - on his death it would legally pass to the next male heir John Neville.
The only way John does not get the Neville lands in the north (almost all of the estates were in north Yorkshire and County Durham) is if his brother was attainted and the King chose not to grant the lands to John.
The Salisbury lands were largely in Hampshire and Wiltshire I believe.

Then John Neville will have Middleham without doubt as any other option (aka the Kingmaker’s sons-in-law Clarence or Percy) will be too dangerous for Edward.
Thomas Grey will stay married to a surviving Anne Holland and will be happy with her lands and royal blood (as she is first cousin of his half-sibling)
Anne Beauchamp will be likely persuaded who remarrying to some relative of Queen Elizabeth Woodwille is the best way for staying safe from her son-in-law Clarence’s avidity so her lands will be kept for at least some time away from Clarence and Percy’s hands

 

[lolotte34]

It is relatively odd that the Woodville male's were pretty unconcerned about the long term survival of their family - Anthony was childless by both his wives (and his first might have been a bit older than him), John married the elder Dowager of Norfolk (which might have been to mutual advantage wealthy widows often had trouble holding their hands from children and grandchildren desperate for their inheritance - Dorset's son was for example livid his wealthy mother remarried after his father's death), Edward and Richard probably suffered the effects of Richard's usurpation preventing advantageous matches - though again Richard made no great efforts to marry before his death as the last male member of the family quite happy to leave his estates to his nephew Dorset (who should really have only been a co-heir).

I fully agree with you. Apparently their reputation for greed in Richard III's biography by Paul Murray Kendal was beautiful and well founded. Woodville males were more interested in fulfilling their immediate needs to control a large fortune than in the long-term future of their families.

Otherwise, concerning our Anne Beauchamp, she will marry Anthony Woodville in an effort to escape the hands of George of Clarence. Unfortunately for Anthony Woodville, this marriage will still be infertile. Anne Beauchamp will already be menopausal.

 

[lolotte34]

Exactly. The 1465 wedding between the 19 years old John Woodwille and the 65 years old Catherine Neville, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk was quite a scandal but I can not see why a wedding in 1472 between the 22 years old Richard Woodwille and the 46 Anne Beauchamp is unlikely to happen if the King think he can trust Richard with Anne’s lands? Or a wedding in 1473 between the 47 Anne and the 33 Antony? OTL he needed to divide the lands between his brothers, here Richard is married elsewhere, George betrayed him more than once and can not be trusted so Anne’s land have zero reason for being included in the division of the Kingmaker’s inheritance and the King will need to give Middleham to Anne Neville’s new husband (is Percy, right?) because Clarence can not be trusted with that castle... Marrying off Anne Beauchamp and her lands will only help Edward with the division of the rest...

I fear who Jaquetta and her second husband had very little chance to do anything with her dower lands..

Greed is a deadly sin... any crime does not go unpunished lol it's a pity I have a lot of affection for Anthony Woodville, especially for his taste for culture! he would have merited a boy !

 

[mcdnab]

Yup the best solution for the King - however there is a risk - John Neville (pio

I fully agree with you. Apparently their reputation for greed in Richard III's biography by Paul Murray Kendal was beautiful and well founded. Woodville males were more interested in fulfilling their immediate needs to control a large fortune than in the long-term future of their families.

Otherwise, concerning our Anne Beauchamp, she will marry Anthony Woodville in an effort to escape the hands of George of Clarence. Unfortunately for Anthony Woodville, this marriage will still be infertile. Anne Beauchamp will already be menopausal.

Actually it is simply not true to say their greed was well founded - they were no worse (and quite a bit better) than many other's at Edward's court.
The criticism is part of Warwick's propaganda campaign and later that of Richard III - in fact the greatest recipients of Royal patronage between 1461 and 1470 were The Earl of Warwick and his brother John Neville.

Tradition dictated that when rebelling against the King rather than attacking him you attacked his "evil advisers" etc - hence the attack on Rivers during Warwick's rebellion.

Edward's generosity to the Queen's family was actually quite limited - her father was militarily respected although his background wasn't that aristocratic - he was on the council before Elizabeth's marriage and his appointments afterwards while impressive were nothing compared to what had been poured into Warwick's coffers.

All aristocrats in the period lived by their ambition for power, influence and the land that provided that power. If one member of the family married well and gained patronage they would be expected to do all they could to advance the rest of their family - it would have been remarkable for them not too do so.

Most of the Wydeville family marriages in the late 60s were to families they were already tied too or to key members of Edward's court - in other words those marrying the Queen's sister's had as much to gain from the connection as the Wydeville family.

Financially the family were pretty much a failure - even in his lifetime the 1st Earl was not a wealthy man (his wife's dower would have been worth a fortune however loss of French lands, the parlous state of royal finances in England in the 50s and the fine's they had to pay for their marriage reduced it considerably) - they were comfortably off rather than rich by the standards of the time.
Anthony was better off due to his own first marriage and royal patronage but again not terribly wealthy.

Edward did very little for the rest of the family (such as Lionel, Edward, or Richard the future 3rd and final Earl Rivers)

In terms of the Queen's son - he got an heiress and a title - pretty much what Henry VI did for his half brother - and to Edward's mind the boy would one day be the half brother of the King.

 

[calvin1417]

Anne Beauchamp will be likely persuaded who remarrying to some relative of Queen Elizabeth Woodwille is the best way for staying safe from her son-in-law Clarence’s avidity so her lands will be kept for at least some time away from Clarence and Percy’s hands

Would she really go for a marriage to a Woodville though? Wouldn’t she blame them too much for her husbands fall to even consider this option?

 

[isabella]

Would she really go for a marriage to a Woodville though? Wouldn’t she blame them too much for her husbands fall to even consider this option?

Yes, as that would be her best chance to escape with her lands from Clarence and his greed...
Warwick ruined himself with his own hands (between supporting his son-in-law against his elder brother, the alliance with Marguerite of Anjou and most important accusing Jacquetta of witchcraft and killing her husband and second son) and Anne has only to lose in being “faithful to the memory” of Warwick as she would not have enough protection against Clarence or the King’s support without it..

 

[calvin1417]

Yes, as that would be her best chance to escape with her lands from Clarence and his greed...
Warwick ruined himself with his own hands (between supporting his son-in-law against his elder brother, the alliance with Marguerite of Anjou and most important accusing Jacquetta of witchcraft and killing her husband and second son) and Anne has only to lose in being “faithful to the memory” of Warwick as she would not have enough protection against Clarence or the King’s support without it..

Wait what does the accusation against Jacquetta Woodville and the murder of her husband and son have to do with causing Warwicks fall? Edward seemed pretty quick to brush all that under the rug. And for that matter how can the countess be assured that she’s going be well treated by Anthony when she is the widow of the man who murdered his father and brother?

Also didn’t Edward try to limit the rewards given to Woodvilles in his second reign? Given that a lot of the criticism from the first reign was that he was way too generous to his in laws i think Edward would avoid giving Anthony so great a reward as the beachump/Despenser inheritance.

 

[isabella]

Wait what does the accusation against Jacquetta Woodville and the murder of her husband and son have to do with causing Warwicks fall? Edward seemed pretty quick to brush all that under the rug. And for that matter how can the countess be assured that she’s going be well treated by Anthony when she is the widow of the man who murdered his father and brother?

Also didn’t Edward try to limit the rewards given to Woodvilles in his second reign? Given that a lot of the criticism from the first reign was that he was way too generous to his in laws i think Edward would avoid giving Anthony so great a reward as the beachump/Despenser inheritance.

Well, is not like Woodwilles had really so much by Edward (as they had much less than George or Richard and almost everything came to them simply being the relatives of the Queen and not because Edward favored them so much). Well Warwick was dead after the war and the countess at the worst would be a spoil of war and surely Anthony will not blame her for her late husband’s actions but will enjoy her inheritance, who after her death will likely go to her daughters so is unlikely her new husband will treat her badly

 

[calvin1417]

Well, is not like Woodwilles had really so much by Edward (as they had much less than George or Richard and almost everything came to them simply being the relatives of the Queen and not because Edward favored them so much). Well Warwick was dead after the war and the countess at the worst would be a spoil of war and surely Anthony will not blame her for her late husband’s actions but will enjoy her inheritance, who after her death will likely go to her daughters so is unlikely her new husband will treat her badly

It doesn’t matter how much the Woodvilles actually got, what matters is how much the Woodvilles are perceived to be getting by the nobility. The nobility is not going to stand for the Woodvilles being given that big of a prize when they already hated what little the king already gave them.

 

[lolotte34]

During the Battle of Barnet, Edward IV did not want Warwick dead and he wanted to capture him alive. John Neville died trying to rescue his brother.
In my TL, Warwick is captured alive and sent to the Tower. Parliament passed a law to declare him legally dead. Edward disposes of the Neville heritage as he pleases. He divides the inheritance in such a way as to reduce the influence of the Nevilles. Warwick remained imprisoned at the Tower for the rest of his life.

 

[lolotte34]

Also I read that Warwick's animosity began when Edward married Elisabeth Woodville without the consent of Parliament. But another darker reason would have pushed Warwick back into rebellion.
Holinshed mentions the deflowering of a Warwick girl or niece. The date of the attack is uncertain but Holinshed places the facts in 1465. Warwick would not have said anything to hide his shame and that of his relative. In "Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays" (Mark Bradbeer, John Casson. McFarland, 2015), on page 100, the rape victim would be Anne. Anne was nine years old in 1465. It is more likely that if the rape had taken place, the attack would have occurred in 1467 during the Smithfield games... although Anne is only 11 years old. The detention of Edward IV in Middleham in 1469 is the most appropriate moment, Anne is on the spot and she is 13 years old.

 

[vandevere]

Also I read that Warwick's animosity began when Edward married Elisabeth Woodville without the consent of Parliament. But another darker reason would have pushed Warwick back into rebellion.
Holinshed mentions the deflowering of a Warwick girl or niece. The date of the attack is uncertain but Holinshed places the facts in 1465. Warwick would not have said anything to hide his shame and that of his relative. In "Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays" (Mark Bradbeer, John Casson. McFarland, 2015), on page 100, the rape victim would be Anne. Anne was nine years old in 1465. It is more likely that if the rape had taken place, the attack would have occurred in 1467 during the Smithfield games... although Anne is only 11 years old. The detention of Edward IV in Middleham in 1469 is the most appropriate moment, Anne is on the spot and she is 13 years old.

Edward IV raped Anne? Is this the Anne who later married Richard III?

 

[lolotte34]

Edward IV raped Anne? Is this the Anne who later married Richard III?

Effectivel, she is that Anne Neville! According to the authors, Edward deflowered Anne Neville. Raped? Seduced? All hypotheses are allowed.

 

[mcdnab]

Well I'd take that with a pinch of salt - Hollinshed was copying Hall (almost verbatim) they were looking for a range of reasons for Warwick's actions - suffice it to be said Warwick had about twenty nieces.
Deflowered would technically mean taking her virginity rather than rape in the context of the time they were writing

 

[calvin1417]

Also I read that Warwick's animosity began when Edward married Elisabeth Woodville without the consent of Parliament. But another darker reason would have pushed Warwick back into rebellion.
Holinshed mentions the deflowering of a Warwick girl or niece. The date of the attack is uncertain but Holinshed places the facts in 1465. Warwick would not have said anything to hide his shame and that of his relative. In "Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare: Authorship Evidence in the History Plays" (Mark Bradbeer, John Casson. McFarland, 2015), on page 100, the rape victim would be Anne. Anne was nine years old in 1465. It is more likely that if the rape had taken place, the attack would have occurred in 1467 during the Smithfield games... although Anne is only 11 years old. The detention of Edward IV in Middleham in 1469 is the most appropriate moment, Anne is on the spot and she is 13 years old.

This seems like one of those slanderous rumors that gets passed off as history by people who didn’t like the yorkist at the time then anything likely to have happened. I’d say you can almost safely dismiss it

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Besides, if Edward IV had appropriated Anne's virginity, Marguerite d'Anjou would've made much of that fact. The fact that no record survives of it in Marguerite's (or Richard of Gloucester or the duchess of Suffolk who served as Marguerite's gaoler IIRC) own correspondance doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, but she would most likely have either known or had an inspection performed. Hell, if Queen Elizabeth had to have an exam before the French sent Alençon her way (I think it was to prove she was still fertile rather than she was a virgin but you get my point), I would class Anne's "rape" or "deflowering" in the same light as Dr. Gregory's Richard III-Elizabeth of York were lovers and Henry VII-raped-Elizabeth before they were wed - makes for good story-telling, not so big on the historical detail.

Also, if Edward had seduced/raped Anne, don't you think Richard III would've made just a bit of a mention of it - as proof of what a lecherous ass his late brother was? - when seizing the throne?

 

[mcdnab]

Yes it is pretty unlikely - but as i said Warwick had numerous nieces who might have been at court at the period in question and might have caught the King's eye.
Alice Neville's eldest would be in her late teens (she was married in 66) - Warwick's younger sisters the Countesses of Derby and Oxford were also the right age as far as that goes.

 

[lolotte34]

Besides, if Edward IV had appropriated Anne's virginity, Marguerite d'Anjou would've made much of that fact. The fact that no record survives of it in Marguerite's (or Richard of Gloucester or the duchess of Suffolk who served as Marguerite's gaoler IIRC) own correspondance doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, but she would most likely have either known or had an inspection performed. Hell, if Queen Elizabeth had to have an exam before the French sent Alençon her way (I think it was to prove she was still fertile rather than she was a virgin but you get my point), I would class Anne's "rape" or "deflowering" in the same light as Dr. Gregory's Richard III-Elizabeth of York were lovers and Henry VII-raped-Elizabeth before they were wed - makes for good story-telling, not so big on the historical detail.

Also, if Edward had seduced/raped Anne, don't you think Richard III would've made just a bit of a mention of it - as proof of what a lecherous ass his late brother was? - when seizing the throne?

Suppose that Holinshed is right and the Anne's deflowering has taken place. According to several authors, Margaret of Anjou refused the marriage's consummation, because she had intention of cancelling it at a later date. Anne could have been satisfied and could have hidden her shame. When the York regained the crown, she could have claimed to have consummated her marriage with Edward without having to answer some compromising questions. She was thus able to marry Richard of Gloucester in total safety.

 

[lolotte34]

Yes it is pretty unlikely - but as i said Warwick had numerous nieces who might have been at court at the period in question and might have caught the King's eye.
Alice Neville's eldest would be in her late teens (she was married in 66) - Warwick's younger sisters the Countesses of Derby and Oxford were also the right age as far as that goes.

it's quite possible. Thank for your comments.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Suppose that Holinshed is right and the Anne's deflowering has taken place. According to several authors, Margaret of Anjou refused the marriage's consummation, because she had intention of cancelling it at a later date. Anne could have been satisfied and could have hidden her shame. When the York regained the crown, she could have claimed to have consummated her marriage with Edward without having to answer some compromising questions. She was thus able to marry Richard of Gloucester in total safety.

I think we need to look at Marguerite's actions through the lens of her and Warwick's relationship. Until Warwick's appointment at Angers (where Marguerite kept him kneeling for three hours, and which only happened thanks to Louis XI's facilitation), Marguerite wouldn't give him the time of day. She would've been very much aware of Warwick's trimming, first siding against Henry (with Edward), then against Edward (with George) and then against Edward (with Lancaster) and probably didn't like it very much. However, Warwick was one of the most powerful men in England, and if she could get him on her side, then so much the better. Warwick wouldn't agree to it without a marriage of his daughter - although the French king had been sending feelers (on Marguerite's behalf) to London about a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Edward of Westminster - and there were several other clauses in the agreement that Marguerite would never have agreed to (like the fact that should Henry die before Edward turned 18yo, Warwick would be Lord Protector) if she could've helped it. Louis XI had promised Warwick the audience, Marguerite was very much against it. She even told Warwick that she had been offered the princess (of Scots) for her son, so why should she take Anne? Probably, Marge was bluffing, but she needed Warwick as much as Warwick needed her.

Why did she attempt to prevent consummation? Not because she was in any way trying to cover for Anne, but to make it easier to get rid of Annie once the throne of England was back where it belonged - in Lancastrian hands. A marriage that wasn't consummated is easier to annul than one that isn't. Not to mention, there's no actual proof (IIRC) that the marriage wasn't consummated. In doing research for my TL I found that the question was answered by "maybes" and "probablys". There is a theory though, that the story of non-consummation might be Yorkist propaganda (much like Edward's own apparently psychopathic personality), to show the "impotence" of the Lancastrian line. Marguerite would've been well aware that her son was the sole Lancastrian heir, and after him, the succession became rather murky, so, as much as I find it plausible that she would've forbidden the consummation (think Henry VIII with Henry Fitzroy-Mary Howard), Marge was astute enough a politician to know that if the Lancastrian line was/appeared secure (i.e. a pregnant Anne or a son for Edward), it could be a massive upswing in Lancastrian support (particularly if Edward IV still had nothing but girls).