Richard Rescues Anne

When 16 year-old Richard first asked Edward permission to marry Anne Neville, Edward IV refused, saying that he’d reconsider if after a year, Richard still wanted to marry her. Once the year passed, Richard again asked Edward, who then agreed. Before Richard could act, the Lancastrians overthrew Edward and the crown returned to Henry VI. Edward and Richard went into exile in Burgundy. During this time, Warwick married off his daughter to Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou’s son, Edward. About a year and a half later, Edward retook the crown and captured Henry VI. Henry’s son and Anne’s husband had been killed on the battlefield.

Thus, in 1471, Richard, now 19, renewed his request to marry the recently widowed Anne Neville. Although Edward agreed to the marriage, George—who by then, had custody of Anne—argued against it. Edward, found in favor of Richard. George, refused to turn Anne over to Richard and hid her from them. In effect, this strife made headline news, for it is documented in the Third Continuation of the History of Croyland Abby (r3.org/bookcase/croyland/croy6.html):

...After, as already stated, the son of king Henry, to whom the lady Anne, the youngest daughter of the earl of Warwick, had been married, was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's....

Richard and Anne married * and moved to Middleham Castle where they resided until Richard was named protector and then became England’s king.

* The exact date of the marriage is in some dispute, although now it is generally thought to have occurred in April of 1472.

Myth--Henry Stafford made to marry an older woman--Katherine Woodville

I must thank Susan Higginbotham for the idea to include it as part of the myth-busting series from her Medieval Woman blog post on this topic where she points out that Katherine was about two years Henry’s junior.

My first search was for statements indicating this was a May/September match as some writers of both fiction and non-fiction have recently used to give reason for Stafford’s apparent contempt for his marriage. Interestingly, even the secondary sources I’ve investigated don’t make that claim.

Neither Kendall (1955) nor Ross (1997) claims that Katherine was twice Buckingham’s age when he was made to marry her when he was a boy.

Could it have been confused by some with the John Woodville (aged 20) match to Katherine Neville (aged 65) in 1465 (per Charles Ross in ‘Edward IV’ p 93?) Please forgive any typos I may have introduced transcribing the snippets.

“..In January 1465 the queen brought off a less suitable match -- the marriage of her younger brother, John Woodville, then aged about twenty, to the very wealthy dowager duchess of Norfolk, Katherine Nevill[e], who was then a ‘slip of a girl’ (juvencula) of at least sixty-five,...

“Aristocratic husbands were soon found for three more of the queen’s sisters. Their betrothals or marriages seem to have taken place soon after the baptism of the royal couple’s first child, Elizabeth of York, who was born on 11 February 1466. Katherine Woodville married Henry Stafford, grandson and heir of the duke of Buckingham;...”

So, even if Ross has the year wrong, he doesn’t explicitly state that Katherine was much older than Buckingham and the implication is a stretch since he mentions other matches with the Katherine Woodville/Henry Stafford match.

According to Ross, Stafford’s objection was one of wealth and inheritance in that the Woodvilles had little money and were considered upstarts.

Per the Royal Genealogy at Hull, Catherine Wydeville was born 1458, married Henry Stafford in February of 1466 and died in 1497. The same site gives Henry Stafford’s birth as September 4, 1455 and also lists five children from that marriage.

Then, the real mystery is why and how the myth that Katherine was about twelve years Buckingham’s senior has been assumed as fact by some recent writers of both fiction and non-fiction.

Interesting aside from ‘The dictionary of English history’ by Sir Sidney Low as to why Buckingham turned against Richard:

Myth: Richard and Anne were childhood sweethearts

Since, by his actions, Richard appeared to be faithful to Anne throughout his marriage (although there is some indication that he may have strayed once or twice) and he seemed to genuinely mourn his wife’s death, many Ricardians retrofitted these behaviors and flat-footedly declared that he therefore must have been in love with her since his childhood.

Regardless of Richard’s motivations to marry Anne--and surely Anne’s inheritance played some major part--his behavior is the more telling as to his feelings for his wife once they were married. For one, in order to marry Anne, Richard had to effectively accept a prenuptial that denied transfer of Anne’s inheritance to him (the amount granted as condition that Clarence drop his claim) should their marriage end in divorce. (I could only find second hand reference to this in Markham and Kendall and this from Croyland:
“...At last, their most loving brother, king Edward, agreed to act as mediator between them; and in order that the discord between princes of such high rank might not cause any hindrance to the carrying out of his royal intentions in relation to the affairs of France, the whole misunderstanding was at last set at rest, upon the following terms: the marriage of the duke of Gloucester with Anne before-named was to take place, and he was to have such and so much of the earl's lands as should be agreed upon between them through the mediation of arbitrators; while all the rest were to remain in the possession of the duke of Clarence...”


However, I found a mystery surrounding the marriage. Up until the publication of Peter Clarke’s article in 2005 on English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary, it was thought that Richard married Anne without the requisite Papal dispensation. According to this article: “...they had sought a dispensation to marry from the penitentiary in early 1472, for it was granted on 22 April that year, and they were probably married shortly afterwards.” So, by the date on the dispensation, they should have been married no earlier than the end of April of that year (allowing time for the dispensation to reach them). But according to a letter (690) written by John Paston on the 17th of February 1472, Richard and Anne had already married! This predates the dispensation. If the date on Paston’s letter is accurate, then Richard and Anne must have wedded without this document, but only with the assurance that they would get it soon.

Assuming these dates are correct and that Richard had less to gain from the marriage because the “spoils” were divided between Anne and her sister, Isabel and possibly because Richard would be left with little if they divorced, can one conclude that by the time of their marriage, Richard was following his heart?

Reference:

Clarke, Peter D. English Royal Marriages and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century. English Historical Review Vol. CXX No. 488. 2005

Croyland Chronicle Continuations, 1453-1486. Richard III Society, American Branch http://www.r3.org/bookcase/croyland/index.html

Gairdner, James. The Paston Letters 1422-1509 A.D. Volume III, Westminster. Archibald Constable and Co., Ltd. 1900. Letter 690


Kendall, Paul Murray. Richard the Third. New York. W. W. Norton & Company Inc. 1955.

Markham, Sir Clements R. Richard III: His Life & Character Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research. New York. Russell & Russell. First published 1906 (rescued 1968 by Russell & Russell).