The New Murrey and Blue blog

In the teeth of the evidence, some authors maintain that Richard Duke of Gloucester and Anne Neville required a third dispensation because his brother had already wed her sister, an argument that Barnfield has conclusively fisked.

We don’t have to go very far to find a similar case of sibling marriages – the Neville sisters’ own parents (Lord Richard Neville and Lady Anne Beauchamp) and Lady Cecily Neville to Lord Henry Beauchamp in Leicester during 1434.. In fact, this was a “simultaneous” ceremony, which Hicks claims trumps his “affinity begets affinity” argument.

There is surely no such thing as a simultaneous wedding ceremony. For a single couple, one partner makes their vows before the other does and at a double marriage, one pair would speak before the others – making the second couple related to each other instantaneously if there were ever any validity to such a doctrine. It would also apply to John of Gaunt and Edmund of Langley with Constanza and Isabel of Castile, or Henry III and Richard Earl of Cornwall with  Eleanor and Sanchia of Provence. There is no suggestion of affinity requiring a further dispensation in these cases, or the second family being illegitimate.

So either, if there were anything in Hicks’ argument:
1) Lord Richard and Lady Anne went first, requiring the future Duke and Duchess of Warwick to obtain a further dispensation, or
2) Lord Henry and Lady Cecily married first, causing the future Earl and Countess of Warwick to be invalidly married, such that Isobel and Anne would be illegitimate. Would Henry VI‘s son or Edward IV‘s brothers seriously consider marrying a bastard or two?

Part of the problem is that such “traditionalist” authors have made statements just to attract attention, such as denying the identity of Richard III’s remains. However, there are real experts on canon law and one will pronounce on this subject soon!