Post by John W Kennedyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peerages_inherited_by_women
Thanks for that list. Very interesting reading
(especially on the linked websites)
The issues are (a) How would the play have
been understood by its intended audience?
(b) What did the playwright imply by giving
Olivia these attributes and mocking Malvolio
(whether or not his intentions varied from
what he expected in (a) above). . . ?
Given the 'suspension of disbelief', the pace
of the play, it should be no surprise that
Manningham thought Olivia was a rich
widow. No doubt he's quite representative
of public audiences.
Four noblewomen with inherited peerages
are listed for the 16th century. We would
hardly expect the playwright (as you see him)
or the actors in his company, let alone the
public audiences, to know much about them.
They'd know even less about those from
earlier centuries.
1513 - 1539 8th or 2nd Countess of Salisbury Margaret Pole
1526 - 1580 12 Baroness Willoughby de Eresby Catherine Willoughby (Brandon) (Bertie) Duchess of Suffolk
1540 - 1543 7th Baroness Bourchier Anne Bourchier (Parr)
1587 - 1591 16th Baroness de Ros Elizabeth (Manners) Cecil
(All taken from Wikipedia, with some editing)
1) Countess of Salisbury Margaret Pole
She was the most famous, executed in 1541 by Henry VIII for being the mother of Cardinal Pole.
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury (14 August 1473 – 27 May 1541) was the only surviving daughter of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, a brother of Kings Edward IV and Richard III (all sons of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York), by his wife Isabel Neville. Margaret was one of just two women in 16th-century England to be a peeress in her own right without a husband in the House of Lords. (ODNB; the other was Anne Boleyn, Marchioness of Pembroke. The ODNB does not qualify the assertion, but is discussing sixteenth-century usage; sources which apply modern law retroactively will consider some women peeresses in their own right when their husbands sat in Parliament with their father's style and precedence.)
2) Catherine Willoughby (Brandon) (Bertie)
Katherine is said to have been 'one of the greatest heiresses of her generation'. However her inheritance became a subject of dispute for many years, as there was doubt as to which lands had been settled on the heirs male and which on the heirs general.
She married Charles Brandon -- a great favourite of Henry VIII, who made him Duke of Suffolk.
Following Charles Brandon's death in 1545, it was rumoured that King Henry had considered marrying Katherine as his seventh wife, while he was still married to his sixth wife, Catherine Parr, who was Katherine's close friend.
The Duchess of Suffolk was appointed guardian (of Cartherin Parr's infant) after Parr's death.
"The Duchess could not support the young infant so she wrote to Sir William Cecil, asking for funds. The letter reflects her resentment towards the child. The letter was obviously taken into account for in January 1550, an act in Parliament was passed restoring Mary to what was left of her father's property."
She married her second husband, Richard Bertie (25 December 1516 – 9 April 1582), a member of her household, out of love and shared religious beliefs, but she continued to be known as the Duchess of Suffolk, and her efforts to have her husband named Lord Willoughby de Eresby were unsuccessful.
3) Baroness Bourchier Anne Bourchier (Parr)
Anne was related to three queen consorts of Henry VIII; Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Catherine Howard who all shared the same great-grandmother Elizabeth Cheney
4) Elizabeth Manners
On her father's death the Earldom of Rutland devolved upon his brother, the Barony of Ros passed to his daughter, Elizabeth.
Married a grandson of Lord Burghley (a son of Thomas) and became Elizabeth Cecil.
The first of these ladies had royal blood; the
second close relations with the monarch; the
third and fourth just high nobility. The 'de jure'
titles they inherited did not go along with
property, and most endured poverty (at least
relative to their status) at some points in their
lives. These titles are rarely inherited by
females, and are little more than decoration
Post by John W KennedyPost by Paul CrowleyOther 'exceptions' follow much the
same pattern and, in most cases,
involved royalty, essentially twisting
the rules for dynastic purposes.
No, you’re simply wrong. Inheritance law is much more complex than you
imagine,
A nightmare. 'Bleak House' multiplied
100k. It's what those with money fought
over in the courts all the time. A lot of
lawyers made a good living from all that.
Post by John W Kennedyas you can easily discover from any encyclopedia. And, in the
particular case of Olivia, we KNOW she has a dead brother, and that the
play supplies him with neither a widow nor children, which makes that
much more likely that she is his heir.
Quote an example of an EM rich, never-
married noble female inheriting proper
titles and running her own estates. The
brother would, in 99.9% of cases, be
prevented (by tradition, custom, relatives
-- or lawyers) from passing on titles and/
or property to a female. If he died
without making a will it would all go to
the nearest male relative.
Likewise for a household servant
becoming 'a count' merely by marriage.
The playwright did not put nonsense
into plays on a whim. He was clearly
saying something.