GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-02 > 1012871214


From: Roz Griston <>
Subject: RE: Annulment and Divorce
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:06:54 -0800


hi tim and others
heres an online copy of Summa Theologica.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0023.htm

i have an interest in this topic as henry de grey m. iseulde
bardolph/f.
henry is listed as dying at the earliest 1219 and sometimes aft. 1224.
however, iseulde remarries a fellow surnamed meudre (going from memory
here). in 1215/1216 from gooderstone, norfolk.

i'd be interested to know how and why isuelde was able to remarry when
henry was still living..and if i recall he was held hostage in hungary
or austria on his way to or home from a crusade.

also, it is also stated on some gedcoms that henry remarried, possibly
his aunt Hawise, sister of john de grey, aka king john's evil advisor.

henry's uncle was possibly john de grey archbishop of norwich, king
john's nominee to archbishop of canterbury.

perhaps there was a little ecclastical string pulling among the higher
ups. the greys certainly seem to have a few of their number in
positions of authority in the church.

what sections of Summa Theologica, should be researched for the answer
to this and other marriage related questions.

henry gets the lands of condor via iseulde's inheritance from her uncle
robert, how was he able to hold on to them? or were they just simply
passed on to the male issue of her body..legitimate or otherwise?

henry and iseulde are a very interesting couple to research..:-))

roz

-----Original Message-----
From:Tim Powys-Lybbe [SMTP:]
Sent:Monday, February 04, 2002 3:10 PM
To:
Subject:Re: Annulment and Divorce

In message <>
"Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote:

> Robert S Baxter wrote:
>
> > Annulment,according to Roman church law, does not bastardize.
> > It says there was never a marriage but since marriage was
> > presumed when children were born, the children are legitimate
> > in the eyes of the Church.
>
> Modern church law, or medieval? When the marriage of Alfonso IX
> and Beerenguela was annulled, it took a papal dispensation (or
> whatever) so as not to make their son Fernando illegitimate.
> Likewise I can think of several cases where annulment induced
> illegitimacy has been proposed to explain the non-succession of a
> seemingly eldest child (for example, this has been proposed for
> Geoffrey de Boulogne, son of Eustace II).

Two things here: legitimacy is needed for succession which is a civil
matter. I know the church got involved in such cases but it was also
handled by passing laws.

Secondly I cannot see how a church can have a view on illegitimacy.
Theologically, all people are equal. All can go to heaven or hell; the
prelude to their birth is nothing to do with the culpability of the
infant that is born. Theologically people are either alive or dead,
good or evil, but not legitimate or illegitimate.

Pity I no longer have access to Summa Theologica!

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org




This thread: