Well, since you address the question to me, I feel I can't dodge it (!) but once
again I can only comment in a general sense since I don't know whether there
actually was a jointure. My feeling is that there probably wasn't, as both
Warwick and Anne were obscenely rich so she didn't really need to be provided
for in the event of his earlier death. Even if one speculates that he thought of
it as a last-minute protection for her when he rebelled around 1469-70, I doubt
even he would have foreseen that the Beauchamp/Despenser inheritance would be in
any way confiscated by the king, because that just doesn't seem to have been
usual at all. Warwick would have expected an attainder to confiscate what had
devolved to him alone (compare Clarence's attainder which left Isabel's
inheritance on the Warwick side available for her son - despite the arrangement
we discussed earlier that actually conferred it on him as his inheritance).

If a jointure was arranged providing a life interest during the wife's
widowhood, any such arrangement (as I understand it) existed only if specific
contracts were drawn up at the time of marriage or thereafter. I honestly don't
know to what extent the king could interfere with them in cases of treason, but
I guess that if he desperately wanted to confiscate whatever was contained in a
jointure, then noblesse obliged him either to permit the lady (if innocent)
enjoyment of the income during her widowhood, or to provide her with a grant of
similar value. On reflection I imagine a jointure could also be open to
challenge if some other heir held the opinion that the property held in jointure
was actually his. I'd really rather someone like Brian got his teeth into this!
Regards, Annette

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "phaecilia" <phaecilia@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello Annette,
>
> How did "jointure" affect Countess Anne's right to properties after Warwick's
death? I thought women were entitled to keep some portion of properties they
brought to their marriage after they were widowed. But I can use help
understanding this concept as it worked in individual cases.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> phaecilia
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "annettecarson@" <ajcarson@>
wrote:
> >
> > [Big Snip]
>
> > Upon marriage, everything that belonged to an heiress automatically became
the property of her husband. If it was entailed elsewhere, that only came into
play upon his/her death. So (please correct me if I'm wrong) on the death of
Warwick, Countess Anne technically owned nothing in her own right and if/when
the king seized Warwick's holdings as forfeit for treason, those holdings would
include both Warwick's Neville/Montagu inheritances and Anne's
Beauchamp/Despenser inheritances. However, the convention was that an innocent
wife could be left to enjoy those holdings which she had brought to the marriage
and that on her death they could be inherited by the next eligible member of her
family. Whether the widow of a traitor could pass them on to a new husband on
remarrying was, I think, likely to be subject to the king's licence.
>