lareinenoire | (no subject)

I really hope the Bod gets a copy of Michael Hicks' Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III because I am growing less and less inclined to purchase it, and I really need to read it.

Not that I'm looking forward to that. I had some spare time so I started flipping through it in Borders today and he succeeded in annoying me within about twenty pages by referring to Richard III as a paedophile because he married Anne Neville when she was fifteen.

If he's a paedophile, what does that make Edmund Tudor? He married Margaret Beaufort when she was twelve and she gave birth to Henry Tudor at thirteen. Not to mention the fact that Anne had already been married once before. Does that make Edward of Lancaster a paedophile too? Oy.

Seriously. This was normal. I'm not saying it was a good thing -- it probably wasn't -- but it was what people did.

I appreciate that *someone* is taking the time to write something about Anne Neville. It's about time someone did. That being said, maybe we could stop with the crazy conspiracy theories and weird statements that make no sense in context?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If one wished to be anachronistically pathological about it, wouldn't that make him an ephebophile?

Not that I advocate anachronistic pathologizing over acknowledging that people in the middle ages had different perceptions of adolescence. For crying out loud, according to canon law the age of consent was 14 for boys and 12 for girls...

Hehe, 'paedophilia' was the word he used, specifically. And he's one of the most noted historians in the field these days. This makes me sad.