Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
2:50 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga said
As it was he had to send her from court and make a public denial. His own advisers took him to task, do you really think that Richard never considered marrying her.
Obviously he said something to start the speculation and the Christmas display is what started all of the rumours in earnest. Elizabeth would have strengthened Richard’s position with those loyal to her father. There were plenty of people who thought Richard had murdered his nephews, the rumours had already started in 1483. Had he married her he might have stopped all the speculation about their fate and won people’s loyalty easier. He had publicly complained about Anne’s infertility after their son Edward died. Croyland mentioned people thought he had grounds for divorce. Again, no wonder people were gossiping.
In answer to your first point – no I do not think he considered marrying her.
Richard’s wife was ill and like to die. Her doctors had forbidden him her bed =- now that is very interesting because it suggests they had an intimate relationship right up until the end of her life because a king sleeping with his wife as a matter of course was most unusual and implies a loving relationship. His son was dead. He needed an heir and he needed a foreign alliance. Marriage to his brother’s bastard would not have strengthened his position at all – in fact it would have done the opposite because there was no tradition in England of uncle-niece marriages and it would have alienated more people than it pleased.
The rumours about the princes were not widespread and can be traced to the French and Breton connections of HT.
Marriage to EoY, you say, would have stopped speculation about their fate. How?
Which part of Croyland are you quoting? You know that most of the part about Richard’s reign was written post-Bosworth – in 1486 to be precise and thus has the benefit of hindsight.
3:45 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Yes it was written in Henry Tudor’s reign, and it also included a copy of Titulus Regius which Henry had ordered destroyed. Just because it was written after his death it doesn’t mean it is a dubious source of information. The Christmas festival note is quoted in about a dozen of my history books and is on page 175 according to Arlene Okerlund.
There were plenty of rumours in London. Henry VII only called Richard a tyrant and homicide in the letters from France, he never actually publicly accused him of murdering the Princes, neither did Margaret Beaufort or Elizabeth Woodville for that matter.
You think people would have thought Elizabeth would marry the man who murdered her brothers? Some would I suppose, it might convince others he was innocent. As for the rubbish that she was illegitimate, had it been tried in an ecclesiastical court none of the children would have been declared illegitimate. And really it is not that interesting that Richard was still sleeping with his wife, plenty of men liked their wives and had sex with them. I don’t know why people feel the need to always emphasise that. It was perfectly normal to still be sleeping together, they were hardly middle-aged and they still had a duty to try and conceive. Their reaction after Edward’s death is more indicative of their relationship. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t considering looking for another wife before her death, affection has nothing to do with getting heirs.
Then again we don’t know which party was infertile, it could have easily been Richard. He had no other children after Edward.
3:49 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga said
As for the rubbish that she was illegitimate, had it been tried in an ecclesiastical court none of the children would have been declared illegitimate.
Please give me your source for that information. It is an important point and I would like to know upon which evidence you base it.
3:52 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga said
Yes it was written in Henry Tudor’s reign, and it also included a copy of Titulus Regius which Henry had ordered destroyed. Just because it was written after his death it doesn’t mean it is a dubious source of information.
No it doesn’t, however, one would need to take into account that it was written after Richard had been killed, and under the reign of the new king, Henry VII. Therefore with the best will in the world, the Continuer would have known he was writing about events in the reign of a defeated king and that must have coloured what he wrote.
So, in our evaluation of sources and their reliability, we must take into account when the piece was written.
3:58 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
You want a source for canon law? I’ve discussed it with various people recently and it is discussed in various books I have read. I don’t have an actual manual on canon law though, sorry 
If a marriage is made in “good faith”, as the marriage would have been made on Elizabeth Woodville’s part, then the children are not considered illegitimate in the eyes of the church. There is also the fact that Eleanor died before Edward’s son was born so Edward was technically a widower, if he had been pre-contracted, which I am sure he wasn’t. If Elizabeth thought her children were born in wedlock then they could have had their marriage formalised and been done with it. As for a “clandestine” marriage being illegal, which Richard accused them of having, it is not. It is a sin, but it does not make the marriage invalid.
The same goes for Mary Tudor as a matter of fact, I have read more on the topic in books on Henry VIII. As Henry and Katherine made their marriage in good faith then Mary should have always been considered legitimate. In both cases it took an act of parliament to make the children illegitimate, the church would not have done it.
4:04 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Jasmine said
No it doesn’t, however, one would need to take into account that it was written after Richard had been killed, and under the reign of the new king, Henry VII. Therefore with the best will in the world, the Continuer would have known he was writing about events in the reign of a defeated king and that must have coloured what he wrote.So, in our evaluation of sources and their reliability, we must take into account when the piece was written.
I don’t think all of “Henry’s” historians were all that biased Jasmine, Vergil could be very critical of him. Though yes Croyland is rather critical of Richard, but keep in mind it was a monastic chronicler and would be even more critical of things they consider sinful. I don’t think Croyland ever accused him of murdering the Princes either, but he was very critical of the Christmas festival. This is the text from one of my eBooks
“There may be many other things that are not written in this book and of which it is shameful to speak, but let it not go unsaid that during this Christmas festival, an excessive interest was displayed in singing and dancing and to vain changes of apparel presented to Queen Anne and the Lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, being of similar color and shape: a thing that caused the people to murmur and the nobles and prelates greatly to wonder at, while it was said by many that the King was bent either on the anticipated death of the Queen taking place, or else by means of a divorce, for which he supposed he had quite sufficient grounds, on contracting a marriage with the said Elizabeth. For it appeared that in no other way could his kingly power be established, or the hopes of his rival being put an end to.”
4:12 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga said
Jasmine said
No it doesn’t, however, one would need to take into account that it was written after Richard had been killed, and under the reign of the new king, Henry VII. Therefore with the best will in the world, the Continuer would have known he was writing about events in the reign of a defeated king and that must have coloured what he wrote.So, in our evaluation of sources and their reliability, we must take into account when the piece was written.
I don’t think all of “Henry’s” historians were all that biased Jasmine, Vergil could be very critical of him. Though yes Croyland is rather critical of Richard, but keep in mind it was a monastic chronicler and would be even more critical of things they consider sinful. I don’t think Croyland ever accused him of murdering the Princes either, but he was very critical of the Christmas festival. This is the text from one of my eBooks
“There may be many other things that are not written in this book and of which it is shameful to speak, but let it not go unsaid that during this Christmas festival, an excessive interest was displayed in singing and dancing and to vain changes of apparel presented to Queen Anne and the Lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, being of similar color and shape: a thing that caused the people to murmur and the nobles and prelates greatly to wonder at, while it was said by many that the King was bent either on the anticipated death of the Queen taking place, or else by means of a divorce, for which he supposed he had quite sufficient grounds, on contracting a marriage with the said Elizabeth. For it appeared that in no other way could his kingly power be established, or the hopes of his rival being put an end to.”
But my point is that because Croyland was writing with the benefit of hindsight, he may have written the above description in the full knowledge there were rumours about a defeated king who could no longer defend himself from these accusations. That would have inevitably influenced what he wanted to say.
4:21 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga said
You want a source for canon law? I’ve discussed it with various people recently and it is discussed in various books I have read. I don’t have an actual manual on canon law though, sorry
If a marriage is made in “good faith”, as the marriage would have been made on Elizabeth Woodville’s part, then the children are not considered illegitimate in the eyes of the church. There is also the fact that Eleanor died before Edward’s son was born so Edward was technically a widower, if he had been pre-contracted, which I am sure he wasn’t. If Elizabeth thought her children were born in wedlock then they could have had their marriage formalised and been done with it. As for a “clandestine” marriage being illegal, which Richard accused them of having, it is not. It is a sin, but it does not make the marriage invalid.
The same goes for Mary Tudor as a matter of fact, I have read more on the topic in books on Henry VIII. As Henry and Katherine made their marriage in good faith then Mary should have always been considered legitimate. In both cases it took an act of parliament to make the children illegitimate, the church would not have done it.
But Edward IV’s case was quite different. He contracted a clandestine marriage with Eleanor Butler. During this period, marriages did not have to be conducted by a priest, neither did they need witnesses, although it was sensible to have one in case of later trouble. All that was required was for the two people to exchange words such as ‘I marry thee’ and then consummate the marriage. That was then a valid marriage.
In E4’s case he went on to have a second clandestine ceremony with EW – she may have married in good faith, but he didn’t. Canon law at the time was such that even if E4 had gone through a second ‘marriage’ with EW AFTER the death of Eleanor Butler, the marriage with EW would not have been considered valid in the eyes of the church because of the first marriage and the next invalid marriage with EW. He could have married someone else after Eleanor Butler’s death, but he could never have validly married EW at any time before or after EB’s death. Thus the children of the marriage were illegitimate – end of! This is probably why E4 never tried to regularise his union with EW – because it could not be done. Perhaps he hoped that the pre-contract would never come out.
There is extensive coverage of the validity or otherwise of EIV’s marriage to EB and EW in John Ashdown-Hill’s book ‘Eleanor, the Secret Queen’ and if you are interested, I recommend it as something which makes a complicated matter fairly easy to follow.
4:21 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
That is fair enough, but why do you think that Catesby and Ratcliffe pulled him up on it and he had to make a public denial? Obviously there were rumours about him wanting to marry Elizabeth, and to be frank, it would be a very odd rumour to appear out of nowhere. I have never given any credit to the rumours they had an actual relationship, but I think some remark of Richard’s must have sparked it. I doubt they originated from the Tudor camp because they would have slandered Elizabeth.
Anyway it is 3 in the morning here and I am for bed.
4:23 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga said
That is fair enough, but why do you think that Catesby and Ratcliffe pulled him up on it and he had to make a public denial? Obviously there were rumours about him wanting to marry Elizabeth, and to be frank, it would be a very odd rumour to appear out of nowhere. I have never given any credit to the rumours they had an actual relationship, but I think some remark of Richard’s must have sparked it. I doubt they originated from the Tudor camp because they would have slandered Elizabeth.
Anyway it is 3 in the morning here and I am for bed.
There is an argument that Richard may have wanted to pre-empt Heny Tudor’s promise to marry EoY by demonstrating she could be married to someone else at any time.
Have a good night’s sleep!
9:55 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
Olga said
Then again we don’t know which party was infertile, it could have easily been Richard. He had no other children after Edward.
Richard had 2 natural children who were older than Edward , though. A son and a daughter.
It's always bunnies.
10:05 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
The marriage only needed to be made in good faith by one party Jasmine, that that case Elizabeth Wodville, who aain having refused to become Edward’s mistress would hardly have married him knowing he was already married. I have read the book on Eleanor and I still see no compelling evidence there was a marriage. I doubt she would have stayed silent all of those years, and as for Stillington, he changed his stories to suit his Kings. I believe Croyland said the case would have needed to be tried for the church to deem the children illegitimate. As he was a monk he would have had an understanding of canon law.
There is no need to find any niceties for Richard to be “legally” King. He won the throne by conquest, he was recognised King by Parliament and he was crowned. That means he was the rightful King. The illegitimacy story was just propaganda, just like Henry VI dying of “sorrow” or Edward Plantagenet “conspiring” with Perkin Warbeck.
Jasmine said
There is an argument that Richard may have wanted to pre-empt Heny Tudor’s promise to marry EoY by demonstrating she could be married to someone else at any time.
Have a good night’s sleep!
That’s not unlikely, I think he was actually really insulted about Tudor’s claim. He called him a ‘Welsh milksop’ 
8:03 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
So many woman from history have been blackened by gossip. Maddening really, as lot of these woman were the driving power behind their men.
I suppose the way I worded about EW lack of concern about her sons could be constued in that way. Far from it I agree with Olga, EW was a formidible woman, she showed a King that she wasn’t going to just lie down and let him walk all over her. She was a woman who demanded/commanded respect and she got it too.
I think she realised that once Richard had taken the throne there was no point in her staying in sanctuary, it would have done her no good, and her main focus now would be seeing that her girls were given the best marriage deals etc possible. The only way she could do that was in person so to speak. She may have appeared to some people that she simply accepted that her boys were missing presummed dead, but I bet underneath her calm exterior she was in agony, but again she knew there was no point in making a fuss because it would change nothing her sons were dead, couldn’t have a dead king on the throne. Well he would start to smell after a bit for a start.. But hang on a sec, we did have a dead king on the throne. A brain dead one that is and boy did he stink up the joint (H8)
I agree about the clothing issue there were simply fabrics that were a big no no for anyone not in the upper court circle, and although it does seem strange that EOY was seen to dress in similar clothing to Queen Anne, I think this was all to do with decorum EOY was after all generally accepted as a princess despite Richard’s titus regilus decree so it would have looked bad on Richard if EOY was dressed in rags (loosely worded). It wasn’t uncommon by the way for a queen to wear hand me down robes from her predessor. K.P was given K.H’s clothing which were then made over to fit K.P. Material was expensive and much the fancier and finer fabrics had to be shipped in from abroad. Cloth of gold and silver of course along with royal purple was only reserved for royalty I think Black was as well.
Everyone else had to make do with what they could get, be that silk or taffeta etc.
I think Richard was perhaps fond of EOY, but no he certainly wouldn’t have married her. He would have found a suitable husband in time and of course if he won Bosworth.
I think EW does deserve a lot of credit she rose from obsquerity to the highest power in the land. Good for her.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
8:27 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Today I read that Annette Carson not only accused Elizabeth Woodville of using love potion to snare Edward, she then poisoned him because she was afraid he was getting bored with her and would out her away, so she killed him to put her son on the throne. This book was written in 2010. It is published as a non-fiction book. Do you wonder why these books are bad for my blood pressure?
Boleyn said
I think she realised that once Richard had taken the throne there was no point in her staying in sanctuary, it would have done her no good, and her main focus now would be seeing that her girls were given the best marriage deals etc possible. The only way she could do that was in person so to speak. She may have appeared to some people that she simply accepted that her boys were missing presummed dead, but I bet underneath her calm exterior she was in agony, but again she knew there was no point in making a fuss because it would change nothing her sons were dead, couldn’t have a dead king on the throne.
Yes, this. Richard was only 30 or so, as far as she knew she had the rest of her life to live under his rule.
11:08 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Yep I agree Olga books like this make my blood pressure go squirrels too, and the thing is they are bacing their ideas on no actual proof whatsoever.
Poor EW and her mother were both branded as witches, but where is the proof? The only thing I can think is that perhaps Jaquetta, knew the art of herbal medicine.. Well duh didn’t all woman know that, it was woman who treated the household, from the kitchen scullions to her husband. Woman were the mainstay of childbirth, (no men were allowed in the birthing chamber) so it stands to reason that woman would have to have some understanding of what certain herbs do what.
I have to ask a daft question, but lets just say that this stupid woman is telling the truth and E.W did poison E4 and kill him what would she have gained from it? Ok so little Eddy may have been king, but England would have been ruled by a regency. England was a male dominated sociaty, and although it was rare for some woman to have wealth and land in their own right it would extremely unlikely IMO that EW would have been one of the top trumps at court. She would more than likely just end up doing what she did do when Henry Tulip took the throne, go into a convent as so many widows did. There were really only 2 choices for woman back then marriage to a man and babies, or marriage to Christ, and perpetual chastity and prayer.
I rather think that EW choose to enter the convent of her own volution, she saw all her daughters safely married, Bridget of course being married to Christ, EOY was Queen and the country was at peace, ok so it was under Henry Tulip as King and not Richard, but it was at peace. So there was nothing more she had to acheive. Best she spend the rest of her live in quiet reflection and wait till God called her to rest.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:20 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
There’s no proof, of course. Susan Higginbotham said Warwick used it against Jacquetta because witchcraft charges had been effective in the past against high-ranking women—Joan of Navarre and Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester. Richard used it almost as an aside, if Elizabeth had procured the marriage by “sorcery” then surely he would have brought her to trial? Both Joan of Navarre and the Duchess of Gloucester were imprisoned, Eleanor was imprisoned for life.
That’s not a daft question, it’s a perfectly valid question when faced with a stupid theory. There is no advantage in putting your 12 year-old son on the throne over your powerful husband. It doesn’t even merit discussion as far as I am concerned. As for her retiring, no there is nothing unusual in it. Margaret took her vow of chastity and she was married, that is a little more unusual. I have read of Elizabeth being at court quite a lot after she moved to Bermondsey, I have a feeling she may have been trying to avoid another marriage LOL. She only got out of marrying the King of Scots because he died. Henry may have had more plans for her.
8:29 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
I have been reading up on this topic in order to keep up with you guys. If I don’t know what I am talking about, please be kind.
I haven’t read everything yet, and I’m not sure who to trust when it comes to sources. With Henry, I have read enough to know whether the source is being honest or not. Vergil claimed that Elizabeth was genuinely upset when told about the boys. He claims she fell into a swoon, and it was difficult to arouse her. Then she wept, and shrieked loudly enough as to bring the house down. She tore and cut her hair and prayed for her death. Sounds like mourning to me.
I wonder where the idea comes from that Elizabeth did not question what happened to her sons, and that she did not mourn for them? If Vergil is believable, then she knew what happened and she did mourn. She also had five daughters who were very much alive and needed to be protected. She had to look to their futures, and she couldn’t do that from sanctuary. It seems to me she did what most women do after the loss of a child. She grieved and then she looked to secure the lives of her other children.
She was under a great deal of pressure from Richard to leave sanctuary; and she agreed to leave only if Richard swore in public that he would protect her children. He did swear…in public. I promise I won’t harm your girls and I will see that their futures are secured. This seems a bit embarrassing for Richard to have to publically swear he wouldn’t harm these girls, but I don’t blame Elizabeth for insisting he do this.
I don’t see a cold calculating woman here.
I see a mother who is looking to the welfare of her living children.
This is just my opinion, but if I had gone through what Elizabeth went through before and after Edward’s death, retirement to a convent would seem like a wonderful idea. A little peace would be welcome.
5:08 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Sharon said
I wonder where the idea comes from that Elizabeth did not question what happened to her sons, and that she did not mourn for them?
That mainly comes from the fact that she struck a deal with Richard III to come out of sanctuary. As you mentioned, of course, she made him swear a public, and very long, oath to protect them. I have always found it interesting the oath included that he would not imprison them in the Tower of London “or other prison”. I might be reading too much into that but the Tower was still a royal residence up until Elizabeth of York died, did Elizabeth Woodville have a particular fear of it? Of course it may have just been that’s it was the most likely place to imprison them, and I’m digressing.
I have seen countless people saying they would have done it differently in her position, well I don’t think anyone can say that. Richard had the abbey under siege and the Abbot of Westminster was protecting them all at his own risk. I think people overlook how dangerous the situation was becoming, was Elizabeth Woodville supposed to put everyone else in danger along with herself? Richard could have easily broken sanctuary and he was putting a lot of pressure on her, Elizabeth’s own husband had done broken sanctuary at Tewkesbury. Why should she trust her brother-in-law wouldn’t do the same? She had no guarantee she would be safe there indefinitely, she did the best she could for everyone involved at the time.
Some try to imply she was greedy for power and willing to marry her daughter to Richard to restore her own position, by the way. Usual sexist twaddle.
Here is the oath in case you’re interested, I had to copy it across a few pages in a ebook but I think that’s complete.
“I, Richard, by the grace of God, King of England [etc.], in the presence of you my lords spiritual and temporal, and you, Mayor and aldermen of my City of London, promise and swear on the word of a king, and upon these holy evangelies [Gospels] of God, by me personally touched, that if the daughters of Dame Elizabeth Grey, late calling herself Queen of England, that is, Elizabeth, Cecily, Anne, Katherine, and Bridget, will come unto me out of the sanctuary of Westminster, and be guided, ruled, and demeaned after me, then I shall see that they shall be in surety of their lives, and also not suffer any manner hurt in their body by any manner [of] person or persons to them, or any of them in their bodies and persons by way of ravishment or defouling contrary to their wills, not them or any of them imprison within the Tower of London or other prison; but that I shall put them in honest places of good name and fame, and them honestly and courteously shall see to be founden and entreated, and to have all things requisite and necessary for their exhibitions [display] and findings [domestic arrangements] as my kinswomen; and that I shall marry such of them as now be marriable to gentlemen born, and every of them give faith nor credence, nor therefore put them to any manner punishment, before that they or any of them so accused may be at their lawful defence and answer. In witness whereof to this writing of my oath and promise aforesaid in your said presences made, I have set my sign manual the first day of March, the first year of my reign”
5:09 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
By the way I think this topic was formerly about Katherine of Aragon…and now Sharon is doing some catch-up reading on the WOTR. We do go on don’t we?
6:42 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
Boleyn said
I have to ask a daft question, but lets just say that this stupid woman is telling the truth and E.W did poison E4 and kill him what would she have gained from it? Ok so little Eddy may have been king, but England would have been ruled by a regency. England was a male dominated sociaty, and although it was rare for some woman to have wealth and land in their own right it would extremely unlikely IMO that EW would have been one of the top trumps at court./blockquote
The quote function is not working properly. The above is the quote. What follows is my answer!
It’s not a daft question. The theory that Edward IV was poisoned was originally mooted by a doctor (Collins) who looked at the symptoms and descriptions of E4’s illness from all the sources. He then gave this information to a range of doctors (without mentioning the patient) and asked for a cause of death. Most came up with poison.
It has to be remembered that EW was some years older than E4, had borne 10 children, so was probably not looking her best. E4 was also fond of other women, so perhaps EW felt under threat regarding her position and feared losing some influence. If you look at the events which followed the death of E4, perhaps it is possible that EW would have had her brother Earl Rivers as ‘Protector’ and thus would have been able to maintain the Woodville influence. If Richard had simply come to London without possession of E5 then he might not have survived to become, as his brother wished, Lord Protector. There would have been a Woodville Regency, a half-Woodville king and EW’s position and influence would have been maintained.
So it is possible to make a case for the Woodvilles getting rid of E4. I am not yet convinced of it, but given all the speculation and assumptions made about people’s motives during this period, it is a theory worth considering.
