Legitimacy of Edward IV

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Monica Kanellis

Legitimacy of Edward IV

Legg inn av Monica Kanellis » 25 jun 2007 22:06:48

came across this interesting bit of background to this question and thought
it might be worth posting (from Edward V, Michael Hicks, 2003, also author
of a work on Richard III). The the political situation at the time these
rumours began was such as would give strong motivation for Warwick's faction
to find any means possible to assist in removing Edward from the throne.

<The Crisis of the Dynasty 1469-71

The 1461 uprising was launched by Warwick, his brother the archbishop and
the King's brother Clarence, lately married to Warwick's eldest daughter
Isabel. It culminated in the defeat of Edward's favourites on 27 July at
Edgecote near Banbury, after which Earl Rivers, grandfather to the future
Edward V, his son Sir John Wydeville, Pembroke and Devon were eliminated.
Scales' estates were ravaged and Jacquetta was charged with sorcery. Queen
Elizabeth's former brother-in-law, Sir Edward Grey of Astley was on
Warwick's side. King Edward was imprisoned first at Westwick, then at
Warwick's Yorkshire castle of Middleham. The earl ruled in Edward's name. A
parliament was summoned to meet on 22 September at York, where Warwick felt
strong, but it was cancelled to enable Warwick to quell Lancastrian
rebellion. To achieve this, he had to release the King, who resumed his
rule, reconciled himself with his erstwhile opponents in a great council at
Westminster in 1469-70 and reconstructed the aristocratic foundations of his
regime to ensure that there was no repetition.

The rebel's manifesto had drawn ominous parallels between Edward's rule and
that of former bad kings, who had been deposed, had denounced the King's
favourites for evil counsel and had declared their intention to provide good
governance themselves. Historians, including the present author, have
presumed an intention to follow the precedent of Richard Duke of York and to
have Warwick declared protector. One wonders, however, what was their
fall-back position, if Edward would not co-operate, or if indeed the plan
was to depose him. We cannot now demonstrate conclusively that allegations
of Edward's bastardy circulating in 1469 originated with Warwick: later
Louis XI alleged that Edward was the son of the Duchess Cecily and a French
archer. The English were always inclined to doubt the legitimacy of princes
born abroad, like Edward at Rouen. Nor does the rebuttal of the charge of
sorcery formally lodged against the Duchess Jacquetta in council at Warwick
in August explicitly accuse her of using magic to bring about Edward's
marriage. Allegations of bastardy would have undermined Edward's right and
allegations of witchcraft those of his daughters (and any future sons); thus
clearing the way for York's second surviving son Clarence, who had, not
coincidentally, just married Warwick's daughter. Next year the Lincolnshire
rebels promoted Clarence's candidature. Moreover the involvement of Thomas
Wake, who actually made the sorcery charge, is suggestive in other ways. As
we have seen, he was a Warwick retainer, the widower of Margaret Lucy
[previously discussed as a possible mistress of Edward] and a native of
Northamptonshire well-placed to know about Edward's wooing of Elizabeth
Wydeville, particularly as he (or his father), as feoffee, had presented
Eborall [believed to have been the priest who married them] to his living of
Paulerspury. Wake was shortly to become the second husband of Elizabeth Lady
Latimer, the sister of Margaret Countess of Shrewsbury and hence aunt of
Eleanor Butler [previously discussed with respect to a rumoured clandestine
marriage with Edward he refused to acknowledge]. Jacquetta is the source of
much of what we know at this time. She appealed Wake among others for her
husband's death. We know of the sorcery charge he levelled at her only
because she wanted herself cleared and had her acquittal certified. There
may have been charges and rebuttals also about the King's bastardy and
precontract, but, ignorant of the future loss of the council records, nobody
had them exemplified. Arguments from silence are always dangerous. What was
rejected in the past due to the absence of evidence now appears possible:
that 1469 was a preview of 1483, when Edward V was the victim, and that it
was the model for Richard Duke of Gloucester, an observer from the other
side in 1469?>

mk

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»