Notizen zu dieser Person
Edward IV (28 April 1442 - 9 April 1483) was King of England from 4 March 1461 until 3 October 1470,[1][2] and again from 11 April 1471 until his death in 1483. He was the first Yorkist King of England.[3] The first half of his rule was marred by the violence associated with the Wars of the Roses, but he overcame the Lancastrian challenge to the throne at Tewkesbury in 1471 to reign in peace until his sudden death. Before becoming king he was 4th Duke of York,[4] 7th Earl of March, 5th Earl of Cambridge and 9th Earl of Ulster. He was also the 65th Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece. Reign Accession to the throne Edward of York was born at Rouen in France, the illegitimate son of an archer, FNU (First Name Unknown) Blaybourne, and Cecily Neville. He was the eldest of the four sons who survived to adulthood. His younger brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland, died along with his father at Wakefield in 1460. The Duke of York's assertion of his claim to the crown in 1460 was the key escalation of the conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. When his father died, his claim did not die with him, and Edward inherited it. With the support of his cousin Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick ("The Kingmaker"), Edward defeated the Lancastrians in a succession of battles. And while the Lancastrian Henry VI and Queen Margaret of Anjou were campaigning in the north of England, Warwick gained control of the capital and had Edward declared King in London in 1461. Edward strengthened his claim with a decisive victory at the Battle of Towton in the same year, in the course of which the Lancastrian army was virtually wiped out. Even at the age of nineteen, he had remarkable military acumen and a notable physique, being described as handsome and affable. His height is estimated at 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m), making him the tallest among all English, Scottish and British monarchs to date.[6] Overthrow Warwick, believing that he could continue to rule through Edward, pressed him to enter into a marital alliance with a major European power. Edward then alienated Warwick by secretly marrying Elizabeth Woodville, the widow of a Lancastrian sympathiser, in 1464. Elizabeth's mother was Jacquetta of Luxembourg, widow of Henry VI's uncle, John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford, but her father, Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers, was a newly created baron. Elizabeth's marriage to Edward IV made the unmarried among her twelve siblings desirable matrimonial catches. Although they posed no immediate threat to Warwick's own power, Warwick resented the influence this group had over the King and, with the aid of Edward's disaffected younger brother George, Duke of Clarence, Warwick led an army against Edward. The main part of the king's army (without Edward) was defeated at the Battle of Edgecote Moor in 1469, and Edward was subsequently captured at Olney. Warwick then attempted to rule in Edward's name, but the nobility, many of whom owed their preferments to the king, were restive, and with the emergence of a counter-rebellion, Warwick was forced to release Edward. At this point Edward did not seek to destroy either Warwick or Clarence but instead sought reconciliation. Nevertheless, a few months later in 1470 Warwick and Clarence rebelled again. This time they were defeated and forced to flee to France. There, they made an alliance with Margaret of Anjou, and Warwick agreed to restore Henry VI in return for French support in an invasion, which took place in late 1470. This time, Edward was forced to flee when he learned that Warwick's brother, John Neville, 1st Marquess of Montagu, had also switched to the Lancastrian side, making Edward's military position untenable. Restoration Henry VI was briefly restored to the throne in 1470 in an event known as the Readeption of Henry VI, and Edward took refuge in Burgundy, accompanied by his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The rulers of Burgundy were his brother-in-law Charles, Duke of Burgundy, and his sister Margaret of York. Despite the fact that Charles was initially unwilling to help Edward, the French declared war on Burgundy. This prompted Charles to give his aid to Edward, and from Burgundy he raised an army to win back his kingdom. When Edward returned to England with a relatively small force, he avoided capture. The city of York only opened its gates to him after he promised that he had just come to reclaim his dukedom - just as Henry Bolingbroke had done seventy years earlier. As he marched southwards he began to gather support, and Clarence (who had realised that his fortunes would be better off as brother to a king than under Henry VI) reunited with him. Edward entered London unopposed, where he took Henry VI prisoner. Edward and his brothers then defeated Warwick at the Battle of Barnet, and with Warwick dead he eliminated the remaining Lancastrian resistance at the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471. The Lancastrian heir, Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales, was killed on the battlefield. A few days later, on the night that Edward re-entered London, Henry VI died. One contemporary chronicle claimed that his death was due to "melancholy," but it is widely suspected that Edward ordered Henry's murder in order to remove the Lancastrian opposition completely. Edward's two younger brothers, George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III of England), were married to Isabel Neville and Anne Neville. They were both daughters of Warwick by Anne Beauchamp and rival heirs to the considerable inheritance of their still-living mother, leading to a dispute between the brothers. In 1478, Clarence was eventually found guilty of plotting against Edward, imprisoned in the Tower of London and privately executed on 18 February 1478: according to a long standing tradition he was "drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine". Later reign and death Edward did not face any further rebellions after his restoration, as the Lancastrian line had virtually been extinguished, and the only rival left was Henry Tudor, who was living in exile. In 1475, Edward declared war on France, landing at Calais in June. However, the failure of his ally Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, to provide any significant military assistance led him to undertake negotiations with the French. He came to terms with the Treaty of Picquigny, which provided him with an immediate payment of 75,000 crowns and a yearly pension of 50,000 crowns. He also backed an attempt by Alexander Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany, brother of King James III of Scotland, to take the Scottish throne in 1482. Gloucester led an invasion of Scotland that resulted in the capture of Edinburgh and the king of Scots himself, but Albany reneged on his agreement with Edward. Gloucester decided to withdraw from his position of strength in Edinburgh. However, Gloucester did recover Berwick-upon-Tweed. Edward's health began to fail, and he became subject to an increasing number of ailments. He fell fatally ill at Easter 1483, but lingered on long enough to add some codicils to his will, the most important being his naming of his brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Protector after his death. He died on 9 April 1483 and was buried in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. He was succeeded by his twelve-year-old son, Edward V of England (who was never crowned) and then by his brother, Richard. It is not known what actually caused Edward's death. Pneumonia and typhoid have both been conjectured, as well as poison. Some attributed his death to an unhealthy lifestyle, as he had become stout and inactive in the years before his death. Overview Achievements An extremely capable and daring military commander, Edward destroyed the House of Lancaster in a series of spectacular military victories; he was never defeated on the field of battle. Despite his occasional (if serious) political setbacks - usually at the hands of his great Machiavellian rival, Louis XI of France - Edward was a popular and very able king. While he lacked foresight and was at times cursed by bad judgement, he possessed an uncanny understanding of his most useful subjects, and the vast majority of those who served him remained unwaveringly loyal until his death. Domestically, Edward's reign saw the restoration of law and order in England (indeed, his royal motto was modus et ordo, or "method and order"). The latter days of Henry VI's government had been marked by a general breakdown in law and order, as well as a sizeable increase in both piracy and banditry. Interestingly, Edward was also a shrewd and successful businessman and merchant, heavily investing in several corporations within the City of London. He also made the duchy of Lancaster property of the crown, which it still is today. During the reign of Henry there had been corruption in the exchequer. Edward made his household gain more control over finances and even investigated old records to see payments had been made. Documents of the exchequer show him sending letters threatening officials if they did not pay money. His properties earned large amounts of money for the crown. The court The court of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was described by a visitor from Europe as "the most splendid ... in all Christendom".[7] Edward spent large amounts on expensive status symbols to show off his power and wealth as legitimate monarch of England. His collecting habits show that he was not only a good soldier and administrator, but had an eye for fashionable style and an interest in scholarship, particularly history. In addition to fine clothes, jewels and furnishings, he acquired a collection of beautifully illuminated historical and literary manuscripts, many of which were made specially for him by craftsmen in Bruges.[8][9] The contents of these works tell us something of his interests: they focus on the lives of great rulers including Julius Caesar,[10] historical chronicles,[11] as well as instructional and religious works.[12] These were books for both entertainment and instruction. It is not known where or how Edward's library was stored, but it is recorded that he transferred volumes from the Great Wardrobe to Eltham Palace and that he had a yeoman "to kepe the king's bookes".[13][14] The fact that more than forty of his books survive intact from the 15th century, suggests that they were carefully stored together.[15] Today they form the foundation of the Royal Collection of manuscripts at the British Library. Dynasty Ultimately, despite his military and administrative genius, Edward's dynasty survived him by little more than two years, but Edward was one of the few male members of his dynasty to die of natural causes. Both Edward's father and brother were killed at the Battle of Wakefield, while his grandfather and another brother were executed for treason. Edward's two sons were imprisoned and disappeared (presumed killed) within a year of Edward's death. The king's youngest brother, Richard, (later Richard III) was famously killed in battle against Henry Tudor at Bosworth Field. Marriage and children Edward IV had ten children by Elizabeth Woodville, seven of whom survived him. They were declared illegitimate by Parliament in 1483, clearing the way for Richard III to become King.[16] The Act mentioned above, Titulus Regius (King's Title), was promptly repealed by Henry VII, thereby legitimizing those whom that Act had made illegitimate. In fact, Henry Tudor not only had the Act repealed without being read, he made it a crime to possess a copy or even to mention it. Elizabeth of York, queen consort to Henry VII of England (11 February 1466 - 11 February 1503). Mary of York (11 August 1467 - 23 May 1482). Cecily of York (20 March 1469 - 24 August 1507); married first John Welles, 1st Viscount Welles and second Thomas Kyme or Keme. Edward V of England (4 November 1470 - 1483?); briefly succeeded his father, as King Edward V of England. Was the elder of the Princes in the Tower. Margaret of York (10 April 1472 - 11 December 1472). Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York (17 August 1473 - 1483?). Was the younger of the Princes in the Tower. Anne of York, Lady Howard (2 November 1475 - 23 November 1511); married Thomas Howard (later 3rd Duke of Norfolk). George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Bedford (March 1477 - March 1479). Catherine of York (14 August 1479 - 15 November 1527); married William Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon. Bridget of York (10 November 1480 - 1517); became a nun. Edward had numerous mistresses. The best known was Elizabeth Shore, also called Jane Shore.[17] He reportedly had several illegitimate children: By Elizabeth Lucy (or Elizabeth Wayte). Elizabeth Plantagenet (born circa 1464), married Thomas Lumley, Esquire, of Beautrove, Durham before 1478.[18][19] Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle (1460s/1470s - 3 March 1542). By unknown mothers. Recent speculations suggests them as children by Lucy or Waite. Grace Plantagenet. She is known to have been present at the funeral of her stepmother Elizabeth Woodville in 1492.[20] Mary Plantagenet, married Henry Harman of Ellam, son of Thomas and Elizabeth Harman and widower of certain Agnes.[21] A daughter said to have been the first wife of John Tuchet, 6th Baron Audley.[22] Perkin Warbeck, an impostor claimant to the English throne, who claimed to be Edward's son Richard of Shrewsbury, reportedly resembled Edward. There is unconfirmed speculation that Warbeck could have been another of Edward's illegitimate sons. Successors Edward IV's eldest son was invested with the title of Prince of Wales at the age of seven months. At the age of three, he was sent by his father to Ludlow Castle as nominal head of the Council of Wales and the Marches, a body that had originally been set up to help the future Edward V of England in his duties as Prince of Wales. The prince was accompanied to Ludlow by his mother and by his uncle, Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers, who carried out many of the administrative duties associated with the presidency of the Council. The king visited his son occasionally at Ludlow, though, as far as is known, he never ventured into Wales itself. It is clear that he intended this experience of government to prepare his son for the throne. Although his son was quickly barred from the throne and replaced by Richard of Gloucester, Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth of York later became the Queen consort of Henry VII of England. The grounds for Titulus Regius, passed to justify the accession of Richard of Gloucester, were that Edward had been contracted to marry another woman prior to his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Lady Eleanor Butler (a young widow, daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury) and Edward were alleged to have been precontracted; both parties were dead by this time, but a clergyman (named only by Philippe de Commines as Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells), claimed to have carried out the ceremony. The declaration was repealed shortly after Henry VII assumed the throne, as it illegimitised Elizabeth of York, who was to be his queen. The final fate of Edward IV's legitimate sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, is unknown. Speculation on the subject has given rise to the "Princes in the Tower" mystery. Controversy Questions about his paternity were raised during Edward's own reign (for example by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, in 1469, and repeated by George shortly before his execution in 1478), and again by Richard of Gloucester's supporters in the brief reign of Edward V. This was a period in which illegitimacy was viewed as sinful and a bar to public life; accordingly, it was a frequent accusation levelled against public figures by their enemies. Edward was not the only one to be accused of illegitimacy in the 15th century: Charles VII of France, Edward of Westminster (son of Henry VI of England), and Joanna "La Beltraneja" of Castile also had this accusation slung at them by enemies seeking to disinherit them. Thus, for centuries historians viewed the story as no more than propaganda designed to discredit Edward and his heirs. In recent years, the question has been given real consideration; however, there is limited evidence that Richard of York was not the biological father of Edward IV, and that which might exist is subjective and open to interpretation. The claims were based around Edward's appearance and the circumstances surrounding his overseas birth. During his own lifetime, it was noted that Edward showed little resemblance to his father. Unlike his father, he was well over six feet tall, an exceptional height for the age; but notably, his younger brother George was also tall and fair, (and said to bear a marked resemblance to Edward), whilst their sister Margaret stood five feet eleven inches, remarkable for a mediaeval woman (observers of her wedding to Charles the Bold of Burgundy remarked that the bride towered over the groom - she had to lean down to receive his kiss).[23] Dominic Mancini claimed that when Edward's mother, Cecily Neville, found out about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville in 1464, she flew into a rage and offered to declare him a bastard. However, this episode is not reported by contemporary sources, which instead condemn the pair for making an unequal and inappropriate marriage in dubious circumstances. Prior to his succession, on 22 June 1483, Richard III declared that Edward V was illegitimate, and three days later the matter was addressed by parliament. In Titulus Regius (the text of which is believed to come word-for-word from the petition presented by Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, to the assembly which met on 25 June 1483, to decide on the future of the monarchy), Richard III is described as "the undoubted son and heir" of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and "born in this land" - an oblique reference to his brother's birth at Rouen and baptism in circumstances which could have been considered questionable. There is no confirmation for the view - as fictionalised in William Shakespeare's Richard III (Act 3, Scene 5) - that Richard made any claims about his brother's legitimacy, as his claim was based on the supposed illegitimacy of Edward IV's children. According to Polydore Vergil, Duchess Cecily, "being falsely accused of adultery, complained afterwards in sundry places to right many noble men, whereof some yet live, of that great injury which her son Richard had done her." If she had indeed complained - as would befit a high-ranking lady of renowned piety, as she had been regarded - these petitions may have had some effect: the allegations were dropped and never again pursued. Edward was born on 28 April 1442. No contemporary evidence refers to him as being born prematurely. Accordingly, counting back nine months from birth would date his conception to late July 1441. A 2004 Channel 4 television documentary examined records in the archives of Rouen Cathedral, which indicated that from 14 July to 21 August 1441 Richard, Duke of York, was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered at the cathedral for his safety. The programme also drew attention to the fact that the christening celebration of Edmund, Earl of Rutland, the second son of Richard and Cecily, was a lavish affair at the cathedral, whereas the christening of Edward, the firstborn, was low key, and in a side chapel. The programme concluded that Edward was not "Britain's Real Monarch". However, there is no strong reason to suggest Edward could not be premature: premature birth would not necessarily be mentioned in contemporary sources, and prematurely-born children could survive the perilous years of early childhood (Edward's grandson, Arthur, Prince of Wales, was at least 1 month premature and lived to the age of 15, outliving several siblings); high infant mortality meant baptisms were often performed quickly, Cecily had already had children who had died young, and if Edward was indeed premature, there would be good cause for a hurried baptism. Richard, Duke of York, would have had every right, even a duty, to challenge the child's paternity if it was in doubt; refusing to do so, and allowing a child he knew was not his to remain his heir and an heir to the English throne, was tantamount to treason. However, he acknowledged Edward as his eldest son. Therefore, if the low-key nature of the ceremony was meant to be publicly taken as indicative of the child's illegitimacy, he would be impugning his wife's honour, and exposing himself as a cuckolded husband into the bargain, to no good end. Furthermore, he raised Edward as his heir, and nothing in their interactions suggests Edward was other than a well-loved and cherished eldest son and heir. Even if Edward IV was illegitimate, he could in any case claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest. He also had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim is via an illegitimate line, it is the same as the claim of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485. See also: Alternative successions of the English crown References ^ Jump up to: a b thePeerage.com - Person Page 10187. Retrieved 5 December 2009. Jump up ^ Biography of EDWARD IV - Archontology.org. Set sail on 2 October 1470 from England and took refuge in Burgundy; deposed as King of England on 3 October 1470. Retrieved 5 December 2009. Jump up ^ Charles Ross, Edward IV (English Monarchs Series), 1998 ISBN 978-0-300-07372-0 Jump up ^ BBC Edward IV Jump up ^ York was a direct descendant of Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward III. The House of Lancaster was descended from John of Gaunt, the third surviving son of Edward III, and as such had a superior claim over the House of York. However, Richard Plantagenet's mother was Anne de Mortimer, the most senior descendant of Edward III's second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp. Lionel had been the eldest son of Edward III to leave a surviving line of descent; as such, by modern standards, his line had an indisputably superior claim over that of his younger brother, John of Gaunt. By contemporary standards, this was by no means so certain; nonetheless, it allowed Richard and then Edward a good title to the throne. Jump up ^ Guinness Book of Records Jump up ^ Charles Ross, Edward IV (London: Methuen, 1974), pp. 270-77. Jump up ^ Janet Backhouse, "Founders of the Royal Library: Edward IV and Henry VII as Collectors of Illuminated Manuscripts", in England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. by David Williams (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1987), pp. 23-42 (pp. 26, 28, 39). Jump up ^ Scot McKendrick, "A European Heritage, Books of Continental Origin" in Royal Manuscripts: The Genius of Illumination (London: British Library, 2011), pp. 42-65 [exhibition catalogue]. Jump up ^ La Grande histoire César: Royal 17 f ii. Jump up ^ Jean de Wavrin, Recueil des croniques d’Engleterre, vol. 1: Royal 15 e iv Jump up ^ Bible Historial, Royal MS 15 D i Jump up ^ Simon Thurley The Royal Palaces of Tudor England: A Social and Architectural History (Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 141. Jump up ^ Nicholas Harris Nicholas, Privy Purse expenses of Elizabeth of York: Wardrobe Accounts of Edward IV (London: William Pickering, 1830), p. 125. Jump up ^ Kathleen Doyle, "The Old Royal Library" in Royal Manuscripts: The Genius of Illumination (London: British Library, 2011), pp. 66-89 (p. 69) [exhibition catalogue]. Jump up ^ See Richard III by Annette Carson. Jump up ^ Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "Elizabeth Shore" Jump up ^ John Burke, George Ormerod. A genealogical and heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank, but uninvested with heritable honours, Volume 2, Genealogical Pub. Co., 1977. Jump up ^ Eneas Mackenzie. An Historical, Topographical, and Descriptive View of the County of Northumberland, Mackenzie and Dent, 1825. pg 136. Google eBook Jump up ^ C. Ross, Edward IV (1974), pg. 316, footnote 2 (citing BM Arundel MS. 26, ff. 29v-30v); C. Given-Wilson & A. Curteis, Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984), pp. 158,161-174. Jump up ^ Misc. Gen. et Her. 4th ser. 2 (1908): 227-228 (Harman pedigree) (no identification of wives). H.S.P. 74 (1923): 61-62 (1574 Vis. Kent) Jump up ^ Genealogical Database at Tudotplace.com.ar (Retrieved 21 August 2011) Jump up ^ Seward, Desmond: Richard III. Ashley, Mike (2002). British Kings & Queens. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 0-7867-1104-3. pgs 211-217 Cokayne, G.E. (2000). The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant. Alan Sutton. page 909 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Another version: Edward IV, also called (until 1459) Earl Of March, King of England from 1461 until October 1470 and again from April 1471 until his death in 1483. He was a leading participant in the Yorkist-Lancastrian conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. Edward was the eldest surviving son of Richard, duke of York, by Cicely, daughter of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland. His father was descended from two sons of the 14th-century king Edward III and, in the 1450s, led a revolt against Henry VI; in 1460, Richard's supporters declared him Henry's successor. When his father was killed in December of that year, Edward gathered an army in Wales and defeated Henry's supporters (called Lancastrians because of Henry's descent from John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster). Edward was crowned as King Edward IV in London on June 28, 1461. Edward at this time showed little promise, apparently caring only for fighting, drinking, women, and pageantry. He owed his throne largely to his cousin Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, who was in the first years of Edward's reign the most powerful man in England. Warwick crushed Lancastrian resistance in the far north of England between 1462 and 1464 and conducted England's diplomacy. Edward, however, was winning many friends (especially in London) by his comeliness and charm and was determined to assert his independence. On May 1, 1464, he secretly married a young widow, Elizabeth Woodville, of no great rank, offending Warwick and other Yorkist nobles who were planning to marry him to a French princess. By showering favours on Elizabeth's two sons by her first husband and on her five brothers and her seven sisters, Edward began to build up a group of magnates who would be a counterpoise to the Nevilles. Gradually Warwick lost all influence at court, and when he was negotiating an alliance with France, Edward humiliated him by revealing that he had already concluded an alliance (1467) with France's enemy Burgundy. Edward's sister Margaret was married in July 1468 with great pomp to Duke Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and the brothers-in-law planned a joint invasion of France. Warwick, in a countermove encouraged by Louis XI of France, seized Edward and made him a prisoner in July 1469. But Edward had by now too many supporters (especially in London) for him to be kept under tutelage for long. He regained his freedom in October; Warwick fled to France, allied himself with the Lancastrians and with Louis, and invaded England in September 1470. Surprised, Edward fled with a few faithful supporters to the Netherlands in October. Aided by Charles of Burgundy, he and his brother, Richard, duke of Gloucester, returned to England in March 1471. Taking London, he defeated and killed Warwick at Barnet on April 14. On the same day, Queen Margaret (Henry VI's wife) belatedly landed in Dorset from France with her only son, Edward, prince of Wales. Her advisers hoped to gain Lancastrian support in Wales, and it became a race for time between Edward IV's forces and hers as to whether she could get there before he overtook her. At Tewkesbury, after some remarkable forced marches (one of more than 40 miles at a stretch), he caught up with her army on May 4. There he won another crushing victory. Nearly all the remaining Lancastrian leaders were killed on the field or executed afterward, and, after murdering Henry (May 21-22) and repelling an attack on London, Edward was secure for the remainder of his life. He was now able to revive the project of an invasion of France in concert with the Duke of Burgundy. He made great preparations in 1474 and obtained a large grant from Parliament. In 1475 he invaded France with the largest army, it was said, that had ever left England, but he found the Duke of Burgundy very ill-prepared and the French formidable and willing to buy him out. Hence the Treaty of Picquigny was made by which Edward agreed to withdraw from France in return for 75,000 gold crowns down and a pension of 50,000 gold crowns a year. These sums helped to free Edward from dependence on parliamentary grants. As he grew older, he showed considerable ingenuity in raising money by reviving obsolescent rights and using doubtfully legal devices. Commercial treaties with France (1475), Burgundy (1468), and the Hanseatic League (1474) combined with external peace and growing internal order to revive trade strikingly after 1475, and this benefitted the customs duties and other revenues. Edward became a trader himself, transporting goods in his own ships and those of foreign merchants. He began a reorganization of the revenues from the crown estates, experimenting with methods of improving yields and promoting more efficient auditing under officials of the flexible royal household treasury instead of the unadaptable Exchequer. These and other measures enabled him to leave behind a fortune; some of his improved financial administration was continued and developed by his successors Richard III and Henry VII. The last decade of Edward's reign also saw an improvement in law enforcement. One especially disturbed area was Wales and the Welsh marches; Edward used the royal estates there as a foundation on which to base a council that acted in the name of his infant heir, the Prince of Wales, and employed the royal prerogative to make a start in repressing disorder. It was the forerunner of the council of Wales and the marches that subjugated the area to English rule. Modern research has emphasized these administrative achievements of Edward IV, and contemporary and Tudor historians viewed his later years as a time of prosperity and success. He rebuilt St. George's Chapel, Windsor, and collected illuminated Flemish manuscripts. He was also a friend and patron of the printer William Caxton, and his book collection became the foundation of the Old Royal Library, later one of the glories of the British Museum. Edward's promiscuity enabled Richard of Gloucester, after his death, to question the validity of his marriage and so to ruin his sons. As a young man Edward had been trustful and openhanded, but his experiences made him increasingly suspicious, leading him in 1478 to execute his brother George, duke of Clarence, who in former years had sided with Warwick against him. In 1482, Louis XI, in order to come to terms with the rulers of Burgundy, tacitly repudiated the Treaty of Picquigny and the annual tribute that it provided. Edward contemplated a fresh invasion of France, but before it could be carried out he fell ill and died at the age of only 40. By Elizabeth Woodville he had seven children who survived him: two sons, Edward (afterward Edward V) and Richard, duke of York, who were probably murdered in the Tower of London in August 1483, and five daughters, of whom the eldest, Elizabeth, married Henry VII. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite. Was Edward IV Illegitimate?: The case for the defence by Trish Wilson, 27 July 2014 History is full of mystery but how often has the mystery been overtaken by the myths and the truth lost in the mists of time? Oh how cherished are those myths, but when one applies the colander test just how watertight are they? British history is full of them and none more so than that period quaintly known as the War of the Roses - anything but - and that granddaddy of them all, Richard III. Was he? Did he? Lately it has been his eldest brother, Edward IV, born 28 April 1442, who has come in for scrutiny and a claim that he was indeed illegitimate. So what is the claim and how does that bear up under scrutiny? The claim, and historical evidence The claim is that at the critical time needed for conception his father Richard, duke of York, was away from his base in Rouen for a period of five weeks, overseeing the siege of Pontoise over a hundred miles away, which necessitated several days of marching, while at the same time his wife was (allegedly) having an adulterous fling with an archer by the name of Blaybourne. This same claim also makes mention of the fact that Edward's baptism was in stark contrast to that of his next brother, Edmund. Let us now look at this thesis in the light of what facts we do have at our disposal. It would seem that there is one fact that has already been overlooked, but no longer. As regards those crucial five weeks, who would have known better than anyone, including those in Rouen, where York was at any given time or, for that matter, any gossip? Those who served immediately under him, that's who. Warwick didn't start pushing those rumours about Blaybourne as part of his strategy to unseat his cousin until 1469. So who of them was still around in 1469? Who accompanied York to France in the summer of 1441, served him during that campaign, and would have been only too happy to give Warwick the lie if he had been in a position to do so? It's none other than Sir Richard Wydeville, later Earl Rivers, Edward IV's father-in-law, who was executed in August 1469 on Warwick's orders following the Battle of Edgecote. So was Rivers executed to feed Warwick's appetite for revenge or to silence him? Intriguing thought isn't it? As it is, Edward IV must have known that his father-in-law served under his father, so why that desperate story about conception in England unless Rivers was no longer alive to counter Warwick's allegation? Two other notable persons who accompanied York to France were John de Vere, earl of Oxford (father of the earl who served under Henry VII), and James Butler, earl of Ormonde and Wiltshire (one of those who was named as being the real father of Edward of Lancaster) who was defeated by Edward IV at the Battle of Mortimer's Cross, both of whom were ardent Lancastrians and both of whom were executed during the first eighteen months of Edward IV's reign. York didn't hesitate to suggest that Edward of Lancaster was not the legitimate son of Henry VI so why, if Oxford or Ormonde/Wiltshire had any suspicions that York was not the father of Edward, didn't they turn the tables when they had a chance to do so? It does seem rather curious that, given the allegation made against him, Butler apparently never said anything that would have hoisted York on his own petard. York's whereabouts So where was York during those crucial five weeks? He was definitely absent for five weeks but that's not the be-all and end-all as there are other factors to consider. Was York really that far away? Could Edward have been an early or late arrival? Could Cecily even have exchanged a few words with Blaybourne without others in Rouen Castle knowing about it? [1] So let's now look at those other factors, geography, military, baptism, genetics and last but not least obstetrics. It's all very well to claim that so-and-so must have been born out of wedlock because his mother's husband was not around at the time but it's not that simple. Precisely when a baby arrives is up to Mother Nature, not the calendar. First of all, when looking at the claim of distance being 160km (100 miles), what are the geographical facts? What is the actual distance between Rouen and Pontoise? It's 93.05km (59 miles). Furthermore in medieval times the two towns were linked by an old Roman road known as the Chaussée Jules César, and the actual route was Paris-Pontoise-Rouen. That was superseded in 1824 by Route Nationale 14 which, from Pontoise onwards, follows the old Roman road and is almost as straight. The distance between Paris and Rouen along that road is 125km - that's just under eighty miles, so if it's only eighty miles to Rouen from Paris with Pontoise in between, how on earth could Pontoise be over a hundred miles away? The baptism There is also the claim about the baptism of Edward IV, which was in complete contrast to that of his brother Edmund born a year later. Edward had his in a side-chapel while Edmund had the full royal razzmatazz. Apparently this also provides evidence of an illegitimate birth, but what does that actually prove? What if Louis de Luxembourg, archbishop of Rouen (whose great-niece Elizabeth Wydeville, daughter of Richard Wydeville, went on to marry York's son Edward) wasn't in Rouen at the time? And what about the christenings of their younger siblings, George and Richard? Did they get the full works too? It has been suggested too that his parents had nothing to celebrate. Well York certainly didn't - the loss of Pontoise was a severe blow with the French less than sixty miles from Rouen. Furthermore he had cause for concern following a meeting of nobility in Nevers in March 1442 to decide what they did next, with some holding out for peace negotiations, a matter on which King Charles VII took a contrary view. What if it was an emergency baptism given in the belief that the souls of unchristened babies are denied access to heaven? It is a fact that midwives were permitted by the Church of Rome to carry out an emergency baptism if there was any likelihood that the baby might not survive. What if Edward did arrive early or was not thought likely to survive? It's worth bearing in mind what had happened to his brother Henry the year before, being born and having died on the same day. As it is, there could be a variety of reasons for the disparity. The fact that Edward's baptism was so low-key compared to that of Edmund is certainly not proof that he was illegitimate however much a song and dance is made about it. Family resemblances As for Edward, tall and fair, not looking like his father, short and dark, what of it? His brother George didn't match their father either, but nobody seems to make a fuss about that. How many children actually look like their parents or, more to the point, how many sons take after their fathers? How many of today's royal children look like their fathers? Just because 'Peregrine Fortescue Smythe' or 'Joe Bloggs' fail to look like pater/dad is no reason to suppose that mater/mum was having it away with someone else. Some children take after their grandparents, as did Henry VIII, and others after their parents' siblings - there have even been cases of cousins being taken for twins. Edward's sister, Margaret, was almost six feet tall, his paternal uncle, Edward, duke of York, who died at Agincourt, was tall and corpulent, and his direct ancestors Edward I (Longshanks) and Edward III were both known for their height. What we turn out to be is down to our genes, and what about that recessive gene that produces red hair that may skip a generation? If one is going to propose that kind of argument wouldn't it be better to take a look at other family members first? Early or late arrival Applying the nine month/forty week gestation period so retrospectively is also fraught with peril, as full term is actually somewhere between 37-42 weeks and, according to NHS statistics, most births occur between 38 and 42 weeks of pregnancy. If Edward had been conceived on 21 August 1441, then birth would have been one week short of full term. Alternatively, if Edward had been conceived just before his father left Rouen then it would been a 41-42 week gestation. One cannot claim that because so-and so was born on such-and-such date that his or her conception must have happened on such-and-such date nine months before. Can obstetricians even now predict precisely when it's all going to happen? Again according to NHS statistics, only 5% of babies arrive on the due date. The most recent Prince George kept the whole world, including his mother, waiting for the better part of a week. In addition to that, pre-term babies account for 10% of births. Famous figures such as Isaac Newton, Anna Pavlova, and Winston Churchill were all born after only seven months of gestation? Edward IV may have been another. Let's not forget his grandson, Prince Arthur, who arrived only eight months after the wedding. York, while royal, was not in the immediate line of succession and the birth happened in France not England, so the chroniclers would not have paid it quite as much attention as a direct-line birth. The alleged affair, and the parents As for that alleged affair between Blaybourne and Cecily Neville, how could two such persons get together in such circumstances? Rouen Castle was a fortified base, not a royal palace, and it was on a war footing which meant security would have been extra-tight. Quite frankly the idea that anyone of the rank-and-file could in such a short time and in such an enclosed community have 'had it away' with his commanding officer's wife is quite ludicrous. How on earth could Blaybourne have done anything without some of his mates knowing about it? With the garrison being York's base, the castle would have been very crowded, swarming with servants as well as guards, so there would not have been much privacy, just as there isn't much privacy in army life now, certainly not for the rank and file, in a life that is regulated twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. What made Blaybourne stand out from amongst the rest so much so that he could attract Cecily's attention? And how they could have met without others knowing about it? Last but not least, there are the parents, so let us consider them. Would 'Proud Cis' really have stooped that low? A mere member of the rank-and-file and possibly an odiferous member at that? If she needed solace for the temporary loss of her husband and the permanent loss of her son why pick somebody so low-down? Out of the entire male population was Blaybourne the only one who had 'sex appeal'? Would she even have met him without others in attendance? The colonel's lady might meet those of the rank-and-file but it would hardly be done alone. What if York had provided her with her own special escort? As it is, the risk in that crowded space, full of activity, would have been enormous. How could she have achieved it without the medieval equivalent of Lady Rochford? Let's face it, Blaybourne was hardly in the same league as Thomas Culpepper, one of Henry VIII's equerries. Above all, why should she have done it? A pair of glancing eyes that had her hormones going crazy? Sounds like something out of Hollywood. York, for all any of us know, may already have been entertaining the idea of making a rival bid for the throne, in which case it would have been absolutely crucial that this first surviving son was the legitimate heir. Is it possible that York, one of the mighty magnates of the time, tamely accepted another man's son not just as his own son but as his legitimate heir. When he began his bid for the crown and with succession in mind would he have carried on the pretence? In fact he never disowned paternity - surely a case of res ispa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. Cecily's outburst - the truth or maternal indignation? As to what Cecily is alleged to have said when she heard about her son's marriage, how much credence can we place on that? When a fit of anger descends upon us and judgement and caution get thrown to the wind we all sometimes say and do what we later regret and for Cecily this may have been more of a shock than has hitherto been realised. One needs to examine this allegation with all the cool reasoning that one can muster. For a start, would the mother of a reigning king admit to such a perfidious act of adultery that would undermine her son's position, especially considering the difficulties that he had experienced before attaining it? Furthermore, what was to stop their enemies making allegations of further adultery, particularly Margaret of Anjou who had been accused of the same? And what did she actually say: 'Not a true son of York'? What did she mean by that? That he had not been fathered by her husband or that he had not done what her husband would have expected him to do or had completely failed him? Which? So what might have caused Cecily to completely lose her rag? For that we must go back a few years to something that may not have been fully appreciated, the Neville-Woodville feud and the ill-feelings that were abounding before Warwick's acts of piracy during his time in Calais. As the wife of the duke of York, Cecily was high in the pecking order but not as high as she would have wished. To her mind and no doubt to those of the Neville tribe she should have ranked as second lady in the land, but she didn't so who was number two after Queen Margaret? It's none other than Jacquette, wife of Earl Rivers, and it was a matter of protocol given Jacquette's previous marriage to John, duke of Bedford, eldest surviving brother of Henry V, father of Henry VI, the same Jacquette who was also related to Queen Margaret, with a sister who was married to Margaret's fraternal uncle. How that must have rankled with the pushy Nevilles who were hardly in a position to accuse the Woodvilles of the very sins they had already committed themselves. It was one act of piracy in particular that caused the fur to fly and that was against a fleet of Hanseatic ships heading for the Hanseatic centre, the port of Lübeck. Given the Hanseatic position at the time, which included the North Sea and the lucrative England-Burgundy trade which necessitated the use of the North Sea, one can perhaps guess what consternation that caused. It was enough for Henry VI to set up a commission of inquiry, and who was put in charge of that commission - none other than Sir Richard Wydeville who duly summoned Warwick, as he had every right to do, to his base in Rochester. By that time Warwick had another axe to grind, his predecessor in the role of captain of Calais, Wydeville, having refused to relinquish his command until the troops in Calais had been paid their much-in-arrears dues, but of course Warwick saw it in another light - this upstart inferior trying to rain on his parade - and chose to ignore it. From there it went from bad to worse once Queen Margaret had entered the fray, and at the subsequent council meeting Warwick again refused to oblige, with the meeting ending as a royal punch-up between members of the royal household and Warwick's retinue. Warwick only narrowly escaped being impaled on an angry cook's spit which he later claimed was an attempt on his life by the queen. It could be said with a certain truth that not all War of the Roses battles took place on the field. Not long after, the boot was on the other foot when Wydeville who had been appointed warden of the Cinque Ports and was charged with defending Kent against the Yorkist earls (Salisbury, Warwick and March) and his wife were 'captured' by them in Sandwich and subjected to an appalling torrent of abuse. If the seeds of enmity had not been sown already they were certainly sown then. So what has this to do with Cecily's fit of rage? Put yourself in her shoes. How would you have felt at the thought that both you and your much 'put-upon' nephew, who had been thoroughly humiliated by the revelation of this marriage, would have to bend the knee to the daughter of your bête noire? Or that the mother who had outranked you despite being married to a nobody was now back in royal favour and was also entitled to the same privileges and courtesies as yourself? That the family you so despised were now your in-laws? Or having to be in the company of people you would not wish to be seen dead with? Ouch! Last will and testament The final twist lies in the title Cecily used in her will: 'Cecill, wife unto the right noble prince Richard late Duke of Yorke, fader unto the most cristen prince my Lord and son King Edward'. Was this Cecily's way of making amends for her intemperate outburst? Or setting the record straight? We shall never know for certain, but what a to-do is made about the will as well as that intemperate outburst. Ricardians complain that there is also no mention of her son Richard or of her daughter Margaret, and that the will was so drawn up so as to keep Henry VII sweet. By that time Richard, who had left no legitimate issue, had been dead ten years and Margaret was threatening the established order - only a few months beforehand Sir William Stanley had been executed for treason for apparently throwing in his lot with her and Perkin Warbeck. It would, therefore, hardly have been a wise thing to make any mention of Margaret, but there could be a variety of reasons for the failure to mention Richard - does anybody actually know what she thought, how she felt towards him? Perhaps it's time this statement was looked at from the religious point of view. The church was still very much in control even though the rumblings of dissent had started and the dangers of hell fire and eternal damnation were served up on a daily basis. Cecily was known for her piety, so is it at all likely that at the last minute she would make so public a statement that might imperil her soul? Seen in that light could this have been her act of contrition for having said something that effectively tarnished the reputations both of her husband and her son? In conclusion given that we have no idea how long the period of gestation was, that an argument of forty weeks is fallacious to say the least, and taking into account all other factors, I put it to you that the case of Edward IV's illegitimacy is clearly not proven and, therefore, consequently fails. One final point. It has also been claimed that if Edward were illegitimate then his brother George, or rather his children, since George was dead before Edward, were the legitimate heirs but they weren't owing to the Act of Attainder which was passed on George of Clarence which barred his children and subsequent descendants from the throne. As far as I am aware that act has never been repealed. With this being the case, how could Richard III make any claim to the throne if his brother's children had not already been barred? Bibliography Barker, Juliet - Conquest, The English Kingdom of France 1417-1450 Baumgaertner, William E - Squires, Knights, Barons and Kings Baumgaertner, William E - War and Politics in 15th Century England Crawford, Anne - The Yorkists - History of a Dynasty Curry, Anne - The Hundred Years' War Higginbotham, Susan - The Woodvilles Licence, Amy - Cecily Neville, Mother of Kings Miller, Michael D - The War of the Roses, Chapter 34, French Military Successes 1440-43 Okerlund, Arlene - Elizabeth Woodville, The Slandered Queen Wagner, John H - Encyclopaedia of the Hundred Years' War Other Main Sources Richard III Society - Richard III - His family - The Duchess of York Channel 4 - Britain's Real Monarch Mick Baker - Richard III A Vindication (see link in sidebar) AboutCom - Women's History - Was Edward IV Illegitimate The History Onyx - Edward IV A Question of Legitimacy Serendipity/Peter Meyer - Britain's Real Monarch Vanora Bennett - Figures in Silk - Was King Edward IV Illegitimate?
William B.
