 |
 |
Reply
 | (1 recommendation so far) | Message 1 of 11 in Discussion |
|
Begats Time!!! LOL When recounting the apocryphal meeting between Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward IV beneath the oak tree near the Woodville family manor that led to their clandestine wedding in May 1464, history books almost invariably concentrate on her status as a commoner. She was indeed the daughter of a minor noble, Sir Richard Woodville, only recently created Lord Rivers, and she was the widow of a knight, Sir John Grey, heir to Lord and Lady Ferrers de Groby, who had been killed several years earlier at the Battle of St Albans. She had two sons, the eldest already 14, so she was several years older than Edward, though all agree she was a very beautiful woman. The implication, certainly shared by many contemporaries, is that she was a wholly unsuitable bride for a Plantagenet prince, a parvenu and upstart, who somehow entrapped Edward through her feminine wiles. In fact, however, she had seriously blue blood flowing in her veins and had important dynastic links with the royal family itself. She was far from an ordinary knight's daughter, a most uncommon commoner. Fully to appreciate Elizabeth's ancestry it is necessary to go back in time & check out the begats. Henry VI's Protector, John Beaufort, Duke of Bedford, at the age of 33 took a bride, Anne of Burgundy, but she died in childbirth in 1432, leaving John without heirs. He needed another wife and his choice fell on the 17-year-old Jacquetta de Luxembourg, daughter of Pierre I, Count of St Pol. They were married at Therouenne in France only five months after his first wife's death. However, in September 1435 John himself died leaving Jacquetta a widow still in her teens. She found herself in the same position as Katherine of Valois, still young, independently wealthy, a member of the royal family by marriage, but in her case without even a child to look after, and she chose to follow the precedent set by her royal sister-in-law to marry, it would seem, for love. In emulation of Katherine’s secret affair with Owen Tudor, Jacquetta settled on a dashing young knight far beneath her social status, Sir Richard Woodville (or Wydevill), the son of her late husband's chamberlain. They married only 18 months after the Duke's death. The scandal over the marriage was almost as great as that of Katherine of France and Owen Tudor. The young couple had to pay the immense fine, for the times, of £1,000, for pardon for marrying without the King's licence.....Jacquetta must have been truly a fabulously wealthy widow. The couple were soon accepted at Court, however. Sir Richard and Lady Jacquetta were members of the party sent to escort Margaret of Anjou to England to marry Henry VI in 1444, and in 1448 Richard was created Baron Rivers. He became a Privy Counsellor, a Knight of the Garter, Seneschal of Aquitaine and a leading support of the House of Lancaster in the Wars of the Roses. Lord and Lady Rivers had at least 10 children; Elizabeth Woodville was their eldest daughter. So when Edward IV encountered Elizabeth on that fateful day in 1464, he met the cousin of King Henry VI's erstwhile aunt and it is very probable that he already knew her; he would certainly have known of her. And what of Jacquetta's and therefore Elizabeth's ancestry? Jacquetta's father, Pierre of Luxembourg, Count of St Pol, was a representative of the illustrious House of Luxembourg, very important players in medieval Europe. The family first came to major prominence when Henry of Luxembourg was elected Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor, in 1308. When Jacquetta and the Duke of Bedford married, Henry's great-grandson Sigismund of Luxembourg was not only the reigning Holy Roman Emperor (the last before the accession of the House of Hapsburg to that office), but also King of Bohemia and King of Hungary. The marriage would thus have been seen as an alliance with the imperial house itself. Pierre had inherited the County of St Pol from the important French family of de Chatillon and through them could trace his descent from the Dukes of Brittany and Louis VI of France (1108-1137), from Henry III of England (1216-1272) from the great Hohenstaufen Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-1190) and even from Isaac II Angelus, Emperor of Byzantium (1185-1195 and 1203-1204). Pierre de Luxembourg's wife, Jacquetta's mother, was an Italian princess, Marguerite del Balzo (or des Baux) daughter of Francesco, Duke of Andria (in Apulia) Marguerite's grandfather Nicolo des Ursins (or Orsini), Count of Nola, was himself the great-grandson of Guy de Montfort, Count of Nola, the only surviving son and heir of the great Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester (the founding father of the English Parliament) and his wife Eleanor, daughter of King John of England. After the Battle of Evesham in which his father was killed Guy fled to Italy and was there granted the County of Nola. The des Ursins themselves were descended from Gentile Orsini, brother of Pope Nicholas III (1272-1280). Marguerite could also trace her ancestry to Adenalfo d'Aquino, the brother of the great philosopher and theologian St Thomas Aquinas, who lived 1225-74 and who had been canonised in 1323. So through her mother, Elizabeth Woodville was very much of royal blood and, in the days when dynastic links were important, Edward would certainly have been well aware of this. Elizabeth Woodville was technically a commoner but of seriously illustrious ancestry and a close relative, by marriage at least, of the Lancastrian royal family. It is perhaps ironic that Katherine of France and her Owen's grandson, Henry Tudor, was to marry Jacquetta of Luxembourg and her Richard's granddaughter, Elizabeth of York. These two were the progenitors not only of the Tudor dynasty but also of all subsequent monarchs of England and Great Britain. Incidentally the elder of Elizabeth's two sons by her first marriage, Thomas Grey, was created Marquis of Dorset in 1475. His grandson, Henry Grey, became Duke of Suffolk and married the niece of Henry VIII (himself, of course, a grandson of Elizabeth Woodville), Frances Brandon. Their eldest daughter was the ill-fated nine days queen, Lady Jane Grey. |
|
First
Previous
2-11 of 11
Next
Last
|
Reply
 | |
No matter how "empassioned" any of the Kings were with "certain" women, none ever married one who was truely "common". The term "commoner" is much misunderstood. Even the dictionary will give the definition of: Quick definitions (commoner) noun: a person who holds no title This is not so. Princess Diana was considered a "commoner" but she held the title of "Lady" before she married Chuckles. But to not be considered a commoner one must hold a "lofty" title, such as, King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Duke, Duchess, Earl, etc. however, there is a distrinction between "commoner" and those of the "common populous" as well. While several Kingsmarried "commoners", NONE married of the "common populous". |
|
Reply
 | | From: jkcelt | Sent: 6/9/2003 5:58 AM |
What about Edward's supposed "bethrothal" to . . . um . . . um . . you know - what's her name. Last name's something with a B. It'll come to me later when I'm not near my computer. Anyway, the supposed arrangement that made the Woodville marriage unlawful, therefore their children bastards, etc.? Elizabeth W. does seem awfully scheming to me, but there's nothing new in that, just like there's nothing new in a man/king falling for a woman's wiles.l And I understand that Edward was not above a few tricks himself to get what he wanted. |
|
Reply
 | |
Eleanor Butler, who had died by the time Titilus Regius was passed & could not confirm or deny the rumors one way or the other. It's possible Richard III made that whole thing up to have a legitimate reason to seize control of the throne from the child king.....the last thing England needed was another child king after the debacle of Henry VI.....but with Edward being such a ladies' man, & incidentally with his marriage not mattering much until he actually came to the throne, it's also a plausible scenario.....a little Paradise by the Dashboard Light for the Middle Ages ROFL |
|
Reply
 | |
But I always thought that Bishop Stillington and George of Clarence found out about the Eleanor Butler story. George got on to the secret, and that's the final straw that pushed Edward into bringing him up on charges of treason. Is this merely the unsubstantiated remnants of a Sharon K. Penman novel floating thru my brain? I never thought of R3 making up this story in order to bastardize his brother's children. Puzzling it over, terri*lee |
|
Reply
 | | From: jkcelt | Sent: 6/10/2003 4:22 PM |
Well, Clarence and Stillington were conveniently dead, though, and I thought that Clarence's knowledge was one of the main reasons the Woodvilles pushed for his execution, too, so it must not be a novel.
I am no fan of the Woodville clan, and Elizabeth may be technically a "commoner," but she certainly had the political acumen to "hang with the big boys." She begat kings, founded dynasties, and jumped right in the middle of all sorts of intrigues. Truely a medieval force to be reckoned with. |
|
Reply
 | |
Vaguely remember something about Cicely Neville going down on her knees to Edward IV pleading for Clarence's miserable life.....what a trauma for mom to have one son authorize the death of another! I always wondered why Edward just didn't keep Clarence under lock & key, but figured that maybe he envisioned his brother as a threat to his own son's throne should Clarence live to see Edward V reign. Clarence was neither the sharpest tool in the Plantagenet shed, nor was he to be trusted. But now ya got me thinkin......wonder if George was out a-wenching with his brother when the alleged marriage to Eleanor Butler took place or something? Hmmm.... ROFLMAO at Paradise by the Dashboard Light for the Middle Ages!!! |
|
Reply
 | |
I doubt that Clarence would have been Edward's choice for boy's night out! Edward was probably closer to Edmund, Earl of Rutland, his junior by only 1 year. I often wonder, if Edmund had not been murdered by Clifford at Wakefield Bridge, if he would have been as much of a help to Edward as Richard was. George was some 7 years younger than Edward, practically a generation back then; when he was 10, Edward was 17 and leading his own army. George was with Richard, in his mother's care up until the time Edward was crowned in London. I suspect Edward's affair with Eleanor Butler took place before then. After that, he was under a great deal more scrutiny....although he did manage to wed Elizabeth Grey without anyone knowing!! |
|
Reply
 | |
You tend to think of them as being closer in age for some reason! Cicely Neville had what, a gazillion children? LOL Age definitely a barrier to a-wenching in George's case. Another idea.....George drank to excess. If he DID have any knowledge, he was a weak link that had to be severed. But as Terrilee has pointed out, it's unlikely, given the age difference, that Edward confided in George to such a degree. Methinks George was just a loose cannon who had proved time & time again that he was only out for his own self-interests & could not be trusted. Nowadays we tend to think, when reading about a royal fratricide, oh, that's terrible, how could he kill his own brother? But back in those days, especially with the age difference between Cicely's 2 elder sons, Edmund & Edward, & the younger, Richard & George, it's highly unlikely they had much congress until they were adults. Young noblemen were often fostered out to other noble households; royal princes such as Edward's sons generally maintained their own households. York's long struggle for the throne probably meant Edward was a virtual stranger to his younger siblings by the time he achieved his father's ambition & became king. And being a Ricardian LOL, allow me to point out that Richard was able to successfully establish a trustworthy relationship with Edward despite the age difference & growing up apart, while Clarence couldn't manage that. Speaks volumes to me on Richard's character! |
|
Reply
 | |
The revival of this thread has sparked a few thoughts.... Drunkeness was the least of George's weak points with his history of treasonous activities and double-dealing. He seemed to really go off the deep end with his young wife tragically died. Then, his sister, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy, offered to marry him to her step-daughter, the heiress of Burgundy. It would have made Edward IV shudder to think of George as Duke of Burgundy, with the power to make treaties with the French and the ability to raise an army of his own. For sure, Louis of France would have backed George in an effort to overthrow Edward. Edward seemed willing to give people second chances, and I think little brother George just ran out of second chances. And Cecily Neville was known as "Proud Cis". Can't imagine her kneeling to anyone, most of all one of her children! After George's death, she went into a nunnery and outlived all her children, I believe. Thinking also about Greensleeve's comments about the younger York boys not knowing Edward that well until he became king....George reacted by becoming obssively jealous of the crown, Richard responded by hero-worshiping his big brother. Even though Richard was fostered out to Warwick, and normally would have thought of him a a father-figure, when it came down to choosing sides, he unequivocally chose his brother Edward.  |
|
Reply
 | |
The connection between Georgie and Bishop Stillington, I believe, is that Bishop Stillington was placed under Georgie's care for several months for reasons which now escape me, which may well account for Georgie knowing about Edward & Eleanor Butler. If the story were indeed true, Edward might certainly suspect that little brother might have learned of it from the Bishop during that period. |
|
First
Previous
2-11 of 11
Next
Last
|
|