 |
Reply
| | | From: Lady Helen (Original Message) | Sent: 6/13/2005 11:47 PM |
Was there any truth to the rumor that Edward IV was not Richard Duke of Yorks son because of a affair his mother was alledgedly supposed to have had?? Was this use against Edward's sone Edward V when he was passed over for Richard III |
|
 First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
Reply
| | From:  MarkGB5 | Sent: 6/14/2005 7:02 PM |
There were rumours at the time that Edward IV was the son of Cecily, Duchess of York and an unnamed French archer. A TV programme recently "proved" it by showing that at the time of Edward's conception Cecily and Richard, Duke of York had been apart for several weeks and were so for a few weeks after. The claim that the boy-King Edward V was illegitimate had nothing to do with his father's parentage. It was to do with Edward IV's supposed pre-contract with another woman before he married Elizabeth Woodville. |
|
Reply
| |
Thanks. But I wondered if Edward IV's alledgedly being illegitimate would effect the nobilities support of his son Edward V for the throne and prefer his uncle Richard III. After all Edward IV came to the throne because he was the eldest son of the late Duke of York - if Edward IV was illegatimate and shouldn't have been king then obviously his son shouldn't either???? Whereas on the other hand Richard III was undisputedly??? the son of the late Duke of York. |
|
Reply
| |
I thought that story of Edward being illegitimate didn't come to be until after his death, and was started by Richard's supporters. Judy | | | |
|
Reply
| |
I'm with Judy on this....allegedly I think More (who was still in nappies at the time LOL) said something to that effect in his unfinished history of Richard III. But when Edward's precontract came to light, Richard was staying at Baynard's Castle with his poor old widowed mum, so I highly doubt he was standing out at St Paul's Cross branding her as a strumpet! |
|
Reply
| |
Quotes from a website: "In Titulus Regius (the text of which is believed to come word-for-word from the petition presented by Buckingham to the assembly which met on June 25, 1483, to decide on the future of the monarchy). It describes Edward's brother Richard III as "the undoubted son and heir" of Richard, 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. Dominic Mancini says that Cecily Neville, King Edward's and King Richard's mother, was herself the basis for the story: When she found out about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, in 1464, "Proud Cis" flew into a rage. One of the things she is reported to have then said was that she was of a good mind to declare he was illegitimate and so have him kicked off the throne for his foolishness." I would be interested to find out if those phrases "undoubted son and heir" and so on were rather standard paragraphs in these types of documents. What we would today call 'legalese'. I also read that the Earl of Warwick spread this bit of gossip in 1469, and Clarence repeated it before his death in 1478. Altogether, not impartial sources. I'll leave aside the quotes from Shakespeare's Richard III, as it is to be considered entertainment, not history! teri*lee |
|
Reply
| |
For those of us in the States, who didn't get a chance to see the tv program 'proving' Edward IV's illegetimacy, I surfed the Net to find the proof given in this program. It said that the Richard, Duke of York was several days' march away from Rouen, on a campaign from July 14 to August 21, 1441. By counting backwards from E4's birthdate, April 28, 1442, it was determined that he was conceived the first week of August, 1441. But there were no claims at tht time that the newborn was sickly, or had the appearance of being born too soon. Speaking only from personal experience, my son was large (9 lbs) at birth, even though he was 2 weeks early. I wasn't given any impression from my doctor that was unusual for a baby who was a bit early to be so big. I was only grateful that he didn't go full term & get even bigger before being born!!!  It seems that several assumptions are being made here. First of all, Richard of York was lieutenant-general of France, and could have possibly not have been at Pontoise at all during that time, but sent a force under someone else's leadership. Also, even though the army had to march several days to reach that area, he could have easily traveled back to see his wife with a small guard on horseback in a much shorter time. Not to mention Cicely Neville's great reputation for piety. Was she really so base as to have a one-night stand, or a longer affair with an archer when her husband was away for only 6 weeks? As for Edward's eventual great height, he was a triple descendant of Edward I and III, both tall men. Both of Richard of York's parents were descendants, as was Cicely's mother. (How about them begats??!!) JHMO, terri*lee |
|
|
First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to The Plantagenets
