#Edward v

[isabelleneville]

KINGS & QUEENS REGNANT OF ENGLAND ACCORDING TO STARZ

Henry VI (1 September 1422 - 4 March 1461, 3 October 1470 - 11 April 1471 second reign) as portrayed by David Shelley in The White Queen Edward IV (4 March 1461 - 3 October 1470, 11 April 1471 - 9 April 1483 second reign) as portrayed by Max Irons in The White Queen Edward V (9 April 1483 - 25 June 1483) as portrayed by Sonny Ashbourne Serkis in The White Queen Richard III (26 June 1483 - 22 August 1485) as portrayed by Aneurin Barnard in The White Queen Henry VII ( 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509) as portrayed by Jacob Collins-Levy in The White Princess Henry VIII (22 April 1509 - 28 January 1547) as portrayed by Ruairi O'Connor in The Spanish Princess Edward VI (28 January 1547 - 6 July 1553) as portrayed by Oliver Zetterstrom in Becoming Elizabeth Jane Grey (10 July 1553 - 19 July 1553) as portrayed by Bella Ramsey in Becoming Elizabeth Mary I (19 July 1553 - 17 November 1558) as portrayed by Romola Garai in Becoming Elizabeth Elizabeth I (17 November 1558 - 24 March 1603) as portrayed by Alicia Von Rittberg in Becoming Elizabeth James I and VI of Scotland (24 March 1603 - 27 March 1625) as portrayed by Tony Curran in Mary & George Charles I (27 March 1625 - 30 January 1649) as portrayed by Samuel Blenkin in Mary & George

[gwydpolls]

Time Travel Question : Murder and Disappearance Edition I

Given that Judge Crater, Roanoke, and the Dyatlov Pass Incident are credibly solved, though not 100% provable, I'm leaving them out in favor of things ,ore mysterious. I almost left out Amelia Earhart, but the evidence there is sketchier.

Some people were a little confused. Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury are the Princes in the Tower.

[bunniesandbeheadings]

My take on what happened to the Princes in the Tower? They were the only true Christians and therefore were the only people taken in the Biblical Rapture.

[ladiesoftheages]

If Edward V gets to be counted as a legitimate monarch then so should Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey

[juanatrastamara]

the white queen 10 year anniversary: house lancaster vs house of york

[wonder-worker]

The magnitude of what [Richard III] did should not be played down. Edward V was not of an age to have caused personal political offence. He could not be accused of tyranny, like Richard II, or gross incompetence, like Henry VI. He had begun to reign, but he had not yet ruled. The usurpation of 1483 was of a fundamentally different order to those of 1399, 1461, or even 1485. Those, whether justifiable or not, were acts of the last resort. In 1483, uniquely, deposition was used as a weapon of first resort.

-A.J Pollard, Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

It is of course possible that Richard only advanced his own claim to the throne after he was informed by a deeply troubled Bishop Stillington that Edward V and his brother were illegitimate. It is possible, but highly implausible. The case finally put together concerning the bastardy of the princes, and enrolled in a parliamentary statute of January 1484, is theologically sound. It was that Edward IV had entered a pre-contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler before he had married Elizabeth Woodville and that this rendered his children by her illegitimate. Under canon law, had Edward IV entered a pre-contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler, all the children born of a later union, before or after Eleanor’s death, even if Elizabeth Woodville had been ignorant of the previous liaison, would have been illegitimate. In this respect the fact that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville had married clandestinely made matters worse. Moreover, it was perfectly acceptable in law to raise objection on these grounds several years after the event. The pre-contract story, in its final form, presented a strong legal case.

There are, however, several sound reasons for doubting its truth. While it is the case that parliament was a proper body to adjudicate on matters of inheritance that resulted from illegitimacy, in England in the later-fifteenth century an ecclesiastical court should have heard the original charge. And if it were true, why was it not put before such a court so as to remove all doubts? Moreover, even if it had been proved that Edward V and his brother were illegitimate, deposition was not the only course open to the protector. The stain of illegitimacy could have been removed by the ritual of coronation. Edward V, like Elizabeth I later, could have been declared legitimate and all doubts removed. Above all, the revelation of the princes’ bastardy was so timely and convenient as to leave little doubt in the minds of contemporaries that it was but the colour for an act of usurpation.

There is, too, a suspicious degree of confusion over the precise detail of the charge of illegitimacy as it was first advanced in June. Mancini’s account of the sermons and speeches hints at a change in the story. At first the charge appeared to be that Edward IV himself was a bastard; two days later it seems that the princes were. The first official government statement appears in a letter dated 28 June to the captain of Calais informing him that his oath of loyalty to Edward V was no longer valid. Many people, he was assured, had made similar oaths in ignorance of Richard III’s true title which had been shown and declared in a petition presented by the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons on 26 June, a copy of which was to be sent to Calais for publication. Unfortunately that copy has not survived. The earliest surviving version is, therefore, that transcribed as part of the parliamentary act settling the throne on Richard. This purports to reproduce that petition verbatim, but doubts have been cast on its veracity. It is possible that the final, official version, had been subsequently amended. Even so, there is no reason to doubt that the substance of the original petition of 26 June was the same as that reproduced in January: namely that ‘all the issue of the said King Edward been bastards’

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Richard III usurped the throne in June 1483. Perhaps in retrospect what happened appears more controlled and more deliberate than was in fact the case. We tend to favour a conspiratorial view of the past, where often a ‘cock-up’ theory might be more applicable. Did Richard III mastermind a brilliantly conceived and skilfully executed coup d’état? Or did it all happen in confusion, ignorance and fear? Richard might well have had a plan to take the throne by one means, but found that he had to change it as events developed.

... We should not assume that the usurpation was conducted according to a timetable; but there are nevertheless several observations that can be made with some certainty. The first is that Richard took and never surrendered the initiative. It is hard to sustain the idea that he was forced into usurpation by circumstances or by his rivals’ actions. He did not need to seize Rivers and his companions at Stony Stratford; he did not need to execute Hastings on 13 June. On both these occasions experienced politicians walked unsuspectingly into a trap. None of Richard’s victims in the summer of 1483 anticipated the fate awaiting them. In modern jargon, Richard was proactive, not reactive. The second observation is that Richard acted with unprecedented ruthlessness. His enemies were executed without trial. They were not in arms against their sovereign; they were not taken after battle and slain even under the colour of the law of arms. There was no pretence of lawful process. They were murdered in cold blood. The third observation is that Richard faced little opposition. Potential opposition was removed by pre-emptive strikes. The fourth observation is that he deposed a boy of twelve, his nephew, who on his own insistence had been placed in his trust.

[jezabelofthenorth]

Mancini, who left England around the time of Richard’s coronation, tells of men bursting into tears when Prince Edward was mentioned: ‘already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with.’6 If this was indeed the case – and it has, of course, been furiously disputed – it marked a departure from earlier precedent in that there was no funeral to confirm the fact of their death; but it is not difficult to imagine why that might have been. The funeral of two children would have been, to put it in modern terms, a public relations disaster. There is at least no doubt that contemporaries thought that they were dead, and acted accordingly. It is inconceivable that the predominantly Yorkist rebels against Richard III would have backed Henry Tudor, in most people’s eyes an exiled nonentity with no claim to the throne, as their candidate for king if they had thought that Edward’s sons were still available.

Richard III: A Failed King?, Rosemary Horrox

[buffyfan145]

Looks like Philippa Langley might've done it again as she's written a new book about new evidence she and other historians have found that Edward V and Prince Richard of York actually escaped and were never murdered. Her book is out now in the UK and this is one of the many articles coming out ahead of the documentary that's getting ready to air in the UK this weekend and here in the US on PBS the 22nd, and from what I'm reading these new pieces of evidence does seem to point to the boys actually making it to Europe and that both those pretenders actually were them. One of new evidence found in the Netherlands is a written confession supposedly by Richard of York in Rome detailing how he and his brother escaped. The new evidence is coming from both Italy and France and has been authenticated to the correct time period during Henry VII's reign.

They're saying the new evidence has already changed some minds about this and I'll judge for myself when I watch the doc next week (as either the book doesn't have a US release date yet or my library isn't getting it) but Philippa already was able to find Richard III's remains and get him reburied, and this has been a long thing to clear up just like they did with proving that Shakespeare and others made him more monstrous than he was. My belief was that Richard III might've ordered the princes deaths (as that was common with monarchs and who they deem as threats to the throne) and then regretted it, but maybe so many of us have been wrong this whole time. Again this proves why the whole Wars of the Roses is one of my favorite historical time periods and things are still playing out.

[historicconfessions]

[poetessinthepit]

Me on a date: what do you think happened to the princes in the tower after the summer of 1483?

[wishesofeternity]

"The queen’s (Elizabeth of York's) greatest generosity went to her family and those connected even peripherally with family—expenditures revealing the importance of personal ties to this queen who had lost so many loved ones to wars, executions, and natural death. One poignant expense in her Privy Purse is tiny: 3½ yards of cloth to “a woman that was nurse to the Prince, brother to the Queen’s grace.” Nineteen years after the young prince disappeared, his older sister remembered the nurse who took care of him. Similarly, she regularly sent alms to “a poor man” who was a former servant of Edward IV. ... Perhaps Queen Elizabeth was a soft touch. On December 9, 1502, she gave 12d to a “man of Pontefract” who claimed that he had lodged in his home the queen’s uncle Anthony Wydeville, earl Rivers, during the year of his execution—19 years earlier in 1483!"

Arlene Okerlund, "Elizabeth of York: Queenship and Power" / Joanna Laynesmith, "The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503"

"Elizabeth Darcy, the lady mistress of the nursery for Elizabeth Woodville's children, was appointed to the same post for Elizabeth of York's children, probably as a result of the younger queen's childhood affection for Darcy."

[elizabethan-memes]

So an accountant writes in his account book that the pikes are for putting a son of Edward IV on the throne and that's proof?

How the fuck does a random French accountant know whether or not the kid's an imposter? He's gonna believe the party line. The people checking his work are going to correct what isn't in the party line. Maximilian and Margaret aren't going to tell him "btw the kid is a fake". Has he ever seen the real boys? Has he even laid eyes on the claimant?

[richmond-rex]

Hi! I'm trying to read up on the York princesses' early lives and I can find frustratingly few details on the same. I was specifically curious about their various childhood betrothals that ultimately never came into fruition due to the death of their father, but I can barely find anything online beyond the bare basics (essentially: the names of the people they were betrothed to). I was wondering of any specific details of all their individual betrothals survived, and if they changed across the years of their father's reign?

And in Bridget of York's case - since she's more elusive to find than her sisters - was she destined for a church path since birth? I've seen some sites claim that her grandmother Cecily Neville named her with no actual evidence beyond her piety, but I always assumed it was her parents who was more likely to have done so? Both Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV were connected to St. Bridget and Elizabeth was also very pious.

You know a lot about this era so I hope it's okay to ask, sorry if the question seems out of the blue!

Hello! Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had to sit down and look up some things because the story of the betrothal of Edward IV's daughters is quite murky. I will talk about the betrothals that were done during Edward IV's reign because after that it's another thing entirely.

Let's talk about Bridget first. Was she destined for a church path since birth? There's no way of actually knowing this, but it's entirely possible she was. On a practical level, as the king's fifth surviving daughter, a competitive dowry to be used in a foreign marriage alliance would be hard to achieve (more about Edward IV and dowries in a second). More concrete evidence though does come from her name. I haven't found many noblewomen named Bridget in late medieval England but the one I did find, Bridget Holland (daughter of Thomas Holland 2nd Earl of Kent, Richard II's half-brother), indeed became a nun. Like Bridget of York, she seems to have been the youngest of 5-6 sisters.

Saint Bridget of Sweden was a very popular saint in England and she was especially revered by the English royal family (who since Henry V's time were patrons of a Bridgettine monastery at Sheen, Syon Abbey). Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort would go on to commission the printing of a list of prayers popularly thought to have been written by St Bridget. For the Yorkists, however, St Bridget held particular importance because one of her prophecies had been used to justify Edward IV's right to rule. Cecily Neville in particular owned a copy of St Bridget's revelations which she later bequeathed to her granddaughter Anne de la Pole who not only also became a nun, but rose to the highest rank of prioress at Syon.

Cecily Neville was Bridget of York's godmother. Traditionally, godparents were the ones to name ('christen') the child at their baptism. Of course, most time the parents had their input too before the child was brought to the baptismal font. Elizabeth Woodville was also devoted to St Bridget. Interestingly, Cecily left her religious books to the two granddaughters who became nuns: Anne de la Pole, which I commented on above, and Bridget. Bridget received Cecily's Legenda Aurea (a collection of saints' lives), a book about St Katherine and another one about St Matilde.

To me, it seems entirely possible that Cecily Neville might have planned Bridget's career as a nun from the very beginning. It's quite likely that Edward IV and his wife Elizabeth vouched for the idea too, considering how important St Bridget's prophecy had been for Edward's legitimisation as king, they might have made a promise/vow to dedicate one of their children's lives to the Church as many catholic people still do today. I've seen the speculation that Bridget was sickly/had some kind of impairment from birth that would make her less desirable in the marriage market but I don't think we need that as a reason for her going into a convent.

Now going into the other princesses. We already know about Elizabeth of York, right? First, she was betrothed to Warwick's nephew and heir, George Neville, as a way to appease him in 1469. Then she was offered to Prince Edward of Lancaster but Margaret of Anjou went on to choose Anne Neville which was probably for the best, as Edward IV's suggestion, at a time when Edward V was about to be born, was probably just a ruse. Elizabeth's hand was also used as bait to bring back Henry Tudor to England in 1476. And again, it most certainly was a ruse as by that time she had just recently been betrothed to the Dauphin of France. She would be known as Madame la Dauphine until France called off the betrothal in late 1482.

Mary of York occupied 'the rather unfortunate position' as Ross describes it, of being her sister's replacement in the marriage alliance with France in case Elizabeth of York died before the wedding took place. It would not be until 1481, by then a time when many doubted the French marriage would even go through, that Mary was betrothed to King Frederick I of Denmark. She would die the next year in 1482.

Anne of York was first suggested to marry Philip, the future Duke of Burgundy, in 1480 as a part of a tentative Anglo-Burgundian alliance against France that Burgundy desperately wanted but that Edward IV only toyed with to pressure France into honouring their marriage alliance and wed Elizabeth of York and the Dauphin Charles. In the words of Charles Ross, Edward IV's biographer:

Edward quite ruthlessly exploited the duke’s desperate need of English support to get Anne’s marriage on the cheap. Maximilian had wanted a dowry of 200,000 crowns with Anne; Edward, on the other hand, regarded paying no dowry as part of the price of signing an alliance with Burgundy. When Maximilian argued that it was quite unreasonable for the bride of one of the wealthiest heirs in Europe to have no dowry at all, he still had small success in persuading her father to release the purse-strings. The original marriage treaty, signed on 5 August 1480, was modified by supplementary agreements on 14 and 21 August, which effectively released Edward from paying any dowry on condition of releasing to the duke the first year’s instalment of the pension of 50,000 crowns which he was demanding from Burgundy.

Here we must remember that Edward IV wanted to marry Elizabeth of York without paying any dowry at all. On the contrary, France was to pay for Elizabeth's upkeeping until she was married to the Dauphin. Edward IV, whilst dealing with Brittany to marry his son Edward to Anne of Brittany, heiress to her father's duchy, established that if the Duke of Brittany had a son before their children married, one of his daughters was to marry the duke's new son, and that Brittany—not him—were to provide his daughter's dowry. Ross cites a Breton scholar that snarkily remarked that ‘to marry his daughters without dowries was the objective which this miser [Edward IV] set before himself in the last years of his life’. Harsh.

However, Edward IV did agree to pay Cecily's dowry! Although admittedly it was much cheaper (20,000 crowns) than Edward IV himself was asking for Anne of Brittany's hand in marriage to his son (100,000 crowns as the heiress of Brittany, 200,000 in case her father had a son). Cecily of York was first betrothed to James III's heir, the future James IV, in 1473 as part of a truce between England and Scotland that allowed Edward IV to go to war against France in 1475. The truce with Scotland fell through by 1480 and by 1481 Edward IV was committed to a war against James. The next year Edward was willing to back James III's brother Alexander against him, with the condition that Alexander was to marry Cecily ‘if the said Alexander can make hymself clere fro all other Women, according to the Lawes of Christian Chyrche’.

Alexander backed down after the English invasion of Scotland, and James III once again suggested Cecily marry his son and heir as part of the peace terms but Edward IV called off the betrothal for good later that year and demanded the repayment of the dowry portion he had already paid to Scotland. It seems Edward had decided to renew the war against Scotland by that time (November 1482) and back Alexander as king again. Amazingly, Alexander would go on to make peace with his brother yet again in early 1483. So by the time Edward IV died, Cecily's betrothal to Scotland's heir was cancelled for good. Richard III would wed her to Ralph Scrope, Baron Scrope's second son and a man that was part of Richard III's northern affinity.

I haven't found anything about Katherine of York's betrothal during her father's reign. She was probably too young, being born in 1479. EDIT: There was a plan for Katherine to marry Isabella of Castille's heir Juan as proposed in 1482. See reblog in the notes.

And that's it! Basically, Louis XI's peace treaty with Burgundy in December 1482 frustrated at least two of Edward IV's marriage plans. The Dauphin of France would marry Margaret of Austria (Mary of Burgundy's daughter) instead of Elizabeth of York. On the other hand, Burgundy, no longer in need of Edward IV's help, was under no obligation to go through with the marriage of Anne of York and the young Philip of Burgundy. Edward IV's falling out with Scotland also meant Cecily's betrothal was called out.

By the time Edward IV died the only betrothal that was likely to go through was Prince Edward's with Anne of Brittany, so whenever I see people saying that if it wasn't for Edward's death Elizabeth of York would be queen of France, Cecily queen of Scotland, Anne duchess of Burgundy etc I can only assume the person saying that doesn't know much about the upheavals of the 1480s — or Edward IV's own disinclination to pay dowries for the marriages of his daughters.

I hope this answer was of some help, and once again, sorry for taking so long to reply.

[bunniesandbeheadings]

The man in the iron mask was one of the princes in the tower

[medieval-enquirer]

[juanatrastamara]

the white queen 10 year anniverary: favourite episode - episode eight, long live the k i n g