Possible wives for Edward IV

[el t]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Instead of marrying Henry Stafford, Margaret Beaufort could marry Edward IV as her third husband in 1461/2. She was still young, had proven her fertility by producing a legitimate son, and provided a means of reconciling the Yorkists with the Lancastrian élite, not least Jasper Tudor and the remaining Beauforts. A Papal dispensation would be necessary but most likely forthcoming.

Young Henry Tudor would be rehabilitated as Earl of Richmond and most likely marry one of the Yorkist girls - maybe Margaret of Clarence or Elizabeth de la Pole.

A marriage to Margaret Beaufort would not be very prestigious for a king of England. Besides, Margaret did not have any more children after having had Henry. This may have been due to her age, as she was only 13 when she gave birth to him.

[isabella]

As I said, ironically, Elizabeth herself would be the perfect match for him, if only she was born from the first marriage of her mother and not from the second (being daughter of the Duke of Bedford she would be a princess of England from the Lancaster family and also second in their line of succession after the King Henry IV and Edward of Westminster and most likely also Duchess of Bedford in her own right) and neither her mother of her half-brothers would be a problem in that case. Nobody, specially if Edward of Westminster died as OTL without heirs would contest the legitimacy of Elizabeth marriage and children (because in that case Elizabeth herself and not Margaret Beaufoort would be the Lancasterian heiress and a heiress of indisputable legitimacy).

Elizabeth Woodwille had the same problem of Anne Boleyn (both had enough royal blood for being a not so bad choice for the king but was all from their mother side and their fathers was not of high birth)

[Velasco]

Originally Posted by el t

A marriage to Margaret Beaufort would not be very prestigious for a king of England. Besides, Margaret did not have any more children after having had Henry. This may have been due to her age, as she was only 13 when she gave birth to him.

Margaret Beaufort was a male-line member of the royal house. At 18 with a five year old son I doubt anyone would seriously consider her barren. It would be a great way for Edward to consolidate his rule.

[CP11]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

In his shoes, does it really make more sense than Edward would pretend to be unmarried (and thus a legitimate target for pestering to get married and sire legitimate heirs) or for him to not be married?

Because the king's marriage is a big deal, and that's ignoring any political alliances. Edward should be married, what purpose does hiding it serve? It won't stop him from siring bastards to admit he's married.

I think to Edward these 'marriages' could be easily discarded if and when it was convenient. He was the King so its unlikely anyone of importance would support a Woodville or Talbot claim to be Queen if the King denied it. He didn't want to marry these girls but they resisted his initial advances and proposing marriage was a means to an ends. As I said before, IMOI think Edward would have disposed of Elizabeth in time but Warwick's pressure caused Edward to 'rebel' against Warwick's advice.

Originally Posted by Velasco

It would be a great way for Edward to consolidate his rule.

In hindsight I agree this would be a smart move for the Yorkists, but at the time I just don't see the young Edward considering a Beaufort for his queen. And even if he did marry Margaret I don't think it would weaken the Lancastrians that much. I still think Jasper Tudor will be loyal to his half brother over his sister in law as will the Dukes of Somerset.

[el t]

Originally Posted by Velasco

Margaret Beaufort was a male-line member of the royal house. At 18 with a five year old son I doubt anyone would seriously consider her barren. It would be a great way for Edward to consolidate his rule.

True. But I still can't see them married. Considering Edward's reputation with women, and Margaret is definitely no beauty. Then when it becomes increasingly obvious that she will never bear a child..

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by CP11

I think to Edward these 'marriages' could be easily discarded if and when it was convenient. He was the King so its unlikely anyone of importance would support a Woodville or Talbot claim to be Queen if the King denied it. He didn't want to marry these girls but they resisted his initial advances and proposing marriage was a means to an ends. As I said before, IMOI think Edward would have disposed of Elizabeth in time but Warwick's pressure caused Edward to 'rebel' against Warwick's advice.

So Edward, who needs to marry to secure the dynasty's future (or leave it in the hands of his brothers - not an appealing thought and I say this as someone who thinks Gloucester would have been a good king despite not being a Ricardian), is going to marry solely for a quick fuck and then act as if he's unmarried in the area that it matters, because . .

. . .why? Seriously, why would a responsible king - and Edward IV generally was one - do that? At best, it means more pestering from Warwick and others who have an interest in him marrying as they desire, which would be far more annoying than admitting to being married to the daughter of Shrewsbury. It makes it clear he's married a woman of his choice, not Warwick's, it gives him a legitimate wife to have legitimate heirs from (which is important, I cannot overstate this), and limits him in no way whatsoever from continuing to screw any woman who would let him.

If Edward wants to "rebel" against Warwick's advice, Talbot is a better choice than Woodville.

So tell me.

[CP11]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

So Edward, who needs to marry to secure the dynasty's future (or leave it in the hands of his brothers - not an appealing thought and I say this as someone who thinks Gloucester would have been a good king despite not being a Ricardian), is going to marry solely for a quick fuck and then act as if he's unmarried in the area that it matters, because . .

. . .why? Seriously, why would a responsible king - and Edward IV generally was one - do that? At best, it means more pestering from Warwick and others who have an interest in him marrying as they desire, which would be far more annoying than admitting to being married to the daughter of Shrewsbury. It makes it clear he's married a woman of his choice, not Warwick's, it gives him a legitimate wife to have legitimate heirs from (which is important, I cannot overstate this), and limits him in no way whatsoever from continuing to screw any woman who would let him.

If Edward wants to "rebel" against Warwick's advice, Talbot is a better choice than Woodville.

So tell me.

I agree he needs to marry and father heirs (I truly understand the importance of this and can see your point) but to me it has always seemed as if Edward would eventually accept his foreign bride but in the meantime he used the thought of marriage to entice the likes of Elizabeth Woodville, who were resistant to his initial advances. I do believe he came to love Elizabeth but I don't think he thought when he met her that she would be his queen. According to Ashdown-Hall's book on Eleanor the relationship between Edward and her would have started around 1461, at a time when Edward had no reason to rebel against his cousin Warwick who had not yet become the overbearing subject he would become, so thats why Woodville was 'chosen' instead of Eleanor who had long been out of the picture. At 19 and having just won the throne and scattered the opposition I think its possible Edward may have thought he had time in the future to secure the dynasty and in the meantime set out to enjoy being king.

Edward certainly wasn't above lying to get what he wanted as he proved when he returned from temporary exile claiming only his duchy in order to gain support from the city of York.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by CP11

I agree he needs to marry and father heirs (I truly understand the importance of this and can see your point) but to me it has always seemed as if Edward would eventually accept his foreign bride but in the meantime he used the thought of marriage to entice the likes of Elizabeth Woodville, who were resistant to his initial advances. I do believe he came to love Elizabeth but I don't think he thought when he met her that she would be his queen. According to Ashdown-Hall's book on Eleanor the relationship between Edward and her would have started around 1461, at a time when Edward had no reason to rebel against his cousin Warwick who had not yet become the overbearing subject he would become, so thats why Woodville was 'chosen' instead of Eleanor who had long been out of the picture. At 19 and having just won the throne and scattered the opposition I think its possible Edward may have thought he had time in the future to secure the dynasty and in the meantime set out to enjoy being king.

Edward certainly wasn't above lying to get what he wanted as he proved when he returned from temporary exile claiming only his duchy in order to gain support from the city of York.

Yeah, but there's a difference between lying to get what you want in something consequence free (essentially), and actually going through marriage - and then pretending that's not the case.

I just don't see why he would want to do that, especially when it would mean his "real" marriage has issues if anyone finds out.

[Simreeve]

It would have been a bit awkward for Edward to admit to the Talbot marriage after making the Woodville one...

[CP11]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Yeah, but there's a difference between lying to get what you want in something consequence free (essentially), and actually going through marriage - and then pretending that's not the case.

I just don't see why he would want to do that, especially when it would mean his "real" marriage has issues if anyone finds out.

I totally agree, all I would say is that if he got away with it the first time (putting the first time down to youth and arrogance that he could get away with it) then I think it likely he would use it the next time a woman refused his advances. As you say it isn't consequence free and the difference is IIRC that Edward didn't tire of Elizabeth and visited her several times in the months between the wedding and the public announcement. This continued affection maybe why he felt comfortable/willing to announce that he'd married Elizabeth to spite Warwick.

As for your final point I just don't think he considered it at the time. He was young, powerful and used to getting what he wanted

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by CP11

I totally agree, all I would say is that if he got away with it the first time (putting the first time down to youth and arrogance that he could get away with it) then I think it likely he would use it the next time a woman refused his advances. As you say it isn't consequence free and the difference is IIRC that Edward didn't tire of Elizabeth and visited her several times in the months between the wedding and the public announcement. This continued affection maybe why he felt comfortable/willing to announce that he'd married Elizabeth to spite Warwick.

As for your final point I just don't think he considered it at the time. He was young, powerful and used to getting what he wanted

That describes a lot of men, but we generally don't hear that they had a pre-existing marriage from - and only from - a party which has a vested interest in their sons being illegitimate.

Simreeve: I don't see why he'd have the Talbot marriage, particularly as a secret, in the first place. Simply because she wanted him to marry her before having sex?

Here's a question on that note. How does everyone else feel about him having married her, but unambiguously and openly?

She's not a bad match, but she's hardly his best.

[CP11]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Here's a question on that note. How does everyone else feel about him having married her, but unambiguously and openly?

She's not a bad match, but she's hardly his best.

It all depends, if the time frame is 1461 then as a newly annointed King I think people would question his judgement and have him down as being rather rash. His value foreign policy may be somewhat more limited without the possibility of marriage but I don't think Warwick feels as betrayed as he wont have been working on a foreign match yet.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by CP11

It all depends, if the time frame is 1461 then as a newly annointed King I think people would question his judgement and have him down as being rather rash. His value foreign policy may be somewhat more limited without the possibility of marriage but I don't think Warwick feels as betrayed as he wont have been working on a foreign match yet.

Well, what's wrong with Talbot? Compared to his other choices, that is.

[CP11]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Well, what's wrong with Talbot? Compared to his other choices, that is.

There is nothing 'wrong' with her but i just don't think people within Edward's council will take kindly to him arranging his own marriage like that. I just don't see many benefits from wedding Edward to one of his own subjects and a Lancastrian widow at that! (a view that many felt when he did this a few years later with Woodville).

Its not that Edward couldn't marry her if he publically announced he was going to I don't think anyone would make that big a fuss but some will see it as a missed opourtunity

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by CP11

There is nothing 'wrong' with her but i just don't think people within Edward's council will take kindly to him arranging his own marriage like that. I just don't see many benefits from wedding Edward to one of his own subjects and a Lancastrian widow at that! (a view that many felt when he did this a few years later with Woodville).

Its not that Edward couldn't marry her if he publically announced he was going to I don't think anyone would make that big a fuss but some will see it as a missed opourtunity

Well, he is the king. He's entitled to make up his own mind, although the Lancasterian widow part is a problem.

[mcdnab]

I think you could point out that there is a hint that Edward by the time of his marriage might have been getting just a little bit fed up of being dictated to by Warwick and by Warwick's greed (his and his brother's gains in the 1460s were astronomical and far outstripped the gains by the Queen's family after the marriage became public).
I think it compares a little with Henry VIII and Wolsey (in Wolsey's case we largely blame the Kings Great Matter as the primary cause of his downfull and play down the fact the King is a grown up with a growing interest in running his own affairs and no longer as willing or as dependent on his loyal Cardinal).
For all her relatively lowly status there is no evidence despite his well known infidelity that Edward IV was ever unhappy with his choice she remained his consort until his death and their last child was born in 1482 by which time Elizabeth was well into her 40s.
Warwick's growing insecurity prompted his actions but it is very debateable how much that was due to the King's marriage (although the propoganda he used blamed as is usual at this period the King's bad advisors of course the Woodvilles not himself) and how much was just Edward taking charge of his own policies - for example foreign policy - Edward's preference was a pro-burgundian policy - Warwick preferred a pro-french policy and simply chose to ignore the King's view - never very wise.
Personally I doubt the Butler pre contract which emerged just a little too conveniently.
If Clarence knew then he certainly wouldn't have hesitated to have told anyone willing to listen. He certainly had no great affection for the Queen or her family.
Edward made his choice and stuck with it....arguably with the Woodvilles (like his friend Hastings and his step son) he created his own court party - people entirely reliant on him for their favour (and why most of them deserted Richard III) - and quite frankly the Yorkist nobility flocked to tie themselves to the new Queen (her father had been on Edward's council long before she became Queen).
I suspect there is some truth in the legend of her approaching him for help - she certainly wasn't in a very good position in the early 60s - as a widow she had clearly had to return to her parent's home - due to issues with her mother in law who clearly was squabbling over Elizabeth's dower - her son's were their grandmothers heirs but their grandmother was on husband no 2 who happened to be Edward IV's first cousin. Who might therefore try and succeed in holding his wife's estates after her death.

You want a longer-lasting House of York - keep Edward IV alive for two or three years longer, have Elizabeth of York be born Edward of York instead (17 at her father's death), or have Richard of Gloucester meet a Scots death a year or so before his brother's death.

[CP11]

I think the Henry VIII/Wolsey analogy is quite a good one to describe how Edward was beginning to feel with Warwick.

Originally Posted by mcdnab

You want a longer-lasting House of York - keep Edward IV alive for two or three years longer, have Elizabeth of York be born Edward of York instead (17 at her father's death), or have Richard of Gloucester meet a Scots death a year or so before his brother's death.

Elizabeth being born Edward could be an interesting scenario for Gloucester as he seems to have been closer to Elizabeth than Edward. As a Ricardian I would hate to see any Yorkist scenario without Richard! but Richard dying on campaign would indeed extend the Yorkist line