Possible wives for Edward IV

[Oberon Martell]

Wikipedia (bless it ) informs us that the Earl of Warwick hoped to continue to rule through Edward and was pressing him to a marital alliance with a major European power. Because Edward secretly married Elizabeth Woodville he alienated Warwick.

So...

Let us keep Elizabeth Woodville as a (more or less) secret royal mistress, and have Edward make a continental marriage. The question is, who would be the bride?

Over to the residents of the forum for suggestions...

[el t]

I thought that negociations for a Savoyan princess were being negociated when Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth. I believe that this princess was Bonne of Savoy.

[Elfwine]

Alison Wier's book on the War of the Roses supports that (it being Savoy) - well, Bona, but that may be spelling differences.

[el t]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Alison Wier's book on the War of the Roses supports that (it being Savoy) - well, Bona, but that may be spelling differences.

Yes, I've also seen it as "Bona". Was'nt Isabel of Castile also under consideration (before her brother died, making her the heiress of Castile?).

[Arachnid]

As others have said a Savoyard princess is the most likely Continental match though a big what if is that he manages to have male heir born earlier than OTL meaning they are adults when he dies.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by el t

Yes, I've also seen it as "Bona". Was'nt Isabel of Castile also under consideration (before her brother died, making her the heiress of Castile?).

Possibly, she's not mentioned. Although as Bona is only mentioned as related to Warwick's desire for a French alliance, and his work to do that being possibly sealed with that as a marriage, she may simply not have been relevant (to events Weir is describing).

[Brainbin]

If we're going with ATL candidates - and why wouldn't we? - then I have one, borne from a contemporary POD.

Let's assume that the exploding artillery that killed James II, King of Scots, left him unscathed - but, several months later, Edward IV usurps the throne and becomes King of England on schedule. We'll assume that Scotland is doing reasonably well for itself in the interim. Edward, eager to consolidate power, sends an ambassador and negotiates a peace deal that is surprisingly favourable to Scotland - this is in keeping with Edward's OTL policies. As part of the treaty, the eldest daughter of James II (Mary Stewart, born on May 13, 1453) is betrothed to Edward IV (who is eleven years her senior; there would be a bigger age gap between the two monarchs' OTL grandchildren, James IV and Margaret Tudor). Mary Stewart married her first husband in early 1467 IOTL, before turning fourteen, so we can assume that she would be dispatched to London at about the same time (perhaps the previous autumn). She had her first child - a daughter who lived to adulthood - in 1468 IOTL, and had five children altogether, with a lengthy interruption between two marriages that would not happen ITTL, before dying at 35. So her fecundity and the vitality of any potential children is not in question.

So we could have Edward V born in 1468, no restoration of Henry VI due to Warwick not switching sides, and even assuming that Edward IV dies on schedule (and one would imagine that the stress of losing his throne and then having to fight to regain it would shave some time off his life), his son could be as old as fifteen - mitigating the potential for funny business on the part of Gloucester. Thus, this son of York sees his dynasty survive.

I know relatively little about this era, but I always thought that was a fun little POD. I wonder, though, if it's at all reasonable?

[CP11]

Marrying Warwick's French Princess would save Edward all the bother and tension caused between Warwick and the Woodvilles and make Warwick even more popular with the French King! This would create an interesting 1470's as it is possible Warwick still loses influence at court to the likes of Stafford and Herbert but this would be a much slower loss meaning the Lancastrian restoration is at least delayed and with a Anglo-French marriage alliance would the French help a frustrated Warwick restore Henry VI?

[Simreeve]

Of course, though, there'd still have been the problem that his earlier 'pre-contract' marriage (i.e. 'common-law marriage', which would have been recognised as legally valid -- although the Church didn't like the idea much -- in those days) with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) would have meant that this marriage was bigamous, and that if this became publicly known then Edward's offspring from this second marriage would therefore have been considered illegitimate and therefore ineligible to succeed to the throne...


(Guess who's a Ricardian? )

[isabella]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Of course, though, there'd still have been the problem that his earlier 'pre-contract' marriage (i.e. 'common-law marriage', which would have been recognised as legally valid -- although the Church didn't like the idea much -- in those days) with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) would have meant that this marriage was bigamous, and that if this became publicly known then Edward's offspring from this second marriage would therefore have been considered illegitimate and therefore ineligible to succeed to the throne...


(Guess who's a Ricardian? )

A wedding ceremony held officially and a higher rank of the Queen than of the alleged first wife solve this problem. The problem of Elizabeth Woodville was who the king marry her secretly and her rank was not so high.
If she had had two / three years of hers daughter and then had been of the first husband of her mother, nobody would have questioned neither the validity of her marriage or the legitimacy of her children (her mother was a member of the Luxembourg family and her first husband was the Duke of Bedford, a son of Henry IV of England).

[Oberon Martell]

Thanks guys - this is all very enlightening. My goal (if it wasn't obvious) is to keep the Plantagenets around for a little while longer, and to avoid the obvious 'Richard wins at Bosworth' scenario.

Any TL will still have Martin Luther (or his equivalent), the Ottomans, tensions over exploration etc to deal with, but hopefully the final picture will be different in an interesting way.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by isabella

A wedding ceremony held officially and a higher rank of the Queen than of the alleged first wife solve this problem.

Maybe wherever you come from, but not in England. Although 'pre-contract marriage' wasn't how royalty normally wed it was recognised as a perfectly legal marriage under English law at that time (and English law has never recognised the 'morganatic' concept, if that's what you're getting at...), and Eleanor was an Earl's daughter which is pretty high up the social scale anyway.
Henry VII certainly took the matter, which reflected on the legitimacy of his wife and thus on what was his most legally valid claim to the throne, very seriously: He not only had all the official copies of the Act of Parliament which set out Richard's claim to the throne on that basis ('Titulus Regius') destroyed, he decreed that even possession of a copy by anybody else after that would constitute an act of high treason and would consequently render that person subject to the death penalty!

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Of course, though, there'd still have been the problem that his earlier 'pre-contract' marriage (i.e. 'common-law marriage', which would have been recognised as legally valid -- although the Church didn't like the idea much -- in those days) with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) would have meant that this marriage was bigamous, and that if this became publicly known then Edward's offspring from this second marriage would therefore have been considered illegitimate and therefore ineligible to succeed to the throne...


(Guess who's a Ricardian? )

It is interesting that there is no proof of that while she was still alive, and Richard had a strong and personal (and IMO legitimate, but that's not the point) interest in bringing down the Woodvilles.

It's strange too that Warwick didn't claim this or object on these grounds (despite it being just as easy for him to find the man supposedly responsible for marrying them as it would be for Gloucester), only the man who has a vested interest in eliminating (and in this context I'm referring to him labeling them bastard) the people between him and the throne, and only after Eleanor's and Edward's deaths.

.
And finally, if Edward was married to Eleanor, why didn't he show it? She's a far better match for him than Elizabeth - not ideal, but closer - and after it was too late to prevent the marriage he did admit to marrying Elizabeth.

Marrying her but pretending to be unmarried doesn't make sense. What does that serve?

[CP11]

Originally Posted by Oberon Martell

hopefully the final picture will be different in an interesting way.

I think that this POD would create some really interesting changes and gives you the choice of either branch of the Plantagenets surviving if not both

Originally Posted by Elfwine

.
And finally, if Edward was married to Eleanor, why didn't he show it? She's a far better match for him than Elizabeth - not ideal, but closer - and after it was too late to prevent the marriage he did admit to marrying Elizabeth.

Marrying her but pretending to be unmarried doesn't make sense. What does that serve?

I think part of the reason for admiting to the marriage with Elizabeth was to show Warwick that he was his own man. If Warwick hadn't constantly been promoting the French match I think its possible Edward would have tried to 'ignore' the marriage with Elizabeth when it suited him as he may have done with the alleged Butler marriage.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

It is interesting that there is no proof of that while she was still alive, and Richard had a strong and personal (and IMO legitimate, but that's not the point) interest in bringing down the Woodvilles.

It's strange too that Warwick didn't claim this or object on these grounds (despite it being just as easy for him to find the man supposedly responsible for marrying them as it would be for Gloucester), only the man who has a vested interest in eliminating (and in this context I'm referring to him labeling them bastard) the people between him and the throne, and only after Eleanor's and Edward's deaths.

The usual theory is that Bishop Stillington was either the clergyman responsible for conducting the marriage or had learned about it from whoever else had filled that role, and that he kept quiet on the subject until his conscience finally overcame his loyalty to Edward which wasn't until several years after Warwick's death. The fact that Stillington was committed to the Tower on rather vague charges at the same time as Clarence was sent there, combined with Clarence being put to death so suddenly despite his crimes this time around arguably having been less serious than those for which he'd been pardoned in the past, suggests -- it is held by some Ricardians -- that Stillington had confided in Clarence as the "rightful" heir and that Clarence had then been rash enough to confront Edward with his knowledge. I'm not saying that I'm 100% convinced myself, but it certainly seem fairly plausible in the light of Edward's known behaviour.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And finally, if Edward was married to Eleanor, why didn't he show it? She's a far better match for him than Elizabeth - not ideal, but closer - and after it was too late to prevent the marriage he did admit to marrying Elizabeth.

Marrying her but pretending to be unmarried doesn't make sense. What does that serve?

He'd had his way with her, he'd got bored, maybe she'd actually decided that she wasn't as interested in a relationship with him as she'd previously thought either, and then he'd met Elizabeth... who was sexier (and/or who'd cast a spell, possibly with her mother's assistance, to bewitch him: That's what was said by some people at the time, anyway...), and then Warwick -- by pushing for the Savoy match -- had forced his hand...

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by CP11

I think part of the reason for admiting to the marriage with Elizabeth was to show Warwick that he was his own man. If Warwick hadn't constantly been promoting the French match I think its possible Edward would have tried to 'ignore' the marriage with Elizabeth when it suited him as he may have done with the alleged Butler marriage.

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.

Originally Posted by Simreeve

The usual theory is that Bishop Stillington was either the clergyman responsible for conducting the marriage or had learned about it from whoever else had filled that role, and that he kept quiet on the subject until his conscience finally overcame his loyalty to Edward which wasn't until several years after Warwick's death. The fact that Stillington was committed to the Tower on rather vague charges at the same time as Clarence was sent there, combined with Clarence being put to death so suddenly despite his crimes this time around arguably having been less serious than those for which he'd been pardoned in the past, suggests -- it is held by some Ricardians -- that Stillington had confided in Clarence as the "rightful" heir and that Clarence had then been rash enough to confront Edward with his knowledge. I'm not saying that I'm 100% convinced myself, but it certainly seem fairly plausible in the light of Edward's known behaviour.

All of the following is from the perspective that the Woodville match was an attack of stupidity on Edward's part, by the way.

I'm kind of suspicious I have to admit. It reeks of convenience - Stillington finally unable to take it no more because . . . something as vague and murky as "his conscience outweighed his loyalty to Edward IV". Which isn't to say it couldn't have, but its an easy claim and hard to prove.

On Clarence:
In Edward's shoes, if Clarence keeps being a pain in the behind, I'd want to get rid of him, and sending him to Ireland isn't a good option. So I can see Edward saying that this is the final straw more easily than Edward

He'd had his way with her, he'd got bored, maybe she'd actually decided that she wasn't as interested in a relationship with him as she'd previously thought either, and then he'd met Elizabeth... who was sexier (and/or who'd cast a spell, possibly with her mother's assistance, to bewitch him: That's what was said by some people at the time, anyway...), and then Warwick -- by pushing for the Savoy match -- had forced his hand...

Not buying it. Okay, it wouldn't be hard to convince me he'd tired of her. But if he's married, why isn't he dissolving that first? Edward knew what a precontract was as well as his brothers. And the idea that he'd marry and stay married in secret when his marriage so as to have legitimate heirs is a big f--king deal hurts my suspension of disbelief - this is a big stumbling block to me.

[Velasco]

What about Lady Margaret Beaufort?

Also, aren't common law marriages quite easily repudiated? I'm pretty sure canon law at the time allowed for them to be dissolved quite easily/amicably, especially in the case of non-consummation.

Also, Elizabeth Woodville wasn't all that low-born. Her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, was a continental princess descended from King John of England.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Velasco

What about Lady Margaret Beaufort?

Also, aren't common law marriages quite easily repudiated? I'm pretty sure canon law at the time allowed for them to be dissolved quite easily/amicably, especially in the case of non-consummation.

Also, Elizabeth Woodville wasn't all that low-born. Her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, was a continental princess descended from King John of England.

Her father, on the other hand . . .

And its her father's family that is the standard by which her status was judged, I believe.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by Velasco

What about Lady Margaret Beaufort?

What about her?

Originally Posted by Velasco

Also, aren't common law marriages quite easily repudiated? I'm pretty sure canon law at the time allowed for them to be dissolved quite easily/amicably, especially in the case of non-consummation.

The presumption is that the Edward/Eleanor marriage, if it actually took place, was consumated... that being, in fact, Edward's reason for it in the first place.

[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.