A Different Bride for King Edward IV?

As part of figuring out a timeline, I'm wondering about what might happen if Edward didn't marry Elizabeth Woodville.

Obviously, the prime candidate in such a scenario would be Bona of Savoy, Louis XI's sister in law - the match Warwick was trying to arrange. If Edward marries Bona, presumably the Kingdoms of England and France will be in truce, and Louis will (probably) stop trying to stir the Lancastrian pot. If this happens, where does Margaret of Anjou look to for support? Also, who do the Bretons and Burgundians turn to if Edward won't help them? Castille? The HRE?


If the French match is off the table for some reason, who else is available at this moment in time?
 
Well, he could always pull the same thing he did with Elizabeth Woodville with one of his other mistresses.

After all, Richard III's whole claim to the throne was from a claim that Edward had promised to marry Eleanor Butler. She's from a noble family (better than the Woodvilles) so could maybe pull it off if he did promise to marry her and she could prove it.
 
Well, he could always pull the same thing he did with Elizabeth Woodville with one of his other mistresses.

After all, Richard III's whole claim to the throne was from a claim that Edward had promised to marry Eleanor Butler. She's from a noble family (better than the Woodvilles) so could maybe pull it off if he did promise to marry her and she could prove it.
Ah. Thanks for that snippet of information. I shall have to investigate Miss Butler. I've started reading up in earnest about the period, but until I go to university (again) in September, I'm restricted to the offerings in the local library.
 
For very interesting Summary

try a most unusual book

The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey (As in "Truth is the daughter of time" )

It covers Edwards affair with Eleanor Butler as part of the case for/against Richard of Gloucester
She's a Richard partisan but as far as I know all the evidence she quotes are from real sources
may of them official records and dates.

I have a dead tree copy myself but I think the full text is online here http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tey/josephine/daughter_of_time/

Its what you may call a drama doc ... but a very good read
 
Last edited:
I would be very hesitant about using it as a source. Ricardian is bad enough, but it's not even pretending to be nonfiction.

To quote from a (favorable) review:

It isn’t perfect. There’s far too much of Grant’s uncanny ability to read character from faces—which one could argue makes it fantasy.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/02/how-can-this-be-so-gripping-josephine-teys-the-daughter-of-time

And one very serious problem (this on the Eleanor issue, not the princes):

Edward IV's OTL marriage was received with something far less than thunderous applause. Had there been any basis to question it, why was it not brought up until after he and Eleanor were dead?
 
Yeah, Tey is not a reliable source. At all.

I merely proposed Butler as one possibility, because even if he never meets Elizabeth Woodville, I could easily see Edward IV falling into a similar situation. Butler is the daughter of an English earl and respected military commander, so I could see her as having the standing to insist on marriage if she tried. She doesn't seem to have done so IOTL (I disregard Richard III's claims as self-serving propaganda) but that could change in an ATL.

I suspect the fallout would be similar to the Woodville marriage; Warwick will still be incensed if he sees Edward as going behind his back and undermining him, not to mention antagonizing the French. And she's still a very unequal marriage for a king. On the other hand, such a marriage might be earlier, which might at least possibly avoid the awkward circumstances Warwick encountered OTL. Eleanor also seems to have had fewer close relatives who need titles/marriages. But I suspect the fallout will be similar enough to OTL that the results would be recognizable.

Bona of Savoy is a more interesting case; if Edward does marry her, it's likely because he decided to pursue the pro-French policy favored by Warwick, instead of the pro-Burgundian/anti-French policy of OTL. That might avoid the OTL split with Warwick. On the other hand, Warwick and Edward are both sufficiently strong-willed and proud that I could easily see them still having a falling-out at a later date.

Of course, the Duke of Clarence would still have his own, special blend of treachery and incompetence, if Warwick does want to go that direction.
 
I suspect the fallout would be similar to the Woodville marriage; Warwick will still be incensed if he sees Edward as going behind his back and undermining him, not to mention antagonizing the French. And she's still a very unequal marriage for a king. On the other hand, such a marriage might be earlier, which might at least possibly avoid the awkward circumstances Warwick encountered OTL. Eleanor also seems to have had fewer close relatives who need titles/marriages. But I suspect the fallout will be similar enough to OTL that the results would be recognizable.

An earl's daughter isn't that bad - not ideal, but several kings before him have married at that level.

But otherwise I agree. And even if Warwick isn't as angry, it's still a step towards Warwick having to face that Edward wants to rule, and Warwick trying to rule through him is not acceptable.
 
Edward's impromptu love match to Elizabeth and his known fondness for female company was in part what made Richard's claim of the pre-contract a bit more believable.
However Elizabeth W was recognised as Queen Consort for almost two decades and it clearly suited Edward to announce his marriage.

Warwick's mistake in pushing a French alliance was that Edward was far more pro-burgundian and was exceptionally reluctant to any treaty with France (with or without a marriage)

Warwick believed such an alliance would end support for Margaret of Anjou - Edward was more confident of his ability to defeat the Lancastrians in battle whether they had French help or not.
 
Eleanor is of interest to me, as my proposed PoD could well butterfly the first meeting between Edward and Elizabeth.
I suspect the fallout would be similar to the Woodville marriage; Warwick will still be incensed if he sees Edward as going behind his back and undermining him, not to mention antagonizing the French. And she's still a very unequal marriage for a king. On the other hand, such a marriage might be earlier, which might at least possibly avoid the awkward circumstances Warwick encountered OTL. Eleanor also seems to have had fewer close relatives who need titles/marriages. But I suspect the fallout will be similar enough to OTL that the results would be recognizable.

Bona of Savoy is a more interesting case; if Edward does marry her, it's likely because he decided to pursue the pro-French policy favored by Warwick, instead of the pro-Burgundian/anti-French policy of OTL. That might avoid the OTL split with Warwick. On the other hand, Warwick and Edward are both sufficiently strong-willed and proud that I could easily see them still having a falling-out at a later date.
But otherwise I agree. And even if Warwick isn't as angry, it's still a step towards Warwick having to face that Edward wants to rule, and Warwick trying to rule through him is not acceptable.
I agree with both of you. At some point, there is going to be a reckoning between Warwick and Edward. Warwick will not brook any opposition, and Edward will not take orders. Clarence, especially if he still marries Warwick's daughter, is more than likely to get caught up in any scheme Warwick comes up with, whether it be with or without the help of Louis XI and Margaret of Anjou.
 
Well, he could always pull the same thing he did with Elizabeth Woodville with one of his other mistresses.

After all, Richard III's whole claim to the throne was from a claim that Edward had promised to marry Eleanor Butler. She's from a noble family (better than the Woodvilles) so could maybe pull it off if he did promise to marry her and she could prove it.
The claim was that Edward had married Eleanor, not just promised to marry her. And in those days promising to marry somebody, followed by physically consumating the relationship, meant that legally -- even without having had a religious ceremony -- you were married, anyway. Admittedly the Church didn't like it, but such 'common law' marriages remained fully legal in England until the 18th century.

Edward IV's OTL marriage was received with something far less than thunderous applause. Had there been any basis to question it, why was it not brought up until after he and Eleanor were dead?
Allegedly the only witness who could have revealed the truth, apart from the couple themeselves, was the priest who'd solemnised the relationship for them and he didn't pluck up the courage to come forward earlier. Some Ricardians think that he told Bishop Stillington and possibly Clarence about it during the later years of Edward's reign, if Stillington himself wasn't that priest (which would have been feasible), and that Edward hearing of this -- probably from Clarence, privately trying to use it as leverage -- was why Stillington was confined as a prisoner in the Tower for a while around the time of Clarence's own imprisonment & death. As far as I know there's no other reason given for Stillington getting locked up.

Butler is the daughter of an English earl and respected military commander, so I could see her as having the standing to insist on marriage if she tried. She doesn't seem to have done so IOTL
The daughter of an earl whose son & successor, her own brother, had recently died fighting against Edward... so less leverage than would otherwise have been the case. From the fact that Eleanor retreated into a nunnery not long afterwards, it's suspected that any relationship betwen her and Edward was probably one in which she simply hoped to win Edward's favour for her family (rather than see therm penalised as his enemies) rather than to become his queen, or even that she felt coerced by circumstances and was happy to leave once he'd tired of her. That still doesn't rule out Edward having made the promise as a way of gaining her favours -- perhaps in the expectation that if she went public then he'd be able to convince people she was lying -- though...
 
Last edited:
Allegedly the only witness who could have revealed the truth, apart from the couple themeselves, was the priest who'd solemnised the relationship for them and he didn't pluck up the courage to come forward earlier. Some Ricardians think that he told Bishop Stillington and possibly Clarence about it during the later years of Edward's reign, if Stillington himself wasn't that priest (which would have been feasible), and that Edward hearing of this -- probably from Clarence, privately trying to use it as leverage -- was why Stillington was confined as a prisoner in the Tower for a while around the time of Clarence's own imprisonment & death. As far as I know there's no other reason given for Stillington getting locked up.

That is an extremely convenient way to have someone unable to defend themselves accused.

Not necessarily false, but things like that are rather unreliable.
 
That is an extremely convenient way to have someone unable to defend themselves accused.

Not necessarily false, but things like that are rather unreliable.
Well, there weren't exactly hordes of witnesses to Edward's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville either...
 
Re the plausibility of the story about Eleanor Talbot/Butler _
I don’t know whether Henry Tudor himself believed it, but apparently he at least considered it to be credible enough for other people to accept. When he pushed through an Act of Parliament repealing the one (‘Titulus Regius’) which had used that story as the basis for declaring Edward IV’s children by Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate & therefore excluded them from the royal succession, so that he could use his own marriage to Edward’s daughter Elizabeth to support his hold on the crown more effectively, he tried to reduce the chance of that earlier law being used against him still futher: It was actually removed from the offiical records altogether, which wasn't usual for repelaed laws, and anybody who had a copy of that ‘Titulus Regius’ was commanded to destroy it (or return it to Parliament for destruction), without reading it, on pain of fine and imprisonment!
 
The daughter of an earl whose son & successor, her own brother, had recently died fighting against Edward... so less leverage than would otherwise have been the case.
And Woodville was the widow of a knight who was killed fighting for the Lancastrians. That's not necessarily a bar. Given that she and Edward were both conveniently dead by the time anyone made claims about the marriage precontract, and given the obvious agenda of the people pushing the story, I take it with a grain of salt.

Geordie said:
I agree with both of you. At some point, there is going to be a reckoning between Warwick and Edward. Warwick will not brook any opposition, and Edward will not take orders. Clarence, especially if he still marries Warwick's daughter, is more than likely to get caught up in any scheme Warwick comes up with, whether it be with or without the help of Louis XI and Margaret of Anjou.
Clarence will still have his unique blend of incompetence and treachery, so he'll almost certainly join in any conspiracies by Warwick. Unfortunately for the conspirators...
 
An earl's daughter isn't that bad - not ideal, but several kings before him have married at that level.

But otherwise I agree. And even if Warwick isn't as angry, it's still a step towards Warwick having to face that Edward wants to rule, and Warwick trying to rule through him is not acceptable.


Most important - does Eleanor Butler have/come from a large family?

That was the big issue about The White Queen. She brought with her a small army of siblings and of children form her previous marriage. Her new rank enabled them to secure heiresses and royal wards who would otherwise have been hopelessly beyond their reach, and so thoroughly screwed up the blue-blood marriage market. Frex, the young Duke of Buckingham, whom Warwick had earmarked for one of his own daughters, was married off to a Woodville instead. Had EW been an only child, and had fewer kids in tow, there'd still have been raised eyebrows, but far less antagonism.
 
Most important - does Eleanor Butler have/come from a large family?
One sister then still living, already married to the Duke of Norfolk.

Her late brother the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury had left seven children, with dates of birth ranging from 1445 to 1460, but they had the Talbot lands from which to to support themselves.
 
Allegedly the only witness who could have revealed the truth, apart from the couple themeselves, was the priest who'd solemnised the relationship for them and he didn't pluck up the courage to come forward earlier. Some Ricardians think that he told Bishop Stillington and possibly Clarence about it during the later years of Edward's reign, if Stillington himself wasn't that priest (which would have been feasible), and that Edward hearing of this -- probably from Clarence, privately trying to use it as leverage -- was why Stillington was confined as a prisoner in the Tower for a while around the time of Clarence's own imprisonment & death. As far as I know there's no other reason given for Stillington getting locked up....


If he "had the goods" on the king in such a way, how on earth did he ever leave his cell alive?
 
Last edited:
If he "had the goods" on the king in such away, how on earth did he ever leave his cell alive?
Killing bishops, unless you actually caught them in arms against you on a battlefield, was considered rather iffy in those days. And he had been a useful official in Edward's service before that...
 
Killing bishops, unless you actually caught them in arms against you on a battlefield, was considered rather iffy in those days. And he had been a useful official in Edward's service before that...


And I suppose a second death from "pure displeasure and melancholy" might have made people a bit suspicious.
 
Top