The Other Edward

I was wondering if anyone can help me understand Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales as a person. For instance, had he outlived Henry VI might he have been a similarly lacklustre personality, or would his genes combine the greatness of two of his grandparents - Henry V and Yolande of Aragon?

If he had survived Tewkesbury what sort of man/king might he have become?
 
I was wondering if anyone can help me understand Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales as a person. For instance, had he outlived Henry VI might he have been a similarly lacklustre personality, or would his genes combine the greatness of two of his grandparents - Henry V and Yolande of Aragon?

If he had survived Tewkesbury what sort of man/king might he have become?

The problem is so little is known about him because he died so young. I mean I read on the Wikipedia page that he quote "already talks of nothing but cutting off heads or making war, as if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle or the peaceful occupant of that throne."So he might have been a bloodthirsty tyrant. Really its hard to say.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I was wondering if anyone can help me understand Edward of Lancaster, Prince of Wales as a person. For instance, had he outlived Henry VI might he have been a similarly lacklustre personality, or would his genes combine the greatness of two of his grandparents - Henry V and Yolande of Aragon?

If he had survived Tewkesbury what sort of man/king might he have become?
One can only speculate, but history seems to mark him as nurtured by his mother to be a cruel child, like Jofferey Baratheon from Game of Thrones. This is mostly from an account from when his mother asked him to determine the manner of death for the two Yorkist knights charged with protecting his father, he supposedly ordered their beheading without hesitation.
 
The problem is so little is known about him because he died so young. I mean I read on the Wikipedia page that he quote "already talks of nothing but cutting off heads or making war, as if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle or the peaceful occupant of that throne."So he might have been a bloodthirsty tyrant. Really its hard to say.

My problem with that is that he was a kid when that was said. How many of us would like to be judged on what we said as a kid for the rest of our lives?

Secondly, I think because he's a person that we know very little about aside from one or two descriptions, like the one above, written by an Italian who had every reason to hate Marguerite's family, means we often step into the trap of filling in the blanks as we see fit.

A prime example is a modern writer who puts the words into the mouth of the similarly vilified Richard of Gloucester: "Anne Neville, married to that...that monster, the Devil himself?...She must be wondering if she has risen to be princess of Wales or fallen to brcome queen of the damned".
 
One can only speculate, but history seems to mark him as nurtured by his mother to be a cruel child, like Jofferey Baratheon from Game of Thrones. This is mostly from an account from when his mother asked him to determine the manner of death for the two Yorkist knights charged with protecting his father, he supposedly ordered their beheading without hesitation.

And that incident can be read in more than one way. Iirc an observer recounted it as follows

Queen - "Fair son, what death shall these men die who you see before you?"

Prince - Are they traitors, Madam?"

Queen - "Yes, my son, they are".

Prince - "Then let their heads be taken off".

To me this passage makes it pretty clear (if the Prince's age - seven for Pete's sake - were not proof enough) that the whole thing had been well rehearsed beforehand, with the Queen telling Edward that certain traitors were to be haled before him and they should be sentenced to beheading. It sounds to me as if the Prince was a trifle nervous, and afraid he might behead the wrong men by mistake. Hence his question. He wanted to make sure these ywo men really were the "traitors" discussed earlier on. I don't think we need to infer any particular bloodthirstiness.

As for "cutting off heads and making war", quite a lot of young boys (the Prince was now thirteen) were and are fascinated with such things; and Edward, after all, was in training to become a Medieval king, for whom such activities were a normal part of the job description.

Having been brought up (like Richard III) in a time of civil war, he would naturally be interested in things military, the more so as he was supposed to be Henry V's grandson. And he may have reflected that a pacific temperament hadn't done his father any good. As king, I'm afraid he might empty the Treasury by having another go at the French, but one can always hope.
 
I'm afraid I forgotten the thread and who said it. But in an earlier thread, someone convincingly pointed out that Edward's insecure childhood, with lots of betrayals, would likely make him defensive, and prone to violence from it.
 
Beheading traitors was actually quite a "nice death" considering what could have happened to them

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I'm afraid I forgotten the thread and who said it. But in an earlier thread, someone convincingly pointed out that Edward's insecure childhood, with lots of betrayals, would likely make him defensive, and prone to violence from it.

But surely any York prince would've been the same since for all intents and purposes they grew up amidst the same betrayals, plots and counterplots.
 
Top