The Talbot Sisters

(Note, this is an article I wrote some time ago - it has not been updated to reflect information contained in recent publications. It is offered as it may still be of some interest.)

When considering John Talbot (1384-1453) first Earl of Shrewsbury, and his second wife, Margaret Beauchamp (1404-1468) it is difficult to decide which of the pair was the more formidable. John Talbot was a sort of fifteenth-century Field-Marshal Montgomery, a famous soldier who spent much of his adult life fighting first against Owain Glyndwr’s Welsh supporters, and later in numerous campaigns against the French. (There was a brief intermediate period when he served as an extremely unpopular Lieutenant of Ireland. He started a feud with the Earl of Ormonde which went on for decades.) An English hero in his time (though largely forgotten now) he was hated and feared by his enemies in roughly equal measure. When dealing with rivals in England he was every bit as ruthless as he was in war, and not at all reluctant to make use of outright violence.

As for the Countess Margaret, whom he married in 1425, she had inherited a feud of her own with her Berkeley cousins. Her mother had been the only child of Thomas, 5^th Lord Berkeley – the cousins were Berkeley’s heirs-male. The resulting dispute over the family lands ran on for decades, and like her husband, Margaret was none too nice in her dealings. After Lord Berkeley had attacked Margaret’s manor at Wotton-under-Edge (in 1452), she had her son respond by seizing Berkeley Castle itself and taking Lord Berkeley prisoner. She also arranged for Lady Berkeley to be thrown into prison, where the lady died next year. (The feud was patched for a time by a marriage between Lord Berkeley and Margaret’s step-daughter – but that was by no means the end of it.)

This delightful couple had three sons and two daughters. The eldest son, Viscount Lisle, died with his father at the Battle of Castillon. The second, Sir Lewis Talbot, died in 1458 – possibly of violence, although the facts are sketchy. The youngest son, Sir Humphrey, lived a quieter life, initially as a retainer of his brother-in-law, the Duke of Norfolk, and died in 1492 while on pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

The two Talbot sisters are the main subject of this article. One may have been the rightful Queen of England. The other became a duchess, and mother-in-law of one of the Princes of the Tower. Both have a place in the ongoing saga of Richard III.

Eleanor was married to Thomas Butler, heir to Ralph, Lord Sudeley, a Lancastrian, when she was approx. 14 years old. This was in some ways an unambitious match, as the Butlers of Sudeley were not of magnate rank. They would have been regarded as having only local importance but for the family’s long tradition of personal service to the Lancastrian kings, which gave them influence at court. Having said this, it is important to recognise that Shrewsbury himself was a ‘new man’ a first earl, promoted through the peerage because of his exceptional military service.

Thomas Butler died around 1461, during the lifetime of his father. His stepmother was Alice Deincourt, Lady Lovel. This Alice, who was Francis Lovel’s' grandmother, was governess to Edward (Lancastrian) Prince of Wales. She petitioned to be released from the job in 1460 because a) he was old enough to be ruled by men and b) her own infirmities.

Elizabeth Talbot, while young had married the Mowbray heir and become Countess of Warenne. This was a much greater marriage than Eleanor’s and lined her up to be one of the greatest ladies in England, Duchess of Norfolk after her father-in-law died in 1462. After Thomas Butler’s death she seems to have gradually assumed the role of protectress of her sister, who eventually spent most of her time living within the Mowbray sphere of influence in East Anglia.

Eleanor quite possibly caught Edward's eye when she petitioned him about her dower rights. (Edward was in Norwich in May and October of 1461), though the Butler family were acquainted already with him since Lord Sudeley's sister, Elizabeth Butler, Lady Say, was his godmother. Some difficulty had been caused by the transfer of lands to Eleanor without royal licence. This issue was resolved, but Eleanor’s property remained small, to say the least – the consequence of her husband dying during his father’s lifetime.

If Richard III’s accession statute, Titulus Regius is to be believed, at some point before Edward IV’s purported marriage to Elizabeth Woodville in 1464, King Edward went through an irregular marriage with Eleanor and the relationship was consummated. An irregular marriage was one conducted without the full rites of the church and in private without publication of banns. Even the participation of a priest was not required to make it binding. Such marriages could be ‘regularised’ by obtaining a dispensation. Edward’s own grandparents had been through exactly the same process and sought a dispensation. Edward did not bother, either in Eleanor’s case or after his equally irregular marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Why he did not in the case of Elizabeth is something of a mystery. One possibility is that he was idle and ill-advised. Another is that (if he had committed bigamy) he did not want to tell lies to the Pope.

It is sometimes asked why, if Eleanor was married to Edward, she did not come forward and protest after his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was announced. This overlooks the difficulties and real dangers that a woman of small resources had in going head-to-head with the absolute sovereign of England. It would have been utterly impractical for Eleanor to do so, to say nothing of being highly embarrassing. There were no children involved, and as Eleanor seems to have had a strong religious bent she may have preferred to keep quiet and live in peace.

Eleanor Talbot died in 1468 at Whitefriars Priory in Norwich where she was a benefactress and 'conversa' [lay member]. Her younger sister Elizabeth was out of the country at the time, attending on Margaret of York at her wedding.

You may think that if Edward had the sense to ‘renew’ his marriage vows with Elizabeth Woodville, then Edward V could very well have been legitimate, as could his younger brother and his sisters Katherine and Bridget.

Professor R.M. Helmholz deals with this very point in Richard III Loyalty Lordship and Law (ed. P.W. Hammond) page 93-94. I quote: ‘Under medieval canon law, adultery, when coupled with a present contract of marriage, was an impediment to the subsequent marriage of the adulterous partners. It was not simply a matter of having entered into an invalid contract. The parties to it rendered themselves incapable of marrying at any time in the future, because under canon law one was forbidden to marry a person he (sic) had "polluted" by adultery where the adultery was coupled with either a present contract of marriage or "machination" in the death of the first spouse. Thus...if Sempronius being validly married to Bertha, purported to marry Titia and consummated this second, purported marriage, Sempronius and Titia would not only have entered into an invalid union and committed adultery, they would also have incurred a perpetual impediment to marrying after Bertha's death. This is precisely the situation (it was alleged) of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville.’

Helmholz goes on to point out that if Elizabeth Woodville was unaware of the marriage to Eleanor Butler then a marriage contracted after Eleanor's death would been valid.

So - on the point of Lady Eleanor - it seems that if Elizabeth Woodville knew about Eleanor, then any remarriage after 1468 would have been automatically invalid. Unfortunately we cannot possibly establish what Elizabeth Woodville did or did not know. Moreover, since Edward and Elizabeth had already been through a form of marriage, a dispensation would have been needed to repeat the sacrament, and Edward certainly did not obtain one.

A further issue is that neither the original Edward-Elizabeth Woodville marriage nor any subsequent marriage that may have taken place between the was celebrated in facie ecclesie . Such marriages were contrary to the rules of the Church and thus raised a presumption of bad faith. According to Helmholz, in the case of of Edward and Elizabeth, who went out of their way not to have banns read and so on, this would ‘in most circumstances render the children of the union illegitimate’ even though (as I understand it) the marriage itself might be regarded as valid. It must be acknowledged that the same conditions applied to the Edward-Eleanor marriage, but in their case there were no children to be illegitimated.

Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk was Executrix of Eleanor's will. (The will, unfortunately has not survived, but would probably have contained provision for her soul and bequests of personal items.). As well as the Norwich Whitefriars, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge also benefited from Eleanor's patronage. She gave money for the building of 10 of 16 buttresses inside the Old Court and was closely associated with the College for over 30 years. Some 28 years after Eleanor's death, Thomas Cosin, the College’s Master, set up a benefaction as a memorial at Elizabeth's request to her 'famous and devout' sister and Thomas Butler. The benefaction was a Fellowship, an institution that still continues today. John Ashdown-Hill has demonstrated that Eleanor possessed certain lands which were not dower lands (which would have gone back to her father-in-law) cannot have been inherited from the Talbots (because such lands would have gone to male heirs) and which Eleanor did not have the means to purchase. The implication is that this property was given to her by Edward IV. These lands Eleanor had already transferred to Elizabeth before her death, possibly because she knew she was dying.

On Duchess Elizabeth's return from Burgundy that summer, her retainers John Poynings and Richard Alford, were arrested. They were apparently suspected of involvement in a conspiracy with the exiled Duke of Somerset, their lady’s first cousin. Whatever the truth of the matter, the two men were found guilty and executed in November 1468. It is even possible that Elizabeth herself was imprisoned, because these sort of temporary immurements were done on the authority of a privy seal writ, the records of which (to the great convenience of fiction writers if not historians) are nearly all long since destroyed.

“However, Duke Charles would always keep a soft spot in his heart for the self-styled Duke of Somerset and he continued, secretly, to pay him a pension, while overtly supporting the Yorkist cause. Despite his exclusion from the general festivities, Somerset was able to make good use of his benefactor's wedding celebrations, through clandestine contact with Lancastrian sympathisers among the many English hangers-on attending. By this means, messages were exchanged with persons highly placed in England, who still looked for the restoration of Henry VI to the throne of his fathers, when fate smiled once more on Lancaster's cause.” (Quote from Geoffrey Richardson)

Elizabeth received a pardon before 7 December 1468, and another one subsequently in connection with a land-grab. Interestingly, Edward IV refused at that time to resolve the long-running Berkeley Inheritance dispute in which Elizabeth was involved. Colin Richmond in The Paston Family in the Fifteenth Century mentions that Elizabeth’s social circle in the 1470s included Margaret Beaufort, Morton, and Lady Anne Paston, the sister of the exiled (and later executed) Somerset. Since her half-nephew Shrewsbury was lining up with Clarence and Warwick in 1468-1469, it’s perhaps not that surprising Edward was suspicious of her. It may be that it was as well for this particular Talbot sister that her husband was so vital (and faithful) to the Yorkist cause.

Anne Crawford's article The Mowbray Inheritance in Richard III Crown and People states that in May 1476 William Berkeley agreed to make over his reversionary rights to the Mowbray estates (rights that would of course only arise in the event of Anne Mowbray's death without children) to Richard of York and his heirs male. In return Edward IV agreed to pay off Berkeley's debts "to the Talbots" in the sum of £34000. Let’s say that again. Thirty four thousand pounds. That’s getting on for fourteen million sterling in modern values.

Now who exactly among "the Talbots" got this money is not clear, but presumably the money could have spread itself around the family.

From the same article:

"Edward also persuaded [sic] Anne's mother, the widowed Duchess of Norfolk, to forgo her own dower and jointure in order to augment her daughter's dower. In return she received a much smaller [my emphasis] grant of manors, all of which were to revert on her death to Richard of York for his lifetime."

The subsequent marriage of Elizabeth Talbot's daughter to young Richard of York, with all its onerous conditions as far as the Mowbrays were concerned, may be seen in this light as a combination of threat and bribe. "You keep quiet and your daughter gets to be Duchess of York, perhaps even Queen. Step out of line and you're as much the loser as we are. More so; we've already forced you to give up some of your dower. We can have the rest any time it
suits."

As it happened, Elizabeth’s daughter, Anne Mowbray died in 1481, long before there was any possibility of her marriage being consummated. Under the unjust legislation Edward IV put through Parliament for his own family’s benefit, the Mowbray lands went to Richard, Duke of York, and the rightful heirs, Lord Howard and Lord Berkeley were denied their inheritance. (Though as mentioned above, Berkeley had agreed to be robbed, Howard certainly hadn’t.)

It has been suggested that after Edward IV’s death Eleanor’s family may have approached Richard about the pre-contract and that Richard got Stillington in to confirm their information. Indeed, Buck suggests Eleanor told her mother and Elizabeth of the pre-contract as she was upset at Edward’s treatment of her. However, he also suggests her father tried to do something about it, but this cannot be true as Shrewsbury was long dead.

Elizabeth Talbot certainly had no great cause to love Edward IV, and maybe she did indeed provide evidence about sister Eleanor once Edward was safely dead. It would have been an excellent way to extract the Mowbray lands from Richard of York and get herself and John Howard a fair deal.

John Ashdown-Hill in his December 1997 article in the Ricardian points out that, according to Commynes, Stillington claims to have witnessed the pre-contract, though a witness wasn't necessary - just a promise of marriage followed by sexual intercourse, and that it was up to Eleanor herself, as the 'wronged party', to put the case to a Church court, so Stillington had no obligation to speak out against the pre-contract if she hadn't done so. Stillington spoke up only when the first 'wrong' looked like it was going to be compounded by the enthronement of a bastard.

Richard III treated Elizabeth Talbot kindly when King. She was in attendance at his Coronation and given her rightful precedence as a duchess. Richard referred to her as his 'kinswoman' (she was Anne's full cousin), and he granted her land and property which she was 'to hold by the service of a red rose at midsummer'. This additional land (Chelsea) she was subsequently ‘persuaded’ (after Richard’s death) by Margaret Beaufort to grant to Margaret’s henchman, Reginald Bray.

After 1485 Elizabeth decided to take up the lease of a great house within the precincts of the Minories, London. Here she could live a religious life without actually becoming a nun, and, despite her Lancastrian family connections, she surrounded herself with a group of what might reasonably be called ‘Yorkist’ ladies – for example the daughters of Sir Robert Brackenbury, King Richard’s faithful supporter, who had been killed at Bosworth.

Elizabeth died in May 1507, and was buried in the Minories. She did not spend all her time within its precincts – for example, she was one of the ladies who were sent to greet Catherine of Aragon on her arrival in England. If they had only shared a common language, Elizabeth could have told Catherine a few interesting tales about her new country.

For anyone who would like to know more about Eleanor Talbot, I highly recommend Eleanor The Secret Queen by John Ashdown-Hill. Elizabeth Talbot appears in the same source, but for more about her, see Colin Richmond’s three books about the Paston family, or indeed, the Paston Letters themselves, in which she appears as one of the more charming and tolerant characters.

What was Stillington's motive?

Although Commines is the principal source for Robert Stillington being the clergyman who informed Richard of the alleged marriage between Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Talbot, the treatment of the bishop after the accession of Henry VII does appear to support the idea that he was the man involved. Indeed it appears that the Lords wished to (at least) examine the bishop, but that Henry protected him from such an inquisition.

On the assumption that Stillington was the person responsible, what was his motive? This was a man already in his 60s, who had in our terms settled into a comfortable retirement. He had held high office under Edward IV, notably as Lord Chancellor from 1467-1473 (with a gap during the restoration of Henry VI.) Given the nature of the job, it seems reasonable to assume that he was a senior administrator of considerable ability.

Now of course Edward sacked him in 1473, and later, following the fall of Clarence, the bishop spent a short time in prison, apparently for speaking out of turn. Neither experience was unique, and neither seems to justify a burning desire for revenge. It's not as if the bishop spent the rest of his life on Job Seekers Allowance. He had, for a start, the very substantial revenues of the See of Bath and Wells, the equivalent of which today would be a very handsome pension pot indeed.

So did Stillington look for any reward? If so, he must have been sorely disappointed. There is no evidence that Richard III did anything to advance him. He certainly did not appoint him to high office or translate him to a better see. Nor was he in any sense part of Richard's affinity.

So are we really to believe that the bishop woke up one morning, and thought up a secret marriage for Edward IV, just for the hell of it? It was a risky thing to do, surely. Why should he be believed? What were the likely consequences if he were not believed? He risked, at the minimum, another spell in the Tower. Indeed, would he have dared to come forward with nothing more than his unsupported word? Say for the sake of argument it was pure invention. Would he not at least have had to 'square' the remaining members of the Talbot family, to be sure that his statement would not be met with universal contradiction? If he had been disbelieved, his future under Edward V would have been very far from rosy!

On balance, the easiest explanation seems to be that he genuinely had something on his conscience. Moreover, it seems likely he had some form of proof. We know that proofs of some kind were offered, even if we have no idea what the 'proofs' were. If you think the contrary, you must surely ask yourself what kind of man this Stillington was, and what was his motive. I think you would have to conclude that he was very odd indeed, malicious and exceptionally vengeful.

(Reblogged from Murrey and Blue)

Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, part 4.

In the early summer of 1463, Sir Ralph Percy reverted to his former Lancastrian loyalties and surrendered Bamburgh and Dunstanburgh to the Scottish/Lancastrian allies. In its way, trusting Ralph Percy with this responsibility had been as big a gamble as trusting Somerset, but it may have been the case that he was the only practical option in this neck of the woods, where the Percy name was still important.

Perhaps more surprising was the decision of Sir Ralph Grey to hand over Alnwick to the enemy. Grey had been regarded as a committed 'Yorkist' and was indeed grandson to the Grey executed with Cambridge at Southampton in 1415.

Warwick and Montagu were immediately instructed to mobilise their forces in the north - Warwick had been in London for the Parliament and had to make a long journey. Edward meanwhile concluded the Parliament without any undue haste and moved to Northampton, where he planned a muster.

Somerset was very much in his company - but the men of Northampton remembered the damage to their town caused by the Lancastrian armies a few years before, and rioted against the duke, even though he was in King Edward's proximity and surrounded by the King's guards. Edward had to break up the 'scuffle' with his own hands, rescue Somerset and threaten the rioters with a swift hanging if they did not disperse. The angry citizens retreated to their homes, and Somerset was saved.

However, Edward decided that he could no longer be kept about his person while emotions were so high against him. He sent Somerset (with a suitable guard) off to North Wales. Accounts differ as to whether it was to Chirk or Holt. I suspect the latter as the Duke of Norfolk was established there, with the difficult task of keeping order among some fairly restless local punters. This Norfolk was not the one who fought at Towton, but his young son, an individual who was always to prove a loyal Yorkist, albeit not a particularly capable one. He was probably employed at Holt as he was the only magnate available for the task with lands in the strategic area, not because of his great ability. But his wife, Elizabeth Talbot, was first cousin of Somerset and of course, sister to the legendary Lady Eleanor Talbot! I believe Somerset was sent to stay 'with family'. Given that the area was riven with Lancastrian dissent, it was not an obvious place to send someone Edward suspected might choose to defect. This leads me to think that Edward still had faith in Somerset.

The Nevilles meanwhile relieved Norham Castle and Newcastle, but were not in a position to recapture the lost castles. In August Margaret of Anjou and a small party set off for France again, hoping to secure more aid from King Louis. Whatever faults Queen Margaret had, no one could accuse her of being a pessimist.

Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, part 3

Lest it be forgotten, this Somerset was the Somerset who had commanded the Lancastrian forces at Wakefield and Towton and was thus (arguably) responsible for the deaths of (among others) Salisbury (Warwick's dad and Edward's uncle), Rutland (Edward's brother and Warwick's cousin) and Richard, Duke of York (Edward's dad and Warwick's uncle.) He had been (since at least first St. Albans) as big an enemy of the Yorkist cause as anyone you can name, including Margaret of Anjou. So on the face of it, it's hard to understand why Edward extended favour to him, when someone like Jasper Tudor (who if no better was certainly no worse) was told to pick up his bag and walk.

First, the basic reason. It was part of the deal to capture Bamburgh, quickly and with minimum expense. OK, that accounts for the pardon, and maybe the restoration of land, but not the favour. Even Warwick might have gone along with this, out of sheer practicality.

Second, the politics. Somerset was a key Lancastrian player. More important than any other single noble. It was at least arguable that if could be persuaded to make a permanent defection, the wars would be over. This may well have been Edward's calculation.

Third, the personal. It is my suspicion (I have no proof!) that Edward's involvement with Somerset's cousin, Lady Eleanor Talbot, was part of the mix. Edward may have thought that there was potential to win over not only Somerset but also the Talbots, an important 'Lancastrian' family via this route. Apart from this, Somerset seems to have been an urbane individual, and was possibly quite likeable on a personal level. He and Edward had a fair bit in common, having commanded armies at a relatively young age - maybe they compared notes?

Anyway, it is an undoubted fact that Edward showed Somerset marked favour. He shared his bed with him - this by no means implies a sexual involvement in the context of the time, but it was an exceptional sign of favour and trust. He hunted with Somerset. He placed Somerset in charge of his guard.

Warwick and Montagu (and probably others) were unhappy with this. First, because potentially more favour for Somerset would mean less for them, given there is only ever so much patronage to go round. Secondly they feared Somerset might try to murder Edward - he certainly had adequate opportunity. They may well have felt that Edward's treatment of Somerset was naive. (Yet if it was, it was exceptional. Edward, even as a young man, was far from naive and more than capable of being ruthless. As I hope to explore shortly with a post about the execution of Oxford and his son.)

In the next post I shall try to explain how this all went 'orribly wrong.

Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot

For those of you who wish to know more about Eleanor Talbot, I strongly recommend Eleanor, The Secret Queen by John Ashdown-Hill. Even if you disagree with Dr. Ashdown-Hill's conclusions - and if you are sceptical about Richard III you will feel obliged to - there is nothing wrong with the factual content of the book, which gathers together everything that can be known about this lady.

Instead of trying to give you a digest of this text, I shall give you the key points of my conclusions on Eleanor, following my study of this book.

1. She was quite definitely the daughter of John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, which (incredibly) has been doubted by some historians. Talbot's name is little known these days, but at the time he was a hero, roughly equivalent to Churchill or at least Field Marshal Montgomery.

2. It is wrong, therefore, to think of Eleanor as 'obscure'. Although her own marriage to Sir Thomas Butler of Sudeley was a modest one, her father was a leading nobleman and her sister was the Duchess of Norfolk. (The same Duchess of Norfolk who served as Principal Lady-in-Waiting at Margaret of York's wedding and was the mother of Anne Mowbray.)

3. Eleanor's mother was a Beauchamp - Margaret, eldest daughter of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. A lady of very high rank by birth, if this needs to be said, half-sister to Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick. Which makes the 'Kingmaker' Eleanor's uncle. (Perhaps fortunately for Edward IV the family quarrel between the Beauchamp sisters meant this connection was not emphasised.)

4. Another Beauchamp sister, Eleanor, married the Somerset killed at St. Albans. So, Henry Duke of Somerset and his brothers were Eleanor's first cousins.

Of course it is impossible for Ashdown-Hill, or anyone else to prove that Eleanor's alleged secret marriage to Edward IV took place. By the nature of such marriages no evidence can be extant, the witnesses being long dead. Then again, we have almost as much evidence for the ceremony as we have for that between Edward and Elizabeth W. It's really Edward's acknowledgement of the latter ceremony that makes the difference. The event itself was equally irregular.

Edward was evidently attracted to women some years older than himself and preferably widows - Eleanor, Elizabeth, 'Jane' Shore and Elizabeth Waite/Lucy all seem to fit the template.

However, let's forget personal attractions for a minute. Could there have been a political reason for Edward to marry Eleanor? Possibly, just possibly. Edward was keen to conciliate Somerset (an issue to which I shall return in due course) and in that context his marriage to Somerset's cousin might have been seen as a white rose/red rose union. With the added bonus of bringing the powerful Talbot family on board into the bargain. Given that Warwick and Montagu were very annoyed by Edward's pardon of Somerset, it would be in line with Edward's trouble-avoidance philosophy to keep the matter temporarily secret. And then when Somerset defected to the other side again, it would give a reason for an angry Edward to dump Eleanor and turn to the gorgeous Elizabeth.

It's a fascinating subject for speculation, but it can't be proved. What Ashdown-Hill has proved is that Eleanor had land which a) she did not inherit b) she did not hold by dower or jointure c) which she could not afford to buy. This land was almost certainly granted to her by Edward; and since Edward did not go around granting lands to random females, there is something there that cannot easily be explained away.

Anyway, read the book, see what you think.

The Character of Edward IV

I don't feel like writing about anything deep today, so I thought I'd write something about the character of King Edward IV. An interesting topic, in my opinion.

I find Edward hard to pigeon-hole, as he was certainly a complex and multi-layered individual. So let's examine a few aspects.

Edward as warrior. Arguably, he was one of England's greatest warrior kings. Certainly he never lost a battle, although this may be partly because, as Alianore Audley remarked, he always knew when to run away. Seriously though, folks, that is not a bad quality in a general. It takes intelligence and a certain humility to judge when a withdrawal makes sense. Richard III might have benefited from a similar view of life at Bosworth,as indeed might Lee at Gettysburg, to name two obvious examples of commanders who might have been better advised to fight another day.

Of course, Edward was never tested against a foreign enemy, and on the one occasion he met the French army he chose to make peace. But see above. I suspect Edward made peace because he judged a battle was likely to be lost. He was no mug.

There is a view in some circles that a man can only be judged a great general if he has battered foreigners. This would rule out both Edward and Oliver Cromwell (unless you count the Irish)and leave (probably) Marlborough as the greatest English general of all time. I am not convinced - I think Edward is up there. He fought a whole lot of battles and never lost once. That has to be down to more than luck. He's certainly entitled to be spoken of in the same breath as the above-mentioned Cromwell and Marlborough plus Fairfax, Edward I and Henry V (spit). And, to be very blunt, his track record exceeds Richard III's as the sun does the moon.

Edward as politician. We need to remind ourselves that he came to the throne at 18. What were you like at 18?* It's probably true to say 'lacking in mature judgement'. Edward was probably too lenient in his dealings with certain individuals early in his reign - I'm looking at you, Henry Somerset - but this was surely a benign fault. Better to be overly merciful than a blood-stained tyrant. He learned and became somewhat less forgiving of opponents in later life. By 1471, if you had showed yourself to be an implacable opponent, he was likely to have your head. However, he could still be accommodating to former Lancastrians (Morton for example) and many of his attempts at conciliation bore fruit. People like the Woodvilles/Wydevilles and Lord Audley are good examples of former enemies Edward converted to faithful supporters.

*If 18 or below please ignore this question.

Edward could be ruthless when he needed to be, particularly in the second part of his reign. Executing your own brother is pretty ruthless by any standards. He was also rather careless of the rules of inheritance, and grabbed lands for his family by quite blatant abuse of his power as king. This did not come back to haunt him, but it was undoubtedly a factor in creating the aristocratic discontent that smoothed Richard III's path to to the throne.

It's a neat question whether Edward could have handled Warwick and the Nevilles better. They were family, and they had more or less put him on the throne. His quarrel with them could easily have led to his deposition and death. On the other hand, if he had cut them much more slack he could easily have ended up as nothing more than Warwick's puppet. The conflict had to be resolved somehow, and there were undoubtedly faults on both sides. A greater king might have found a way to conciliate the Nevilles while retaining his own authority, but it would have been a big ask.

His foreign policy fell to pieces in the latter days of his reign. This was largely due to his failure to support Burgundy in its hour of crisis (because of the fat French pension he was receiving) but when considering this you should bear in mind that Burgundy had proved a somewhat inadequate ally (to put it mildly) while Louis XI - a truly brilliant mind and a great ruler - had built France into a power that England was simply not equipped to defeat in either war or diplomacy. An alternative foreign policy, based on aggression towards France, might well have led to even worse disasters.

Edward as a person  My impression of Richard, Duke of York, is that (however arrogant and pig-headed he may have been) he was genuinely interested in good government and reform. My impression of his eldest son is that he didn't give a rat's about such things and was much more interested in having a good time while acquiring as much land and money for himself as possible.

Edward undoubtedly liked women, though I think some of his exploits may have been exaggerated. In particular, he had a liking for handsome widows somewhat older than himself. His decision to marry Elizabeth Woodville/Wydeville/Whatever may be romantic in some eyes, but politically it was a crowning folly, irrespective of whether or not he was previously married to Eleanor Talbot/Butler/Botiller. To be blunt, it was irresponsible and almost cost him his throne. It alienated key members of his family (including, almost certainly, his own mother) and ultimately led to the downfall of the House of York.

The Aftermath of Towton - King Edward on Tour

It was perhaps no more than common sense for Edward to remain at York for some weeks after Towton. The North was strongly Lancastrian in sympathy, and he had to at least try to reconcile its people to his rule. (It must be remembered that, apart from Warwick's immediate family and their supporters most of the northern nobility and gentry had been engaged against him at Towton. Many husbands, fathers, sons and brothers had died there, and there was no doubt considerable bitterness against him, as well as uncertainty about the future. Moreover, the leadership of northern society had been - in some cases literally - decapitated.)

Edward moved on to Durham (22 April) where he appointed the Bishop, Lawrence Booth, as his confessor. This was an act of conciliation as Booth had previously been associated with Queen Margaret. He then progressed to Newcastle, where he witnessed the execution of James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, who had escaped the rout at Mortimer's Cross but now paid the penalty for being too prominent a member of the Lancastrian establishment. This execution was perhaps something of a show of force, because the Yorkist hold on the far north was tenuous at best. The strong local loyalty to the Percy family was never successfully overcome and was to lead eventually to the reinstatement of the Percy heir.

The King did not linger in this area but returned south by way of Lancashire and Cheshire. Again, it was useful to 'show the flag' in these counties, which were very far from being Yorkist in sympathy. He then moved into the north midlands, where the Lancastrian element was also strong. I think it's a safe bet that Edward used all of his personal charm, and was to an extent successful in winning 'hearts and minds'. His coronation was being arranged in London, but Edward was in no hurry to arrive there or to take charge of the Westminster machinery of government. Instead he made his way to Norwich.

Norfolk was, in contrast to much of the tour, pretty much Yorkist territory. The dukes of Norfolk (especially) and Suffolk were Edward's men while the Earl of Oxford, the other local magnate, was a moderate Lancastrian who suffered from ill health that had certainly been bad enough to keep him from Towton.

Edward would therefore have received a good welcome in East Anglia. Here I turn to speculation. The Duke of Norfolk had a son, John, Earl of Warenne, whose wife was Elizabeth Talbot. Her sister, Eleanor, Lady Butler, was already a widow at this time and quite possibly living in Norfolk's household under Elizabeth's protection. She had legal problems with her lands that needed the King's favour to resolve. Was this when they met? It's impossible to say, one way or the other. All we can say is that Edward was to prove that he had an eye for a good-looking widow.

More on this another day. Whatever delights he found or did not find in Norwich, duty eventually called him away. On Friday, 26 June he made his state entry into London.

Eleanor The Secret Queen, by John Ashdown-Hill

As a great fan of John Ashdown-Hill's series of articles on and around the subject of Eleanor Talbot that have appeared in sundry Ricardians over the past few years I have been looking forward to reading this book with huge anticipation. However, I may have expected a little too much, as there's not much here that was not covered in the said articles.

This is absolutely not to downplay Ashdown-Hill's scholarship in putting this work together, for that has been formidable, and it is extremely useful to have all the information about Eleanor collected in one place. She has been badly neglected by historians, and those that have deigned to write about her have made fundamental mistakes, one even claiming that she was not a daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury!

Sadly, the bottom line is that it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an irregular marriage took place between Eleanor and Edward IV. (This is not to say that it did not, just that it can't be proved.) Geoffrey Richardson used to say that in matters surrounding Richard III one had to sometimes take 'a leap of faith.' I rather think John Ashdown-Hill has taken such a leap. I happen to agree with his conclusion, but it has to be said that the case is not rock solid.

To balance this, the case for the marriage has often been far too lightly dismissed. If Gairdner, the formidable Victorian historian - no friend of Richard III! - felt there was reasonable evidence of the truth of the story, then I feel we should at least accept the possibility that it happened that way. One very interesting point raised by Ashdown-Hill is that had Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville in a regular ceremony - which of course he did not - then the onus would have been on Eleanor to protest at the church in time-honoured fashion. Her failure to do so would have put her and Edward at fault, not Elizabeth, and Elizabeth's children would have been deemed legitimate. (As an aside, they would also have been entitled to inherit land under English law.)

So it sort of begs the question doesn't it? Why the hell did Edward marry Elizabeth in an irregular ceremony? What on earth did he think he was doing? Surely he was not that afraid of Warwick, was he?

If you want to know more about Lady Eleanor Talbot this account cannot be bettered, as it contains everything that is known about her. It also poses some interesting questions - such as how Eleanor came by certain lands that can only have been given her by Edward IV. However, if you are a determined cynic about her marriage to the King, the book will probably not be enough to budge you, though it may give you some food for thought.

The book itself, by the way, is beautifully produced and on the back cover is an artist's impression of Eleanor. Apparently this was partly based on a skull discovered in Norwich which may be hers - or equally may not be.

Lady Eleanor Talbot

Sometimes I find things on the Web without really trying, as with this rather fine portrait of Lady Eleanor Talbot.

Apparently it was commissioned for John Ashdown Hill's new book about her, Eleanor, The Secret Queen. Some of you may know that I'm a great admirer of John's work on Eleanor, much of which has been published in the Ricardian, so I'm looking forward to seeing what additional information he has found to include in this book. Not that I expect it to prove anything, you understand. If there ever was proof of her marriage to Edward IV I think we can take it has read it was destroyed a long time ago.

The Decline of the Welsh Rising.

I've just noted that Pugh dates the Woodbury Hill affair to 1405, whereas Davies puts it in 1404 and questions whether it even happened. I followed Pugh in Fetterlock, but where historians differ, how is a humble novelist to know? According to Wylie, Henry IV was in Worcester in August 1405, but not in 1404 as Davies states. Looks like Davies may be mistaken here, unless his instinct that it never happened at all is the correct one.

Anyway, the French departed, and Henry IV's government began to achieve progress. In Autumn 1406 the submission of Anglesey was completed and the population made to sue for pardon and pay fines. They had been taking a major hit from Anglo-Irish raiders and it was all too much. The fall of Anglesey put the squeeze on Owain's supply of food, as it was one of the most productive areas of Wales. In addition it was now much easier for the English to mount a sea blockade of the remaining rebel strongholds of North Wales and cut off supplies to Harlech and Aberystwyth.

As mentioned earlier, a siege of Aberystwyth was abandoned in 1407 despite the sterling staff work of the Duke of York, but nevertheless it fell in the late summer of 1408. In February 1409 the last stronghold, Harlech fell to Gilbert, Lord Talbot, and his brother, John Talbot, Lord Furnival, later to win fame as Earl of Shrewsbury and father of Lady Eleanor Talbot.

Owain's wife was captured at Harlech along with her daughter Catrin, Catrin's children, and other members of Owain's immediate family. Sir Edmund Mortimer died during the siege, some say through starvation. (There is also a legend that he escaped to Scotland, but it's almost certainly just that.)

Thereafter Owain's rising was reduced to a guerrilla campaign, though his followers were still, for some years, to prove capable of producing scares and shocks. Owain was never captured, and died apparently in September 1415, though no one is sure to this day where he is buried. (There are several theories.)

The last of his six sons, Maredudd, continued the struggle in remote Merioneth, and as late as 1417 the rebel Lollard, Sir John Oldcastle, tried to make contact with him there, only to be captured en-route by Lord Charleton of Powys.

Maredudd was offered a pardon that same year, but didn't accept it until 8 April 1421. According to Welsh legend some of Owain's followers continued the struggle after that, right through to the arrival of the 'redeemer' Henry VII. If they did, it would have been hard to distinguish their activity from that of routine banditry.

If anyone would like more detail about Owain without getting a book out, there's a useful site here.