This post is prompted by a recent forthright statement on social media to the effect that Edward IV was not married to Lady Eleanor Talbot.

Now it is one thing to suggest that there is a possibility that there was no such marriage. But certainty? Unless one was literally there, as one of the principal characters, or perhaps as Edward’s personal bodyguard, how can you possibly be certain?

Of course, some people believe in reincarnation, which is a perfectly respectable tradition, shared by millions around the world, but memories carried from previous lives are not usually adduced as historical evidence. Some believe, so it seems, that they are old enough in this life to have been around on 8th June 1461. Others appear to be time travellers.

The point is, of course, that there is evidence of the marriage. In the first and most obvious case, the legislation in Parliament known as Titulus Regius states quite clearly that Edward and Eleanor were married. Of course, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons were not all present in the chapel, but they were presented with proofs (no longer available to us) which evidently satisfied them sufficiently to pass a statute. However inadequate their knowledge may have been, it is hard to argue that we, 500-plus years later, are better informed on the matter.

Of course, the proofs had previously been presented at the time of Richard’s accession – Titulus Regius was merely a formalisation of what had already been accepted. It is worth mentioning though that the only evidence we have that Owain Tudor and Katherine of Valois were married was a similar statement in Parliament. Curiously, no one seems to question their marriage. You certainly do not come across bland assertions that it never happened.

There is other evidence too. Hearne’s Fragment, which is thought (by historians such as James Ross and D.A.L. Morgan) to be the remnant of a memoir by Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk (d 1524) also records the marriage. What would be the purpose of making such a statement after 1485 if it was untrue? Would it not, in fact, have been rather dangerous for the author?

h/t Annette Carson

Sources:
i) Generally known as ‘Hearne’s Fragment’ – Ross and Morgan agree this is almost certainly the fragmentary memoirs of Norfolk himself. Originally T. Sprott, ‘Chronica’ ed. Thomas Hearne 1719 and Kingsford, ‘English Historical Literature in the 15th Century‘ (1913 repr. 2019 IIRC). Also recently accessible in ‘Chronicles of the White Rose of York‘ ed. J.C. Giles, 1843, repr. Alan Sutton 1974.
ii) Also fragmentary memoirs written by Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk (d. 1524) authenticated by James Ross and by D.A.L. Morgan in English Historical Review, 2009, Vol 124, No. 509, pp. 811-832.

The Talbot marriage is on record.


Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. Annette Carson Avatar
    Annette Carson

    Sorry, Sighthound, but when I cited the Duke of Norfolk’s fragment it was in substantiation of the charge of precontract and how the precontract bastardized Edward IV’s offspring under canon law. Norfolk reported the secrecy of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, not Eleanor Talbot. The reason the precontract bastardized their children was, fundamentally, because this second marriage was secret too. The first secret marriage could have been annulled with some fancy footwork. But because it was left in existence, the sin was compounded by entering into a second secret marriage (as reported by Norfolk), and it was THIS that ruled the Woodville marriage null and void. Thus Norfolk’s words, confirming BOTH marriages were secret, corroborate the legal standing of Edward V’s illegitimacy. This is a highly simplified summary of a legal quagmire which has been admirably explained by Prof Richard Helmholz.
    However, to support the existence of the first secret marriage (to Eleanor Talbot) we need only look at the memoir of Philippe de Commynes who asserts it in two different places without casting doubt on its having taken place. In the standard translation by M.C.E. Jones, easily available as a Penguin Classic, it’s on pp. 353-4 and 397. In one place Commynes says Bishop Stillington told Gloucester he’d secretly married Edward IV to Eleanor; and in the other place he says Stillington was present when Edward deceitfully promised to marry her in order to sleep with her. Either way this promise + consummation constituted marriage under canon law, and Commynes warns the reader that ‘such games are very dangerous as the consequences show’.
    Commynes disapproves of Stillington revealing this marriage to Gloucester because it ‘helped him in his evil plan’ (i.e. to murder the princes and seize the throne, p. 354). But he doesn’t say Stillington lied. In fact it would have been quite sensational had he claimed that an ordained bishop knowingly told a tissue of lies. What he reports is that Stillington’s role was to cover it up and ‘keep the lady quiet’. But then he told Gloucester ‘all about this affair’ and Gloucester used it for his own ends. On p. 397 he says Stillington ‘this wicked bishop’ harboured thoughts of revenge because Edward had put him in prison and fined him, then he adds a weird story about Stillington’s son which is probably apocryphal.
    Commynes, as a member of the French court, is a supporter of Henry Tudor and committed to the story of Richard killing the princes and usurping the throne. Stillington is wicked because he helped Gloucester, not due to inventing an untrue story.

    Like

  2. just my own speculation here, but I suspect Stillington was not the only source close to Richard from whom he heard about the duplicitous and secretive means by which Edward used to get Eleanor Talbot Boteler/Butler into bed, including the promise of betrothal.
    Eleanor Talbot was Edward’s social class and their fathers’ were well acquainted, their families equally so. Any number of people were still alive to fill Richard in about the situation that spring 1483, although I seriously doubt Richard didn’t already know.

    Like

Leave a reply to amma19542019 Cancel reply