The New Murrey and Blue blog

A RED ROSE FOR CHELSEA

, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

After he became King, Richard III leased the Manor of Chelsea to the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk for a red rose given each Midsummer. The Dowager Duchess was Elizabeth Talbot, the sister of Eleanor Talbot, Edward IV‘s secret wife. Elizabeth (and Eleanor) were also full 1st cousins to Richard’s wife, Anne Neville. Elizabeth, who had not been treated particularly well by Edward with his ‘land grab’ with some of her dower lands and the whole Mowbray inheritance going to his younger son, Richard of Shrewsbury, should young Richard’s wife, Elizabeth’s only child, Anne Mowbray, die even if the marriage was never consummated. Which of course is exactly what happened to poor little Anne, who was only eight when she died.

Why was Richard generous to Elizabeth? She also attended his Coronation, so obviously she was not appalled or insulted that her deceased sister’s name was brought up as Edward’s possible secret bride. She had been close to her sister Eleanor and continued to patronise Corpus Christi College in Cambridge, endowing the college with scholarships in her sister’s name. Did she perhaps give evidence of her sister’s secret marriage? All of what proofs were given has been lost but what we do know is, some proofs must have been given. Unlike fanciful traditionalist accounts, no one is going to just hand over a crown in the blink of an eye on someone’s say-so. Rumours about Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville being somehow ‘irregular’ had been about long before 1483.

As it happened, Elizabeth Talbot didn’t hold Chelsea for very long. After Richard was killed at Bosworth and Henry Tudor became King, she was persuaded by Margaret Beaufort to give up Chelsea to her famous (or infamous) henchman, Sir Reginald Bray. Today the old manor house is long gone but the church near it still remains. Inside are are tombs to Bray’s brother John and to his heir, his nephew Edmund. Reginald Bray himself is buried at St George’s Chapel, Windsor.

A year or two after giving up Chelsea, Elizabeth retired to the convent of the Minoresses, where she had a friend, Anne Montgomerie, and where a number of ‘Yorkist’ ladies now lived. She died and was buried there in 1506/07, and her grave is now lost.

Below:stained glass of Elizabeth Talbot

and the Ruins of the Abbey of the Minoresses of St Clare, London

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. Richard P. McArthur Avatar
    Richard P. McArthur

    Land and a building for a rose? And a Lancastrian rose at that? (Yes, I know that’s an anachronism. I have a tough time resisting temptations).

    Apparently Richard III was not the sharpest bargainer.

    Like

    Reply
  2. www summer Avatar
    www summer

    It is very illegal for Richard III to abolish marriage without the proper consent of the Pope, which is why Henry VII was able to restore Edward’s marriage. Edward deprived the lady’s family of property for his son, and they had reason to lie or support Richard’s lies. During the restoration period of Henry VI, no one proposed this marriage, otherwise the success of Edward’s return might have been greatly reduced. Finally, Richard’s bill has no evidence at all

    Like

    Reply
    1. hoodedman1 Avatar
      hoodedman1

      He didn’t. Bishop Stillington claimed he had married Edward before which made the marriage bigamous. There had to have been some proofs as the Three Estates agreed upon it. You are aware, I hope, Richard could not just grab the crown and go, “Yippee, I’m the King!” There were prior rumours of irregularity in the marriage and Commines, no friend to Richard, actually did NOT seem to doubt there had been a marriage and Mancini had heard of ‘irregularities’ too. Bastardy could be overturned as happened later in case of Mary I and Elizabeth I, and bastards, such as the Beauforts, were also legitimised. If Henry Tudor was so convinced that Titulus Regius was a complete fraud, why was he so afraid of it and ordered every copy destroyed? Why did Thomas More seem to have deliberately obfuscated the name of the woman involved, using that of one of Edward’s mistresses instead of Eleanor Talbot.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Why can’t Moore be unaware of this woman? Does Mancini know about this woman? Does he know that marriage is abnormal because Edward was married before? Isn’t there a letter from Richard stating that he wants to destroy the defamation against him? Even Yorkshire has documents left behind from this incident? So are all the slanders against Richard true?

        Like

      2. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Sorry, Mary and Elizabeth were both confirmed as illegitimate heirs. Henry VIII did not restore her mother’s marriage, but Edward’s marriage was never abolished in church! This made it very easy for Henry VII to restore his father-in-law’s marriage. So, why not seek the Pope if there is evidence? The people I have met who support marriage for real never discuss this issue.

        Like

      3. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        That is great! Henry VII’s accession to the throne convinced the restoration and repeal of the law, restoring his father-in-law’s marriage, and his documents also left behind the statement that Richard killed the baby! So obviously he found evidence to prove these two points! Because the parliament has agreed!

        Like

      4. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Mainstream scholars in modern history believe that marriage is not real because they are idiots, but because they clearly know that the medieval English Parliament abolished the legitimate coronation of Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Mancini recorded that Richard killed William Hastings without the consent of Parliament in March. After ascending to the throne, he killed Anthony Woodville, the three people who had not agreed to be killed before Parliament. Some agree that only Mancini’s recorded will of Edward is true, but Mancini records that he would threaten Parliament!! They don’t agree with this, obviously they only support what they want!

        Like

      5. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Moore also fictionalized most of the events that Edward and Elizabeth discussed with his nobles before their marriage, as well as Jane Shaw. His works clearly contain a lot of fantasy and unfamiliarity with history. It is very likely that he had no knowledge of this woman at all, in fact, there was no chronicle of this woman before George Buck found the bill. Do you really want to see a famous English hater in France write a memoir to explain his brother’s smearing to the longest lasting English king in his memory，Although he has praised him countless times for his beauty? But he clearly dislikes everything in England.

        Like

      6. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        They also did not believe Mancini’s record that Richard had intended to declare Edward an illegitimate child, although there was some residual evidence in the bill.

        Like

      7. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Henry had Parliament repeal Titulus Regius, the statute that declared Edward IV’s marriage invalid and his children illegitimate, thus legitimising his wife.

        Wikipedia also tells us that Henry VII clearly found evidence to prove that Richard’s announcement of his father-in-law’s marriage was wrong, as the parliament agreed to his request to repeal the bill!

        Like

      8. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Henry VII made no definitive mention of the Princes in the Tower, but it did accuse Richard of “the unnatural, mischievous and great perjuries, treasons, homicides and murders, in shedding of infant’s blood, with many other wrongs, odious offences and abominations against God and man”

        Obviously, there is evidence for all of this because the parliament has agreed!!

        Like

      9. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        [202] at the same time ordering the Sheriff of London to imprison anyone spreading such slanders.[203] The same orders were issued throughout the realm, including York where the royal pronouncement recorded in the City Records dates 5 April 1485 and carries specific instructions to suppress seditious talk and remove and destroy evidently hostile placards unread.[204][205] Obviously, this is because Richard knows that the defamation against him is actually true, otherwise why would he destroy the rumors?

        Like

      10. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Obviously, Wikipedia tells us that it’s true for Richard to marry a niece! All the defamation against him is true because he ordered the destruction of evidence and imprisoned the rumor spreader!

        Like

      11. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Anyway, Henry VII did not legalize illegitimate children, he simply repealed the law, and Elizabeth Woodwell remained the only legitimate wife of Edward IV in the Catholic world, and the only legitimate Empress Dowager of Tudor. The marriages of Catherine and Anne Boleyn in Aragon have not been restored, and Mary declared her parents’ marriage legal in parliament, but it was ineffective. Henry VIII had only three legitimate wives and no Mary’s mother. Beaufort’s ancestor Catherine got married later.

        Like

      12. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        If Henry VII had only legitimized Edward’s illegitimate child, Elizabeth Woodwell would not have become the Queen Mother! Only the legitimate wife of the king, the legitimate queen, can become the queen dowager! There has never been a record of the invalidity of marriages in the church during the Middle Ages that has been restored!

        Like

      13. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Your so-called explanation can only indicate that Richard is a self deceiving idiot! A devout medieval male nobleman, who discovered that his brother’s marriage was problematic and did not seek help from the church, declared his abolition in parliament! How ridiculous and absurd! No one has ever done such a thing before! Henry VIII abolished marriage in the church! he 🈶 Not seeking evidence from the church clearly indicates that he is even crazier than the unconscious Henry VI!

        Like

      14. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Double standards appear in the speech of people who support marriage as real! Henry VII’s Destruction Act represents his belief that the bill is true, and Richard’s March Destruction Defamation is that he was slandered and very angry! Richard III left a record in the Mancini record of threatening Parliament, but he must have provided evidence before ascending to the throne, and Henry VII was not!!

        Like

      15. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        I would also like to say that Mancini’s account was written around 83 years after he came to England and usurped the throne. His account is likely to have been promoted by Richard III, as he was not recorded during the early stages of Edward’s rule.

        Like

      16. super blue Avatar
        super blue

        In 1566, you say?

        Like

      17. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        By the way, Thomas More’s work has not been published, and there is a saying that he wrote it purely to practice his writing skills.

        Like

      18. www summer Avatar
        www summer

        Crowland Chronicleparts then subject to them, the said Protector Richard assumed the government of the kingdom, with the title of King, on the twentieth day of the aforesaid month of June; on the same day, at the great Hall of Westminster, obtruded himself into the marble chair. The colour for this act of usurpation, and his thus taking possession of the throne was the following:

        ManciniAfterwards, he seized a special opportunity to make a public appearance; Because he so corrupted the preachers of the Holy Word [Ralph Shaw and others?] that when they preached to the people, facing all the dignity and religion, they shamelessly said that the descendants of Edward IV should be eradicated immediately, because he was neither a legitimate king nor could his problems be so. They said that Edward became pregnant through adultery and was different from the late Duke of York in all aspects, who was mistakenly referred to as the son of the Duke of York. Lords cannot ignore their own safety, taking the example of Hastings and realizing that the alliance between the two dukes, whose power is supported by numerous armies, will be difficult to resist and dangerous.Obviously, both sources believe that Richard forcibly usurped the throne!!

        Like

  3. www summer Avatar
    www summer

    If you believe that Richard must have evidence to usurp the throne, then obviously Henry VII also has evidence to prove that Richard is the usurper. Not to mention the people who usurped the throne in England before.

    If he has evidence that is not written in the bill or consulted with the Pope, it only indicates that he is a fool.

    There are also rumors that Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage was made public a few weeks later. Regardless of any rumors, in fact, no one had suggested that Edward might have been married before Richard, including Warwick and the lady’s family!Rumors are more likely due to their private marriage.

    Like

    Reply
  4. www summer Avatar
    www summer

    Many scholars believe that Richard III received Howard’s support due to Anne’s land, so they may have approached the lady’s family to discuss this lie, or even that it was a choice made by the Duke of York when he engaged Edward.

    Like

    Reply
  5. www summer Avatar
    www summer

    To be honest, I suggest not to trust the thoughts of the deceased John too much. One believes that Elizabeth Woodwell was a medieval chainsaw killer, and the other believes that Edward IV has a boyfriend. He is not a historian, and his hatred towards women is surprising.

    Like

    Reply
  6. www summer Avatar
    www summer

    And I don’t think Richard’s promotion harms this lady. In this lie, she is a pitiful and innocent victim, and even if her family loves her, she won’t get angry. Even if she were alive, she might have been angry with King Edward’s series of actions towards Anne’s land, which led to her agreeing to this plan.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Q Avatar
      Q

      How much money do you receive for all this?

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to hoodedman1 Cancel reply