Yea but he wouldn't be the rightful king. The male lineage was what was more important at the time, and it would also be illegitimate religiously. Which at the time was a big no, edward as king
Also, let's keep in mind that the Plantagenets were always known for their family infighting in order to get to power and the sons of York were no exception of this, now both of Edward's brothers ultimately betrayed him in life and in death in the effort to get their brothers position of power for themselves, it would make perfect sense for them to fuel such rumors given what they seemed to be after.
That all makes sense to me. And I used to believe that Edward IV was definitely illegitimate. But all we really have is the analysis of one author Michael K. Jones, an historian with Ricardian links. The analysis of one historian does not equal fact. Charles Ross and Paul Muray Kendall both never mentioned Edward IV, as illegitimate, as far as I know, and both of them were high profile Yorkist historians.
🥀👸🏻The narrator says that if Richard, Duke of York, was not Edward’s father, then he had no Plantagenet blood. This is untrue. Cecily Neville was a Plantagenet. So no matter who Edward’s father was, he still had Plantagenet blood. Cecily’s mother was Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, making Cecily the great-granddaughter of King Edward III. - Bonny G Smith👑🏰👑
I have always wondered why Richard, Duke of York would take his second son Edmund with him to the Battle of Wakefield. Would it not have been the custom of the time to take his eldest son, unless there were doubts about his legitimacy? Do you have any thoughts on this?
Even if Edward IV was illegitimate the current line is still legitimate since they took the throne by CONQUEST and plus parliament did a reboot defining Sophia of Hanover as the legitimate starting point of royals thus any claimant to the throne must be related to Sophia of hanover
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 I wanted to ask you, where did you study history? You know it so well, and I am going to graduate from school soon and I would like to learn history but I do not know what university has the best historical faculty. Perhaps, you can recommend me something. Thank you!!!
@@majormatsuda6887 I didn't! I did a theology degree which had some history in it. I got really interested in history in my 20s and have read A LOT. I'm not sure what country you want to study in but if I were you I'd go for an institution that has a syllabus that interests you.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Wow, such a deep knowledge, than! I was 100% sure you studied history. I have even thought about a theology degree but I do not think that I would have a good, long and ambitious career out there. Well, thank you very much for your piece of advice! Looking forward for your new videos
I always found this debate fascinating. If it is true, it casts Richard III in a different light, for if he new that Edward was illegitimate then his claim that the Woodville marriage wasn't legal could just be a smokescreen. Also I've watched a documentary that suggested when George, Duke of Clarence was imprisoned then drowned, it was because he knew something that threatened Edward's claim to the throne. 🤔
There's a new portrait of Richard III being displayed at the National Portrait Gallery. The curators there believe that although it is not contemporary it is based on a contemporary portrait. And in that portrait you can really see that Richard and Edward look like brothers.
Maggie Pole had a difficult time but not for as long as portrayed in recent TV series. Her cousin Queen Elizabeth of York helped her greatly. Later, she was made Countess of Salisbury in her own right -- one of very few, if not the only, woman to hold such a title in her own right at the time. Henry VIII was very fond of her, considering her to be an aunt, which is still the case in many countries and cultures for the first cousin of one's parent. It's still common in the American South. ANYWAY, Henry VIII was extremely fond of her and her children until Reginald Pole started stirring things up during the Pilgrimage of Grace. Also many of those close to Henry invented evidence and poisoned his mind against her -- common practice in the Tudor period. The imprisonment and execution of Lady Salisbury was one of many black stains on Henry's reign; afterward Henry mentioned numerous times that he deeply regretted it.
My problem with the claim that his mother threatened to "reveal" he was illegitimate is the way the Church laws regarding married women who committed adultry. It would have meant her imprisonment and/or death. So, i rather doubt she made any such threats.
Im no expert but love the period in question but my thoughts are if his son was conceived in war time and possibly premature, a hasty baptism would make sense to save his soul but also to have a fully legitimised heir should war prove fatal for the Duke of York.
I think this analysis and the argument is a bit ignorant to the times -- it's far more likely that all of this is due to the rumors that came after. I'm sure he was legitimate.
He was tall with a lantern shaped jaw...like the French Archer. His siblings were small boned like the king and queen. When he married a commoner, his mother threatened to reveal his illegitimacy.
Gavin4419 1 the problem with the argument that his mother threatened to expose him is that it doesn’t appear in any source until 1483. This makes it seem more likely that it arose because of rumours that Richard III’s people were spreading to try and discredit the princes in the tower. I must say, I do go back and forth on this. I’m certainly not 100%.
Another point which I dont think ive seen anyone mention is if Edward was illegitimate why would Richard make Edward the name sake of his Royal Ancestor where his family got there claim to throne from Edward III? You would think if Edward was illegitimate then Richard would refuse to make him the name sake of his Royal Ancestor and give Edward another name that doesnt have anything to do with Richards Ancestor Edward III. It would be interesting to hear what people think of this theory :)
As an historian, I find the idea of Edward IV's illegitimacy one that's extremely dubious. The "evidence" for it is taken out of the historical context of the time.
It cannot be demonstrated that his parents weren’t together at his conception because it simply might not have been documented that Richard was briefly back home.
Elizabeth's mom wasn't lowly at all - her mother was part of the Burgundian royalty Jaquetta of Luxembourg who was increadibly 'high' nobel up before the queen under Henry the VI- so his choice was obviously strategic, but his true line did not write the history, obviously
She ‘lowered’ herself with her second marriage though, and her children would then take on the status of their father. Edmund and Jasper Tudor had a French princess for a mother, but every bit of standing they ever acquired was gifted from their half brother, and had nothing to do with their status at birth, which could have just as easily been zilch, royal mother notwithstanding.
Truth be told, strictly speaking, even dear poor Cecily Neville herself may not have known... Adultery doesn't always result in pregnancy, and she may have had reason to think it could have been either if she were intimate with both within a few weeks of each other!
🤣🤣 Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, allowing a lowly archer to as much as touch her unless it was to kiss the hem of her gown?? 🤣🤣 That’s always been laughable when compared to every other contemporary source about her character and sense of self-importance. A rushed baptism in time of conflict is hardly “proof” of anything other than securing his immortal soul.
You made no mention about the claimed differences in looks between Edward IV and that of his brothers and father. The former was apparently tall but his brothers and father were not and there were other discrepancies in appearance too, so this also forms part of the discussion. I hope he wasn't illegitimate but I think it is more likely that not, otherwise why all the talk about it at the time and after. Although all the talk of Prince Harry being Hewitt's son are ridiculous too as Harry looks like Charles so false rumours are possible.
Wasn't there a documen=t found that made Cecily Neville's pregnancy especially long and not fitting the timeline of the absence of her husband? I believe it was on a Timeline Documentary about Richard III.
I watched that episode and I find you have to look at it with the idea that they wanted to tell a particular story. Not that they are wrong or right but it is presented to make the case that he was illegitimate. Yes, Edward IV people at the time suggested this timeline of it happening at their home in Yorkshire to refute claims about what happened or didn't happen in France. Clearly, no one did the math and this is a story made by men of the court to do a number of things 1) to say he's legitimate 2) he is truly a son of York and English. The only way to truly know the answer to this question is to test his DNA against his brother Richard III but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I would like to mention Edward IV won his crown by conquest so did Henry IV before him (who started the Lancaster monarch line) and Henry VII (who started the Tudor monarch line). It was Henry IV's action that really started off the cousin's war as the Lancasters were not next in line after Richard II.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 I didn't know that, I have just really started to delve deep into history instead of taking for granted the stories I learnt at school. I would really appreciate some recommendations if you have any on this subject.
@@BimRen246 I am just renewing my love of history and finding that a lot of what I was told was BS and now that I am delving deeper I am finding that there is so much more to learn and I am fascinated. My love of royal history is quite new so any recommendations you have would be gratefully received. It seems so many have their own theories so it's difficult getting to the meat and bones of a story.
@@Whoa_Lisa My short answer is to watch and read everything and also research the history of the source/author. Visit historical sites, museums, and libraries as well. On RUclips, you have Timeline, Real Royalty and a few others that share documentaries. Lucy Wolsey, Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Dan Jones, David Starkey, Janina Ramirez, and many others all have really great documentaries that are on RUclips. Also, search for RUclipsrs like this channel.
It really is as simple as basic geography and human reproductive physiology. 60 miles on horseback, mid campaign, when the senior military commander was needed with his troops, to take a quick break for some afternoon delights and back to fighting the next day is far less likely than Cecily Neville having an affair. I doubt Cecily would travel to visit her husband on campaign either without good and recorded reasons. Bit of a security risk and would require security and troops... uhm, maybe a handsome archer to accompany her. If Richard was documented as being somewhere else, not within a day’s ride on horseback, give or take 42- 38 weeks prior to Edward’s birth, then, sorry, it’s very much probable that he is not the biological father. Richard Duke of York was planning to usurp the throne, he had motive enough to cover up his wife’s scandal to ensure the “legitimacy” of his line over that of Lancaster. Royal cover-ups are nothing new.
There’s also the possibility that Edward was premature. I do accept there’s a possibility Edward wasn’t York’s son. But if so I think it’s a total coincidence that Warwick made that accusation. If he really suspected Cecily of adultery, so would others who were in France with them. Given many - like the Earl of Oxford - became fierce Lancastians, they would have levied that against Edward in 1461.
Vicky Rushton sorry about that Vicky. I’m not great at production, but this one is particularly bad. I’m actually going to record a new version in the next few weeks.
Cecily Neville was a descendant of John of Gaunt so her son Edward IV would still have been of the Plantagenet line if he was illegitimate.
Very true
Yea but he wouldn't be the rightful king. The male lineage was what was more important at the time, and it would also be illegitimate religiously. Which at the time was a big no, edward as king
Also, let's keep in mind that the Plantagenets were always known for their family infighting in order to get to power and the sons of York were no exception of this, now both of Edward's brothers ultimately betrayed him in life and in death in the effort to get their brothers position of power for themselves, it would make perfect sense for them to fuel such rumors given what they seemed to be after.
That all makes sense to me. And I used to believe that Edward IV was definitely illegitimate. But all we really have is the analysis of one author Michael K. Jones, an historian with Ricardian links. The analysis of one historian does not equal fact. Charles Ross and Paul Muray Kendall both never mentioned Edward IV, as illegitimate, as far as I know, and both of them were high profile Yorkist historians.
In my opinion, it is unlikely that Edward IV was illegitimate. The primary reason is that this theory hinges on one basic circumstance; Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, would have to have been unfaithful to her husband. I believe this to be unlikely for several reasons. First, although Cecily Neville and Richard Plantagenet’s marriage had been arranged when they were children, they spent much of their childhood together, and their subsequent behavior throughout their lives indicates that they loved each other, and held each other in the highest regard.
Secondly, Cecily was very much aware of her lineage and royal descent; it is very unlikely that she would have betrayed her husband with anyone, let alone the “common archer” with whom she is supposed to have slept.
However, if we are willing to believe this about Cecily, the next issues to be dealt with are the timing of Edward’s birth, and the nature of his subsequent christening. These are the some of the circumstances used to support such a theory. First, no one knows the moment of conception, not even the mother herself. That Richard and Cecily were not in the same place during a supposed window of time is absolutely ludicrous as the basis for this accusation. They were not separated by the Narrow Seas at the time; they were both on the Continent, and only a few miles apart. Either could easily have visited the other during the window of time when conception occurred.
Secondly, Cecily and Richard had recently lost a child, their son, Henry, and were still in mourning. I can think of no less likely time to seek consolation in another’s bed, especially for a couple known to enjoy a happy marriage.
Other supposed evidence put forward is based on Edward’s looks. Richard Plantagenet was short and dark, whereas Edward was tall and fair. In this day and age of precise DNA findings, I’m surprised anyone would subscribe to the theory that Edward was illegitimate based on this. Both Cecily and Richard had Plantagenet descent, and both carried the genes of ancestors known to be tall, fair giants. Two famous examples of this are King Richard I (The Lion Heart) and King Edward I (Longshanks). Also, note that in the case of Richard I’s parents, they produced an entire brood of children who were tall and fair, except for one; Eleanor’s last child, John (“Lackland”), was known to be short and dark.
As far as Edward’s christening not being as elaborate as his younger brother’s, there might have been many reasons for this. But foremost in my mind is to once again take into consideration that Cecily and Richard had just lost their first son and heir, after a decade of trying to have children. I’m sure they were very glad to have Edward, but a low-key christening might have been what they wanted, just in case they lost this boy, too. The grief over little Henry’s death may still have been raw enough to make them feel this way.
In addition, we know that two factors were causing a money crisis just at this time for many of the English nobles and landed gentry; poor harvests were curtailing revenues, and Richard’s financial woes were compounded by the fact that he was not being paid his salary at the time, later one of his many grievances against Henry VI and his government. The couple simply may not have been able to afford a showy christening ceremony just at that time.
Next, we must take into consideration the timing and the motives of those making the accusation. It seems very convenient to me that these rumors were started concurrent with Warwick and George’s attempts to usurp the throne. This issue of Edward’s legitimacy was raised again when Edward’s other brother, Richard, sought to take the throne in place of Edward’s son.
There are also some statements in various chronicles that Cecily herself said Edward was illegitimate, when she was angry about Edward’s secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. But none of these are eyewitness accounts, and were written decades after the events. In other words, they are based on hearsay, and qualify as little more than gossip.
Finally, the fact that Richard himself recognized the child as his own is very telling. If he had any doubts, he would not have accepted him as his heir.
We will never know the truth, but for all these reasons, I believe it to be highly unlikely that King Edward IV was anything other than the rightful king of England.
© Bonny G Smith
🥀👸🏻The narrator says that if Richard, Duke of York, was not Edward’s father, then he had no Plantagenet blood. This is untrue. Cecily Neville was a Plantagenet. So no matter who Edward’s father was, he still had Plantagenet blood. Cecily’s mother was Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, making Cecily the great-granddaughter of King Edward III. - Bonny G Smith👑🏰👑
I have always wondered why Richard, Duke of York would take his second son Edmund with him to the Battle of Wakefield. Would it not have been the custom of the time to take his eldest son, unless there were doubts about his legitimacy? Do you have any thoughts on this?
Even if Edward IV was illegitimate the current line is still legitimate since they took the throne by CONQUEST and plus parliament did a reboot defining Sophia of Hanover as the legitimate starting point of royals thus any claimant to the throne must be related to Sophia of hanover
I agree
Breathtaking research! Thank you for your work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 I wanted to ask you, where did you study history? You know it so well, and I am going to graduate from school soon and I would like to learn history but I do not know what university has the best historical faculty. Perhaps, you can recommend me something. Thank you!!!
@@majormatsuda6887 I didn't! I did a theology degree which had some history in it. I got really interested in history in my 20s and have read A LOT. I'm not sure what country you want to study in but if I were you I'd go for an institution that has a syllabus that interests you.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Wow, such a deep knowledge, than! I was 100% sure you studied history. I have even thought about a theology degree but I do not think that I would have a good, long and ambitious career out there. Well, thank you very much for your piece of advice! Looking forward for your new videos
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 I enjoyed the video but i'm not buying it....Edward IV was legitimate imo.
I always found this debate fascinating. If it is true, it casts Richard III in a different light, for if he new that Edward was illegitimate then his claim that the Woodville marriage wasn't legal could just be a smokescreen. Also I've watched a documentary that suggested when George, Duke of Clarence was imprisoned then drowned, it was because he knew something that threatened Edward's claim to the throne. 🤔
There's a new portrait of Richard III being displayed at the National Portrait Gallery. The curators there believe that although it is not contemporary it is based on a contemporary portrait. And in that portrait you can really see that Richard and Edward look like brothers.
Would.love to hear your thoughts on Margaret Pole , such a sad life and bitter end .
Maggie Pole had a difficult time but not for as long as portrayed in recent TV series. Her cousin Queen Elizabeth of York helped her greatly. Later, she was made Countess of Salisbury in her own right -- one of very few, if not the only, woman to hold such a title in her own right at the time. Henry VIII was very fond of her, considering her to be an aunt, which is still the case in many countries and cultures for the first cousin of one's parent. It's still common in the American South. ANYWAY, Henry VIII was extremely fond of her and her children until Reginald Pole started stirring things up during the Pilgrimage of Grace. Also many of those close to Henry invented evidence and poisoned his mind against her -- common practice in the Tudor period. The imprisonment and execution of Lady Salisbury was one of many black stains on Henry's reign; afterward Henry mentioned numerous times that he deeply regretted it.
My problem with the claim that his mother threatened to "reveal" he was illegitimate is the way the Church laws regarding married women who committed adultry. It would have meant her imprisonment and/or death. So, i rather doubt she made any such threats.
Christine Murphy I completely agree with you.
Im no expert but love the period in question but my thoughts are if his son was conceived in war time and possibly premature, a hasty baptism would make sense to save his soul but also to have a fully legitimised heir should war prove fatal for the Duke of York.
Restful Rhythms I totally agree
I thought the same thing and I didn’t understand why that option wasn’t mentioned, especially with the low key baptism.
Edward the 4th was not premature it would have been recorded. Real king of England is king Simon 1st grandson of Queen Barbara 1st
I think this analysis and the argument is a bit ignorant to the times -- it's far more likely that all of this is due to the rumors that came after. I'm sure he was legitimate.
Business Finance Coach thanks for engaging. I do conclude that Edward was probably legitimate and that Warwick was spreading rumours.
He was tall with a lantern shaped jaw...like the French Archer. His siblings were small boned like the king and queen. When he married a commoner, his mother threatened to reveal his illegitimacy.
Gavin4419 1 the problem with the argument that his mother threatened to expose him is that it doesn’t appear in any source until 1483. This makes it seem more likely that it arose because of rumours that Richard III’s people were spreading to try and discredit the princes in the tower. I must say, I do go back and forth on this. I’m certainly not 100%.
Another point which I dont think ive seen anyone mention is if Edward was illegitimate why would Richard make Edward the name sake of his Royal Ancestor where his family got there claim to throne from Edward III? You would think if Edward was illegitimate then Richard would refuse to make him the name sake of his Royal Ancestor and give Edward another name that doesnt have anything to do with Richards Ancestor Edward III. It would be interesting to hear what people think of this theory :)
Well stated, Thank You.
- Edward
As an historian, I find the idea of Edward IV's illegitimacy one that's extremely dubious. The "evidence" for it is taken out of the historical context of the time.
It cannot be demonstrated that his parents weren’t together at his conception because it simply might not have been documented that Richard was briefly back home.
Elizabeth's mom wasn't lowly at all - her mother was part of the Burgundian royalty Jaquetta of Luxembourg who was increadibly 'high' nobel up before the queen under Henry the VI- so his choice was obviously strategic, but his true line did not write the history, obviously
She ‘lowered’ herself with her second marriage though, and her children would then take on the status of their father. Edmund and Jasper Tudor had a French princess for a mother, but every bit of standing they ever acquired was gifted from their half brother, and had nothing to do with their status at birth, which could have just as easily been zilch, royal mother notwithstanding.
Truth be told, strictly speaking, even dear poor Cecily Neville herself may not have known... Adultery doesn't always result in pregnancy, and she may have had reason to think it could have been either if she were intimate with both within a few weeks of each other!
🤣🤣 Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, allowing a lowly archer to as much as touch her unless it was to kiss the hem of her gown?? 🤣🤣 That’s always been laughable when compared to every other contemporary source about her character and sense of self-importance. A rushed baptism in time of conflict is hardly “proof” of anything other than securing his immortal soul.
K. Stacey I totally agree
He was illegitimate he was son of an archer in 1441 while the KING was away fighting.
You made no mention about the claimed differences in looks between Edward IV and that of his brothers and father. The former was apparently tall but his brothers and father were not and there were other discrepancies in appearance too, so this also forms part of the discussion. I hope he wasn't illegitimate but I think it is more likely that not, otherwise why all the talk about it at the time and after. Although all the talk of Prince Harry being Hewitt's son are ridiculous too as Harry looks like Charles so false rumours are possible.
Wasn't there a documen=t found that made Cecily Neville's pregnancy especially long and not fitting the timeline of the absence of her husband? I believe it was on a Timeline Documentary about Richard III.
Yes there was. But many have disputed the “evidence”
I watched that episode and I find you have to look at it with the idea that they wanted to tell a particular story. Not that they are wrong or right but it is presented to make the case that he was illegitimate.
Yes, Edward IV people at the time suggested this timeline of it happening at their home in Yorkshire to refute claims about what happened or didn't happen in France. Clearly, no one did the math and this is a story made by men of the court to do a number of things 1) to say he's legitimate 2) he is truly a son of York and English. The only way to truly know the answer to this question is to test his DNA against his brother Richard III but that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
I would like to mention Edward IV won his crown by conquest so did Henry IV before him (who started the Lancaster monarch line) and Henry VII (who started the Tudor monarch line). It was Henry IV's action that really started off the cousin's war as the Lancasters were not next in line after Richard II.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 I didn't know that, I have just really started to delve deep into history instead of taking for granted the stories I learnt at school. I would really appreciate some recommendations if you have any on this subject.
@@BimRen246 I am just renewing my love of history and finding that a lot of what I was told was BS and now that I am delving deeper I am finding that there is so much more to learn and I am fascinated. My love of royal history is quite new so any recommendations you have would be gratefully received. It seems so many have their own theories so it's difficult getting to the meat and bones of a story.
@@Whoa_Lisa My short answer is to watch and read everything and also research the history of the source/author. Visit historical sites, museums, and libraries as well.
On RUclips, you have Timeline, Real Royalty and a few others that share documentaries. Lucy Wolsey, Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Dan Jones,
David Starkey, Janina Ramirez, and many others all have really great documentaries that are on RUclips. Also, search for RUclipsrs like this channel.
It really is as simple as basic geography and human reproductive physiology. 60 miles on horseback, mid campaign, when the senior military commander was needed with his troops, to take a quick break for some afternoon delights and back to fighting the next day is far less likely than Cecily Neville having an affair. I doubt Cecily would travel to visit her husband on campaign either without good and recorded reasons. Bit of a security risk and would require security and troops... uhm, maybe a handsome archer to accompany her. If Richard was documented as being somewhere else, not within a day’s ride on horseback, give or take 42- 38 weeks prior to Edward’s birth, then, sorry, it’s very much probable that he is not the biological father. Richard Duke of York was planning to usurp the throne, he had motive enough to cover up his wife’s scandal to ensure the “legitimacy” of his line over that of Lancaster. Royal cover-ups are nothing new.
There’s also the possibility that Edward was premature.
I do accept there’s a possibility Edward wasn’t York’s son. But if so I think it’s a total coincidence that Warwick made that accusation. If he really suspected Cecily of adultery, so would others who were in France with them. Given many - like the Earl of Oxford - became fierce Lancastians, they would have levied that against Edward in 1461.
The mismatch of voice to mouth is annoying
But I managed by not looking at the video just listening instead
Love your videos
Vicky Rushton sorry about that Vicky. I’m not great at production, but this one is particularly bad. I’m actually going to record a new version in the next few weeks.