Do you think Edward was illegitimate? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE as well :-)
No. Not at all. His appearance, a true Plantagenet, and that lame doc by Tony Robinson (an actor, not a historian), was fun, but not based in anything but “Illegitimacy” was bandied about SO many times to legitimize their own claims. Come on.
The idea that someone is illegitimate because their parents weren’t near eachother nine months to the day before their birth is kinda silly. Babies don’t have calendars in the womb, the nine months is largely just a general time frame. If Edward’s father had been absent the entire year they’d have a point, but a few weeks? Babies are born a few weeks early or late literally all the time, especially at the time
I completely agree. There's a definite margin of error and Edward falls right into it. Plus, his parents might have met up while his father was on campaign.
Edward was 6'4 in a time when the average male was 5'5. His ancestor Lionel of Antwerp was 7 feet tall. Not many people were over 6 feet tall, let alone 6'4. He's a royal for sure.
@Joseph Porras his descendancy from Lionel was from his dad and his descendancy from John came from his mother Cecile Neville. Thus he could have inherited height from John and still be illegitimate. But he was legitimate. The only way they judged a child was by size. Since Edward was a large man it is most probable that he was a large baby. Thus if he were normal sized he was most probably premature.
Another fact that suggests Edward IV was legitimate rests with contemporary accounts that demonstrate Richard, Duke of York, and his wife, Cecily Neville, were a happily married couple who were quite devoted to one another. They were raised together in the same household, and once married, it was said that Richard, DoY remained faithful to his wife, never taking a mistress. The idea that Cecily would have taken a lover (and a low-born one at that) was frankly ridiculous.
It is easy to pin blame on a woman in these times. Look to the Tudors. Though it was all Henry's fault. If one targets a monarch. You go for the queen first.
Also I believe Cecilly didn’t like Elizabeth because she was considered a commoner (plus other reasons) so thinking that Cecilly would take a lover of a low born person is hard to think she would do.
@@anneliese.bannieshe was literally known as ‘proud Cis’ the idea that she would commit the worst crime she could with a lowborn man is fanfiction at best
To be fair, Edward may have been a few weeks late/early. I was born 3 weeks late. Edward's father never questioned his son's legitimacy, I mean, he had more than enough other sons that could have taken on the family name and legacy so he could have easily said this boy is illegitimate but he never did.
Yea, Fitz could have been added to his name and that would have been that. That’s one thing that confused me why didn’t they throw Fitz in front of the Tutor boys? Instead of putting it in writing that “ that “part of the family wasn’t eligible for the crown ? Does anyone know when Fitz came in to play? Maybe that happened before they did that.
My sister was born a month late. Mom, already a mother of two by then, maintains that my sister looked and acted like a month old baby, not a newborn. The doctor at the time said sometimes they get the estimated conception date wrong, and sometimes they’re just born late. If this could happen in 1975 it certainly could happen in 1442.
Problem is that if you call one son’s legitimacy into question and allude to the mother being less than virtuous, you are actually questioning the legitimacy of all the sons. Not that I believe Edward IV was illigitimate, but fathers of the era had to either just swallow their pride and accept all their children, or get rid of their wife somehow and start over.
I'm rather disinclined to believe the story of Cecily threatening to expose Edward as illegitimate, due to what that would mean for her. Punishment for a woman's adultery was horrific in that time. Edward was likely baptized in such a shoddy ceremony because they thought he would die. I believe there is evidence of Edward's lung capacity being less than it should be, which was possibly a factor in his early demise. Even if we assume he was illegitimate, he claimed the throne of England through right of conquest, not of blood, so it would not impede on the legitimacy of his rule.
People forget that is how we used to work. Conquest had been the only way for centuries of winning land. I’ve been the recipient of a lot of hate when I say we won America by right of conquest. But that’s all we knew even as we were maturing , conquest was still the law of the land.
Cecily Neville was descended from Edward III anyway, via John of Gaunt and the Beaufort line. But in this period of confused and contested ancestry, Edward IV's decisive military victories, charisma, popularity with Londoners and support for traditional and highly profitable trading links with Flanders, must surely have appeared far more important to the country, especially after the shambles created by Henry VI and the machinations of Queen Margaret and the Earl of Warwick.
Right of Conquest was a formal way to claim a throne in medieval Europe, which Edward IV did not make and Henry VII did. Edward's claim was based off him being the heir General to Richard II and the he should be king rather then the grandson of usurper Henry IV, and the Act of Accord 1460, which created his father prince of Wales and heir to the throne and his line after him.
Medical professional here. THANK YOU, thank you so much for taking this up. That old Tony Robinson documentary drove me bananas. I’d also like to add, a pregnancy is said to be 40 weeks long, but this is just a counting convenience. A pregnancy is dated from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period. Not from the day of conception. Commonly, a woman ovulates 14 days after the first day of her last period. Therefore, a woman conceives on week 2 of the “40 week pregnancy“. This would’ve made Edward IV exactly on time. Also, as you point out, a full term pregnancy is anything from 37 weeks to 42 weeks. It’s very rare for somebody to be born on the dot. This isn’t new news though. I was taught that in the 1990s and it was old news then
Whether Edward IV was illegitimate or not is now moot. The dna test on the skeletal remains of Richard III showed no connection with the Dukes of Beaufort as far as I can recall. This might have had something to do with the fact that Edmund of Langley, the Duke of York and fourth son of Edward III was in severe doubt that Richard of Conisburgh, Richard III's 'Yorkist' grandfather, was his child. What is certain however is that Edward IV was a lineal descendant of John of Gaunt as Cecily Neville, his mother, was Gaunt`s granddaughter through her mother, Joan Beaufort. The Wars of the Roses was definitely a family affair; Game of Thrones doesn't match it.
Yes, the suspected biological father was the 1st Duke of Exeter John Holland, rumored at the time to be having an affair with Edmund of Langley's wife. His father openly disfavored him and I believe left him out of his will. Holland was the son of Thomas Holland and Joan of Kent, whose secret marriage was scandal of the day. After she was widowed she married the Black Prince and gave birth to Richard II. Wish you would do a video on her! Known as "the woman with two husbands" for a period of time and always worried Richard II's legitimacy would be questioned later on.
Oh, there is a wonderful novel, Katherine, by Anya Seton, that brings to life the love story of John of Gaunt and Katherine or Kathryn Swinford, who was his mistress and later his Duchess. Their children were illegitimate, but given the Beaufort name/title and later made legitimate. It is a love story to thrill the heart of a teenage girl or any woman.💕And historically accurate. However, so Richard III had no Beaufort dna? that is a new twist in the story, and puzzling because if Cicely , his mother was descended from Joan Beaufort , what happened to the dna? This is so much fun and I am inspired to re-visit the whole War of the Roses Another great saga of a historical novel is “The Wheel of Fortune by Susan Howatch. She re-creates the story through a family. the Godwins, in Wales, living on their estate of Oxmoon, on the Gower Peninsula it is the War of the Roses -beginning with Robert Godwin (Edward III) and his sons , Robert,(Edward, the black Prince) John, Edmund and Thomas, set in pre WWI era.Beautifully written, it helped me to sort out all the”players” in the history of the War of the Roses.🌹👑
@@prarieborn6458 cicely could only have been illegitimate then. Unfortunately there are many non paternal events and most people are not descendants of whom they think they are descendants of, because women are easily seduced. That is why they were so closely guarded
Exactly right: Cecily had a Plantagenet descent herself, and there seems to be serious likelihood that Richard, Duke of York's, father, Richard of Conisburgh, was not a true heir of Edmund, the first Duke of York. But Richard, Duke of York's, senior claim to the throne actually derived from his mother, Anne Mortimer, as the ultimate heir of Edward III's second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, a descent that passed twice through the female line. So, even if the York title had passed down spuriously, the dynastic claim that the House of York had wouldn't have been affected. They were senior to the Lancasters because of their Clarence, rather than their York, descent.
The DNA a person has comes from both their parents BUT only half from each and this happens down the generations. For the half that is passed on there is half that is not, meaning that one ancestors genes may not be found in some of their descendants especially that what is passed on is random in each child. This is especially the case as it dilutes fast down the generations from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 to 1/16 in just four generations. Ancestry and other genealogy companies offer testing to help with tracing ancestors but the DNA says little unless it connects you with another descendant and you can swap information that they have researched.
Completely agree, doesn’t matter if he was legitimate by blood, he was legitimate by conquest. Edward IV was truly a Warrior King, pity he is not remembered as such.
Yes, I felt like the documentary makers didn't properly grasp that point. There was more to holding the throne than just having the best blood claim on it.
Edward IV, in my opinion, certainly has the physical resemblance to his father's family. I don't believe he was illegitimate. As pointed out, illegitimacy was thrown around as a weapon so often, this was probably just more propaganda.
I think so too. Mary I even tried to say Elizabeth I wasn't Henry VIII's daughter, even though E looked a lot more like their father than Mary did. Mind you, Elizabeth was arguably illegitimate for other reasons, but that's another story!
You made interesting points. Edward IV took the throne by conquest during the War of the Roses. His legitimacy shouldn’t be an issue. Allegations that he’s a product of adultery were only appalling political tactics in my opinion. When all fails blame the woman. That’s how it was done in the past. You sound better. Thank you for this video. Have a great weekend. 😊
The theory of them not being related “because they don’t look similar” doesn’t hold much weight to me. Like you said, full siblings don’t always look alike. I am 5’11” tall, blonde-ish hair, pale, and blue eyes. My sister is 5’5” tall, black hair, olive skinned, and brown eyes. We couldn’t be more different! But I take after my dad, and she takes after my mom
Exactly. I've seen lots of stories similar to yours here in the comments and I don't doubt for a second that those people are full siblings. Sometimes people just put too much stock in a familial resemblance. I would say for instance that I look more like one side of my family, but my personality more strongly resembles the other. You just never know which bits of DNA you'll get from each parent.
@@HistoryCalling exactly! Every family is different and that argument doesn’t hold a lot of water, given my own personal experience in the difference between siblings. Also, I just wanted to say how much I love your videos!! I stumbled upon your channel a few months back and have watched just about every video! I’ve always loved history, so your channel is the perfect fix for me after a long week! ❤️
I would take the claims of illegitamacy more seriously if it wasn't the fact that every person who made such a public claim had some sort of political reason to discredit Edward. None of these claims were made in good faith because all had some sort of bone to pick with him whether it be over his marriage, over his alliances or lack thereof, or because of a want of power. Unless there can be found some source which wasn't made for a direct political reason and could be verified by outside sources such as say the record or lack of for his Christening or the exact whereabouts of Cecily Neville and/or Richard Duke of York only then will I consider it credible. Otherwise it's just gossip that has made its way into the historical record. Plus, as you point out, it doesn't even matter in the long term anyways considering the Tudors took the crown from the York line.
Yes, I think it's just one of those claims made against a King who'd taken the throne by force and who had a lot of enemies (including his own family sometimes) who wanted to see someone else on it.
Except that these rumors and claims dogged Edward significantly more than most kings. It's hard to put that all down to bad luck, and I don't think Edward's circumstances were that unique, were they?
@@stephaniechristensen5551 But they weren’t dogging him until people wanted to contest his right to the throne. It’s not brought up earlier in his life and there are no rumours circulated by people who don’t have something to gain from his downfall. The rumours appear later, fuelled by people who have something to gain from it. And as is pointed out.. even if he wasn’t legitimate by birth he was still the legitimate king. The crown can be taken legitimately by conquest and he did that. So even without a birthright he still rightfully sits on the throne.
@@MadHatterDJ- Oh, I wouldn't say those rumors never circulated except after Edward died. They might not have circulated much openly when he was established in power, but before Edward was king? And when he had to flee the country and retake it again? Yeah, right of conquest. (Of course, what support would he have had if his York claim to the throne had never been valid and people knew that?) But he never put to rest the bigamy rumors either and those were the ones that were truly poison to his sons' claims. I haven't seen a good discussion of that issue, though it doesn't seem to have gotten much traction ultimately.
Thanks again for an informative and entertaining video! What I love about your channel is that you walk us through all the evidence in detail. Most regular documentaries seem to assume that watchers are not interested in the 'boring' analysis of the source material. But you prove that quite the opposite is true! Being able to understand the scientific process and the uncertainties and debates is so refreshing. Thank you for taking your audience seriously!
Agreed. A lot of documentaries feel the need to fudge facts or present fringe theories as truth in order to get viewers (the History Channel) rather than presenting the facts as they are.
Thank you. I like to think the focus on the evidence is what makes me a little bit different from a lot of others too, as opposed to just jumping straight to the conclusions. Mind you, I'm actually surprised that people have responded to that approach so well, as I worried when I started the channel that viewers would find it too dry.
So the primary thing to justify Edward being illegitimate is that he was a tall man with a short father... My father is only 5'8"and my brother is 6'3" ( and he haven't reached puberty yet)... So... I think my stepmother has to explain a few things 🤣 Great video! 🙂 Really well done! 🙂
Thanks Lara. Yes, the 'evidence' is really weak. As you say, lots of people don't physically resemble their parents, or they look more like one than the other. Too much emphasis is placed on familial resemblance sometimes.
King Henry VIII resembled his grandfather, King Edward IV far more than his father, King Henry VII, whilst his older brother Prince Arthur shows more resemblance to their father.
@@bethanyconboy Your FIL likely had "tall genes" too, but he didn't become tall due to some environmental factors. This is not rare, the same thing happened in my family as well.
I think that for me, the claims of illegitimacy are marred by the fact that both George and Richard had ambitions and agendas of their own, and so it stood to their benefit to tear down Edward's claims. As far as Cecily goes, I think that as others have said in other comments, women just didn't have as much agency to commit adultery as men did in the Middle Ages. Isabella of Angouleme the wife of King John comes to mind, but even then she never produced a child with any of her reputed lovers, same with Isabella of France wife of Edward II. Even rumors of adultery on the part of a woman could destroy her such as the Tour de Nesle affair, which brought down three royal French women not to mention Anne Boleyn several decades later. Added to that the high notions of medieval honour (I mean could anyone have taken Richard Plantagenet seriously as a claimant to the English throne if he allowed himself to be so obviously cuckolded?), and the claims of illegitimacy just don't hold much water for me. Maybe I'm a little biased with Edward IV being my favorite English monarch, but I think you laid out a very compelling case over all.
Richard had no agenda of his own and he did everything possible to force George to behave. When a baby is born weak or sick it is imperative that S/he be baptized immediately. Death without baptism meant Limbo not Heaven. If a baby could not be delivered the midwife would stick her hand in and baptize the baby in utero. Most of us don’t realize how seriously Middle Ages citizens took their religion. Mancini didn’t speak English and hung out with Lancastrians. He simply repeated the stories he had heard. He repeatedly says he didn’t know whether what he wrote was factual or not.
George's resentment of Edward would make sense if George believed Edward was illegitimate and thus ineligible for the throne. George might have genuinely thought he had a better right to the crown. George was his mother's favorite.
I can't see how Cecily Neville could have survived accusations of adultery, given the treasonous nature of the offence against the king. I'm more inclined to think the story stems from mischief or malice.
Yes, I think she would have been in very hot water too, especially if she was the one airing the accusations. Edward would surely have slapped her into a nunnery (best case scenario).
What if it was a pregnancy by rape? Surely that would not be considered adultery! She could threaten to tell the world she was raped and therefore he was not the King's son, thereby blackening his name, but not getting her into it.
@@glow4200 you know Arthur did not put Guenivir down for being raped. Not that they were real people, but that was how the people looked at things when the tales were told.
If it was true she would of been sent to a nunnery. Royal women weren't executed for adultery. Henry the 8th was considered a monster in his time, for having his second and 5th wives executed for treason and adultery.
i thought this was related to the rumors that Richard Conisburgh, Edward IV's grandfather, was illegitimate, not actually related to King Edward III. Firstly, historians note that Conisburgh parents had a very poor relationship, and that his mother was highly suspected of having an affair at the time of his birth, some ten years after his siblings, with John of Holland, another powerful Duke, and half brother to King Richard II. Both his mother Isabella of Castile and Holland were supposed to have rebellious attitudes. It is also noted that Conisburgh was treated unusually by his father the Duke of York, Edmund Langley ( 4th surviving son of King Edward III) but who left Conisburgh out of his will, and did not appear to do much to provide for him. In reading about his life, Richard Conisburgh had very little income, a younger son and brother to the Dukes of York, who had enormous properties, and in fact were one of the most landed powerful families in England By contrast, Conisburgh's older brother was granted every privilege and was a favorite at the court. There is no evidence that Conisburgh did anything wrong to deserve this in his earlier life ( his downfall came much later ) and he married an even more penniless, forgotten royal Anne Mortimer, which is also a sign of not being favored for a good wealthy match at that time. In fact, it shows how forgotten they both were by the Lancaster King, Henry IV, that he even permitted such a potentially powerful and threatening match, as we all see from the later events, the War of the Roses. Watch out for those forgotten relations ! If Conisburgh was illegitimate, his son, Richard 3rd Duke of York who was a major figure in the War of Roses, who almost became king himself, and help paved the way for his son Edward IV, the figure of this documentary... In this case, they may all have descended from an illegitimate line, and are not a real Yorks, and therefore, their real claim to throne, really is only through Anne Mortimer, wife of Conisburgh, and descendant of the second son of King Edward III, Lionel. I have wondered if that is why he married Anne, suspecting his own legitimacy, and wanting to create a future for his children. (As it turns out, the Edward IV, and other Yorkists had a shot at the throne not only to Anne's blood line, but due to the enormous income that they inherited through her and her brothers.... Anne was poor due to Henry IV carefully guarding her brothers and their family income ( to keep them in line ) and neglecting her , and the next king Henry V changed the policy and allowed Anne's son , father of Edward IV to inherit everything freely so he cleaned up the fortunes of both lineages, Lionel, House of Clarence and the Mortimer lands and fortunes, and that of House of York)
I’m with you. Edward IV was king because he took it and it had nothing to do with his supposed illegitimacy or not. It was a ‘legitimate’ way to make yourself king during that time. All that said, I vote that having an illegitimate child would have been totally out of character for Edward’s mother. Also, Illegitimacy was one of the most common ways to insult someone at the time, so flung around pretty indiscriminately.
Love hearing about the characters from the Wars of the Roses! To me, whether Edward was legitimate doesnt even matter, for all the reasons you listed. Additionally, at that time, the legal father was the husband of the mother, and NO WAY TO PROVE OTHERWISE. So, Edward was the son of the Duke of York!
Thank you for such a measured and thoughtful look at this topic. I watched the Tony Robinson documentary when it was first aired and was reduced to muttering rude words at the screen. Henry VII was careful to base his claim to the throne on his victory over Richard III. As you say, even if Cecily of York had hatched a cuckoo in the nest, (which would be very hard to do), then Edward was still the one who won the crown. Also Cecily herself was the granddaughter of John of Gaunt, so she had royal blood in her veins.
I am glad you pointed out that his legitimacy didn't matter, because he took the throne by force. And it's worth noting that Henry Tutor was VERY VERY VERY much NOT claiming his right to rule via Elizabeth of York. Certainly that marriage helped to prevent competition and sure up alliances, but it was not how he claimed his kingship. The rules of monarchs are not...divine rights handed down. There isn't one great hard and fast rule that everyone adhered too 100% and always played fair by. If that was the case, there never would have *been* a war of the roses in the first place.
I agree that it doesn't matter for the succession. Edward was a conqueror, and he took the throne in his own right. Had his father sat on the throne, then died? Different matter. Or perhaps not. I doubt he was really illegitimate. For one thing, if Richard really thought Edward wasn't his son, I can't see it going over well, especially with how hard adultery was punished (in women). And, considering some of the other shenanigans Richard the 3rd allegedly got up to, claiming his brother was illegitimate to try getting the throne really isn't that surprising.
@@HistoryCalling plus Richard III really detested Elizabeth Woodville because of her father's some what humble origins who married the Duke of Bedford's widow, thus inheriting some of Bedford's lands.
So many Edwards. I am fascinated with Edward 1, 111, VI and II. The Henrys are also fascinating. Anyway, thank you for another in-depth look at Edward VI. I loved the series “White Queen”. ❤️
You should see my videos on the Princes in the Tower and Edward VI if you haven't already and of course there's plenty on Henry VII and Henry VIII here too :-)
@@HistoryCalling thanks for the tip. I will watch them this weekend. Will you make one of Henry 11 and a separate one for his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine? I am fascinated how wealthy and independent she was, yet her husband commandeered her property. Guess you could do an entire series on the individuals in that family. Henry 11 was not nice to his son and heir Henry The Young King either. So much drama. Present day Royals live the good like. Just imagine if Prince William had to go out and fight 🗡 🗡 to take over from the Queen, instead of using the Daily Mail 🤣 lucky guy, Harry would have taken him on in some field or the other ages ago.
@@manchestertart5614 it was drama my lovely, however, it was a jumping off point for me to do a deep dive into learning about Edward IV and Elizabeth Yorkville etc.. I am a military history buff, also any time I watch a show that’s based on historical figures I always do try about them. It’s a win-win for me.
This was amazing. I’m glad you sound better! I’m curious. Is your historical focus and ‘specialty’ the medieval era or do you just happen to pick these topics as they feel more interesting and untouched?
You would literally never guess it from the content of this channel, but my official area of expertise (as in it's what my PhD and publications cover) is in fact primarily the 18th century! I do enjoy the earlier part of the early modern era though and the medieval period and select the video topics based on a combination of what I'm interested in and what I think will do well. The video on Queen Anne Stuart's children though, is the only one so far which is really in my field.
@@HistoryCalling oh! Your PHD and my master's are closer than I thought! My BA was on the Boer War, but my master's was far more recent - the Falklands. Much of the work my lecturers did was between the Napoleonic wars and the first world war.
My grandmother was 5 foot tall on a good day (4.8,) and I'm 6.1. Nor do I look anything like her! Wow, you put Time Team and Tony Robinson in their places, and you did it under an hour!
All the men on my fathers side are over 6ft my auntie my father's sister is 5'7"/ 5'8". My grandmother my father's mother is about 5'1/5'2 and I am 4'10. Also most of cousins and siblings look like my father's side of family where as I look like my mother. Although my mum is 5'4 so no one is as short as me. I can't see a reason why he is not legitimate. None of the evidence can hold much water when you get down to it.
Hello History Calling! How nice to watch your videos! You are very well informed, obviously a true historian, and also the conversational tone you use in telling the stories is so much easier to listen to than anyone else's who do historical videos on RUclips. Thank you for that. I watched the video suggesting that Edward IV was illegitimate before I watched yours above, and very much appreciate your considered position here. Seems to me that Edward's slandered mother was just more misogyny from times long past, along with political mudslinging. You've made a good case which rings true, and I agree with you. Well done!
That was wonderful. As a Native American…I’m fascinated by all this. Not (oddly) the Tudors. But by “The War of the Roses.” Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville (in particular) fascinate me. So I can’t wait to get some more time off…to explore THEIR parents. Thank you.
Thank you so much Margaret Beaufort is one of the most important women in English history. Extremely pious and a major founder of education.Christ's College and St John's College Cambridge were founded by her and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is named after her, Saint John Fisher was her confessor. Her relatives The Dukes of Somerset, had been killed but she never wavered from her loyalty to her house, her only child in exile and even carried Anne Neville's train at her dual coronation was daily in danger at the Yorkist Court. Both Margarets were the among the main reason the House of Lancaster triumphed. Margaret of Anjou supporting her son after he was disinherited after Northampton. If anyone thinks history is something black and white in old books, a collection of dates etc without relevance to everyday life they need to think again. For instance a little purported fact is that Richard II, yes, Peasants Revolt and all that, invented the handkerchief! Lady Margaret Beaufort's third husband was Sir Thomas Stanley. The Stanley family came to prominence in the 1300's as mercenaries during the French wars. They became gentry rather than nobility but Bosworth was to change all that. When Richard III arrested Lord Hastings in the Tower of London Thomas Stanley was injured in the scuffle. He was a member of the Yorkist Court. Richard III ordered that Stanley was responsible for his wife and her actions. Three armies turned up at Bosworth, Richard III's, Henry Tudor's and the Stanley brothers', Sir Thomas and Sir William. Sir Thomas's son was kept as hostage by Richard III. The Stanleys were there officially to support Richard but who would they support, their king or Lady Margaret's son? Would they risk the execution of Sir Thomas's son? History tells us they came in on the side of Henry Tudor. One of them legendsrily crowning Henry on the battlefield. This catapulted the Stanleys into the A-list nobility as the Earls of Derby where they remain to this day. Played a major role in government ever since. Always a sporting family, the "Derby" was named after one. Another very close to Americans hearts, donated the ice-hockey cup. Sir Thomas Stanley's son should you wonder, though Richard did order his execution, survived. In a roundabout way therefore Lady Margaret Beaufort is responsible for the oldest sporting cup in North America. 🙂
Thankyou for your videos. You are fantastic. I watch so many documentaries and always end up scratching my head at the inconsistencies in them, but you far better than Jones, Starkey and other notable historians thourghly explain ALL clearly with multiple sources. Can't thank you enough 🤗
Thank you for this video, I know I'm late coming to it but I'm currently working my way through your entire catalogue in a rather haphazard way. I love the way that you look at each of the sources and relay the information from all of them to us, not just the ones that justify your own point of view. My only complaint about your content is that, because I refuse to pay for RUclips premium, I can't listen to it on the go!!
Thank you for closing with the aspect of the “concurring” king. No matter the bloodline, once claimed in battle, he was king. The whole thing comes down to that in actuality and when Henry Tudor did the same, he too was a legitimized king, no matter who he descended from originally.
I started watching the documentary you talked about, I couldn’t stand it. I love your videos better. It’s fun to look up the info myself:) I know it takes you a while to research your videos, but I could listen to you every day!
I randomly stumbled over this, although I have never seen one of your videos before, but in hindsight I do not regret watching it. Great work! My take about the question, how great the effect of E4 (Edward IV.) being illegitimate would have actually been: I think that the effect on the rule of E4 himself should not be underestimated, even though he entered the throne by conquest. The subjects at the time tend to rebel against kings they did not think were legitimate, which I guess is connected to the strong christian believe in the late middle ages in europe, that sees the king as the representative of god himself. Coming from another family line would basically annihilate this asumption for your reign. The example about W1 (William I.) you brought into the argument and how he conquered england by force aswell gets mitigated a bit, when you consider the absolute mess, that was the succession after EtC's (Edward the Confessor's) death around 1066, him actually being related to EtC's family through Emma, the mother of the latter and his great-aunt, and the fact, that EtC himself told W1, that he will be his successor, when he was in Normandy (I cant give you the source for the last point, but I think I got it from Oversimplifieds video on the battle of Hastings, just in case you want to fact-check it). Coming back to E4, one of his most valuable claims to the throne and one the reasons for the Wars of the Roses to begin was, that RoY's (Richard of York) father RoC (Richard of Conisbourgh) was married to Anne Mortimer, who was a decendent of LoA (Lionel of Antwerp), who was an older son of E3 (Edward III.) than JoG (John of Gaunt), who is the father of H4 (Henry IV.), and therefore had a higher position in the succession. This claim would have also vanished, should E4 have been illegitimate. If we create the scenario, of E4 being dethroned due to his illegitimacy, I doubt that the people would accept another mendacious Yorkist on the throne, so I assume they would either try reinstating the Lancastrians or they would move on to the next line of succession. In this scenario, R3 (Richard III.) could obviously never "succeed" his brother and H7 (Henry VII.) would never usurp the throne. Like this the entirety of the royal history of england would not be like it is today. But this is just a scenario. Assuming, that everything happened the same it actually did, but suddenly historians find a proof for E4 really being illegitimate, I dont think it decreases the legitimacy of the tudors, the stewarts, or any other royal house, because, while EoY (Elizabeth of York) was H7's main connection to the blood line of the royal family, he was also a direct decendent of H4's father JoG, through the Beaufort line, which I know were excluded from the succession, but still had royal blood. In the aftermath, the people would have probably been fine with this. Another, admittedly very small, argument would be, that H7's grandmother CoV (Catherine of Valois) was also H6's (Henry VI.) mother. I'm thankful to everyone, who took their time to read through this mess, and I'm really interested in your opinions on this. Also I'm sorry if there are some grammatical mistakes in this text, but you need to know that I'm a 17 year old german, so please forgive me. Have a blessed Sunday.
Wether he was or was not legitimate, he was a great ruler, who tried so hard to right by the nobles & the commoners. He married for love regardless of the consequences, manaded to win the crown by winning in battle for the sake of the realm. Tried to convert enemies into loyalists by making enemies friends. He cared & tried so hard to make a country peaceful, united & free of civil war. He without realising started the tudor dynasty (Elizabeth Woodville who birthed the daughter Elizabeth Woodville & who married Henry v11. A true warrior king with all the right values & responsibilities. He cared, fought & won. No matter his birth heritage, he did everything he could to stabalise England. I love & respect him despite his birth origins. The last of "Arthurian" Warrior Kings. A true & well defined hero. No matter his birth origins. Thank you so much for this wonderful in site. I can't wait to hear all about cecily neville! Xxx
I must say that I always defer to the facts I learn from this channel, because of your meticulous investigations into all the subjects you present. Your research is painstaking and carefully, honestly presented, whatever the subject. As an avid Anglophile, it is very comforting to have a source I need have extremely few-read virtually NO- reservations going forward-with. I appreciate the fact that, unlike most Ricardian-biased sources, you do not attack Shakespeare or Sir Thomas More for what are generally accepted as their Tudor-favored views on Richard III. Shakespeare in particular, to my knowledge, anyway, wrote his plays primarily as ENTERTAINMENT.. since all his "historical" plays are replete with historical inaccuracies, The Scottish Play (MACBETH) being amongst them. Yet I'm not aware of Scottish groups eviscerating The Bard for these. I find it highly distasteful that any group would be willing to vilify a PLAYWRIGHT for painting a still clearly-recalled Public Personage with the same brush as so many observers writing at the time of Richard III's highly disturbing acts or very shortly thereafter. Like all good writers, Shakespeare made free use of the most sensational-and therefore the most intriguing-qualities possessed by historical persons. The label of "Tudor Toady" plastered onto William Shakespeare *may* be accurate to an extent; but he DID have a Living to make, and it in NO WAY detracts from the sheer genius which formed and fleshed-out a fascinating and engaging character. MANY fascinating and engaging characters. Again, thank you for your accurate and engaging posts. I shall be watching for more.
Thank you so much. I actually haven't even read much Shakespeare, but never think of him as an historical source unless there's little or nothing else to use. As you said, he was writing entertainment. I wouldn't think of him as an historical source any more than I would think of the TV show The Tudors as such.
If Edward was indeed illegitimate, I think it far more likely that he was a product of Lady Cecily being assaulted by someone, not by her own choice. It would explain why her husband was more than willing to claim Edward as his son, for he would then not have been the product of a willing adultery, but rather the shameful r4pe of his wife, something both she and he would have every motivation to keep quiet. For what it's worth, though, I think that Edward likely was legitimate, and accusations he wasn't were just some attempt at blackening his claim that stuck more than other claims against him due to the "what if...?"s and the fact that one could never TRULY know for sure who fathered a child before modern decades. It was likely just a nasty comment that people repeated during his life because they knew it riled him, and repeated it after his death to further sully his reputation as it's an easy insult that's hard to both prove or disprove, making it harmful words that were relatively cheap to say.
'To the victor, belong the spoils' to quote William L. Marcy. I agree with you as the possibility that Edward may, or may not, have been legitimate becomes irrelevant, as he was the acknowledged king - even at the expense of Henry VI. I think your debunking of the more recent theories concerning Edward's illegitimacy are fascinating, and make me wonder how previous historians were not more attentive to the importance of primary sources. Thank you for another insightful and thought-provoking video.
Thank you. I have to say in defence of other historians that most of them are just as attentive as me and indeed I read their work to help me put the videos together. Every so often though, someone either makes a genuine mistake (happens to us all, myself included), or gets a bit carried away, develops tunnel vision around their theory and refuses to listen to those who disagree and who might steer them back onto the correct path.
I was going to avoid this one as Edward IV is my favourite king but I couldn't resist😂😂😂 Edit... I'm impressed!! All the points I was ready to rant about you mentioned yourself 😍 I didn't realise someone else cared enough to research Edward IV as I have 💕
Very very interesting. I’ve always been intrigued by Henry V1 and his mental state. His grandfather ( the French king ? ) was mentally unstable ? , and since his daughter was married to Henry V , and Henry V1 their child, was this mental instability inherited …..leading to the Wars of the Roses ?
@@HistoryCalling Henry V exploited what was in effect a French wars of the roses within the French Royal house, allying with the Burgundian faction, possible because of the mental state of the French king. Marrying his daughter , Henry V transferred than “illness” to his son who became Henry V1. I can’t support my suspicion with evidence, but the week rule which followed , combined with the House of Burgundy again swearing loyalty to the French king, saw the defeat of the English in the Hundred Years War. It’s a fascinating period in the history of both countries.
Thank you so much. I always appreciate it when someone acknowledges the work behind the scenes to put the videos together, as even something like the order in which info. is presented can actually be quite tricky to figure out sometimes :-)
@@HistoryCalling You’re very welcome! I found your videos very recently and I’ve been loving them. How you keep all those details and connections straight! I’m not a details person so you have my respect and admiration!
Just an idea about the hair color... I have dark blonde hair myself. I often engage in living history scenarios, and treat my hair with historic methods (though I reenact nineteenth century). The products make my hair look much darker than it does naturally. It also looks darker when I do not wash it for several days, though not as dark as when I use some kind of pomade or product on it. I rather doubt that anyone in the distant past washed their hair as frequently or as well as we do now, so if their hair looks dark in the paintings to us, they could still have been considered blonde to people of the day, to whom this would have seemed perfectly normal.
I find the “they didn’t look like their father” argument so funny. I have 3 sons. 1&3 are the spitting image of their dad, tall and thin. 2 looks very much like my side of the family, shorter and stocky. I myself strongly resemble my dad’s side of the family and hardly look like my mom at all. Genetics is just funny that way. It’s not evidence of an affair lol
Your videos are just superb ! From your facts , pictures ...to your fantastic voice !! Your efforts are appreciated across the English speaking lands !!
"More like guidelines", love it! Sadly, I know next to nothing about The War of the Roses; guess I'll have to beef up my library. I think you made a good case for Edward's legitimacy. Mudslinging, as we all know, has been and remains a persistent bit of politicking. Thanks for another great video full of details I rarely encounter elsewhere. I'd love it if you would one day address your method of research for us. Until next week, stay healthy and safe.
I’m loving your channel and your accent is Devine. Thank you for these videos. I studied history but you have still shown me things that I must have missed or forgotten 😂😂 it was the 70’s 🙏🏻
Edward IV is a Plantagenet. He had Plantagenet features and coloring. So Edward IV was too tall. So were the early Plantagenets with either red or blonde hair. The dark haired Plantagenets came later by Blanche of Lancaster who had dark hair.
I appreciate all your work. Loved this video. I don’t believe Edward IV was illegitimate. I remember seeing Tony Robinson’s program on this and when Tony went to the “true king’s” house down in Australia, to let him know he’s Britain’s true king, I was shocked how much the true king and the portraits of Edward IV looked alike!
The “true King” is a descendant Edward IV and of Henry Tudor ,so if Edward was illegitimate then the Hastings family is not legitimate heirs to the throne. I don’t think that Edward is illegitimate.
@@HistoryCalling It is fascinating how tales like the Washington cherry tree get retold so many times that we accept them as fact. The concept of checking primary sources is not mainstream. I admire how you not only cite the sources, but also evaluate the intent of the sources. After centuries of the winners writing history, we are finally seeing more academically rigorous accounts in more mainstream places. Histography is an adventure! I am "fan girling" lol
It is a very sticky wicket here. I am almost convinced of your argument, except for the kind of distance Cecily and her husband had to communicate such a distance. A bit complicated, but doable. It's not exactly a hop skip and a jump. But, what convinces me of your point is, the superstition of the people of that time. Child birth was difficult and if a child was unhealthy, they would not have as invested as they were with Edmund a year later. It really is like the scanal of Richard the 3rd. The Tudors were a nasty bunch. Thanks muchly Lady Natalie.
I'm confused. At what point would Cecily have opportunity to meet, let alone meet enough times to form an attachment with an archer? There seems to me to be quite a few steps on the social ladder between a random army archer and the queen of England. When would they have been in the same room together?
Cecilly was never Queen of England. She was the Duchess of York. Richard was the lieutenant (governor) in the English domain in France. She was a Neville but from the junior branch of Nevilles. Ralph Neville at the time of Henry V became the Earl of Westmorland had two families. The senior branch which remained loyal to the House of Lancaster and the junior branch which defected to the Yorkists.
Agree, it seems incredulous. And if an otherwise pious woman was to have an affair with a low born archer not in her own circle, why would she do it before having her first son and begetting the heir for her husband. She would have been under a great deal of scrutiny until, and even after bearing her firstborn son, even though she had already given birth to a daughter. It could hardly have been supposed that she was infertile, so the household would have been watchful for an heir. Certainly a woman of her piety would not have been able to bear the guilt and shame of adultery without entering a nunnery, or making a full confession and seeking pardon, which the account of her frenzy at the inappropriate marriage of her son does not seem to reflect.
This is really interesting! I think he's legitimate. I highly doubt that the King of England would raise and make his wife's illegitimate child his heir. You would assume, if he believed the rumours, he would send the child away and send Cecily to a nunnery if he couldn't trust her to produce legitimate heirs for him. I would be genuinely surprised if Richard or George put forth the idea that their brother was illegitimate and had people believe them without anyone questioning their parentage as well. If she cheated and had an illegitimate child once, what would stop her from having another? I wonder why Richard and George's parentage aren't as heavily questioned as their older brother. I don't believe she did commit adultery but if the people of the court did, then why wouldn't the George and Richard's birth father be called into question 🤔. It seems as if the idea of Edward being illegitimate popped up when he was in a bad position or dead and disappeared or was conveniently forgotten when he was alive and at his best. I think it was just rumours spread by his enemies to discredit him. These rumours got circulated and that's why we still talk about it today. Love the video, keep up the good work.
Thank you. Richard did actually hint that maybe George wasn't legitimate (as he wasn't born in England). Richard also supposedly looked a lot like their father which bolstered his claims to illegitimacy (just a wee fact-check as well, their Dad wasn't actually the King, though he had a good claim on the throne). I agree that the accusations against Edward seem very much politically motivated.
@@HistoryCalling Thank you for responding. I will keep the fact his father wasn't king in mind. I've got a question for you. What do you think about King John and the murder of his nephew? And why doesn't poor Arthur get more attention for it? I'm pretty sure it's still a mystery so why is he over looked compared to the Princes in the Tower? You can believe that King Richard killed his nephews or not, but if the story that they were suffercated is true then they seemed to have died far more peacefully then Arthur. Anyway thank you for responding. Have a nice day!
An excellent account with which I concur. There are two contemporary ‘portraits’ of Richard Duke of York. Unlike the ones you feature - the Shrewsbury statue and the glass at Penrith which are considered to be earlier and of other people misidentified as him, these two are apparently from his lifetime. Both show him with blonde or light coloured hair. That might be influenced by the technology of making a window at the time of course. One is a head in a glass roundel in Cirencester church in a chapel endowed by some of his retainers. This shows him with a straight crop hair cut. The other is at Trinity College in Cambridge shows him standing in armour with wavy hair. For hair colour this would match the manuscript illumination you use. Neither give an indication of relative height as there are no other figures in the panels. As a final point, how many people in the London of 1483 would accurately recall the hair colour of a man who had died in 1460 and who probably did not spend that much time in the city when he was alive.
I think he was legitimate. Nothing in the evidence presented strikes me as damning. The only thing that comes close is the dates for conception, which we know now can widely vary, woman to woman.
i love the little side stories of history! i never knew this was a thing besides the little bit in the white queen but i figured it was just for cinematic effect lol. very much enjoyed this!
I think your data is well researched and I defer to your conclusions. Lot of players to sort out in this one. Thanks for being our guide. Good job. Lvya
Thanks David. Yes, there are sooo many people to keep track of in the Wars of the Roses and most of them are called Edward, Richard or Henry, which really doesn't help.
Edward IV was a Plantagenet for sure. His height alone is a clue, and his hair might easily have darkened to brown after early manhood. Also he won the throne by merit on the battlefield, and he also seems to have been a fair enough ruler, as Kings of England go.
So, how tall where any males on his mothers side? Not looking like your father doesn’t prove anything, I have a sister and we look so different that I sometimes joke that we are a “tv family” (actors don’t usually resemble one other in tv shows).
That's a great way of explaining families who happened not to look alike. I might use that in future conversations. I agree by the way that not all siblings (full or half) look alike. It's a bit of a myth. I don't know about heights on Cecily's side of the family I'm afraid.
I agree. My oldest son is 6’2 with hazel eyes and dark hair. My younger son is 5’8 with blonde hair and blue eyes. One has my coloring and the other my husband’s.
True, and a very well done, thorough job. I am very interested to learn, as I can't get enough of history, on even the smallest effort made by historians to flush out the most probable truth. Maybe you can do a video shedding a bit pf light on what and how a historian researches the past? That would be more interesting than any video I can think of. I am baffled how historians come to different conclusians? Any historian today has no, or should have no stake in the answers having lived so far in time from the events. Still, it is like rooting for one team over the other. Doesn't matter what side wins! As my grandfather said to my father, devastated after his teams lost: "Eh! Does it put any money in your pocket?" I remind myself of that when Iam upset about anything I have no power or claim to. Thank you for reminding us how things worked back then. Whenever people are bothered by Richard taking the crown from Edward V, they fail to remember that in truth, Henry Tudor would have gone to war to win the crown from Edward V if he'd have been king. To that end, since Henry Tudor won by conquest over Richard, he most likely would have taken the crown from Edward V. Edward IV took the throne from Henry VI. Which means, it doesn't matter either way. Those were the norms back then so, it really doesn't matter. Let's see what this new discovery will bring in regard to Edward V being sent to live in the country? Just a thought, (FYI) I do not belong to the Richard III Society) if what we know of Richard (how he treated his subjects as Constable of the North, his loyalty to his brother, and the many points brought forward from history regarding him as being fair, loyal and dedicated), if it does turn out Edward V was sent to the country, could it be Richard knew Henry Tudor was going to go to war to take the crown? Possibly Richard as Lord Protector kept Edward hidden, being he was young, and more likely to die in battle? Richard wanted to fight Tudor himself until Edward V was older and experienced enough to fight off anyone who tried to take the throne? Hard to know since history is written by the winners, in this case, the Tudors. England had a far bloodier future than anyone could possibly imagine.
Hi Felina. Thank you for watching and commenting. On the subject of the new theories around Edward V, David Starkey did a RUclips video a few weeks ago on that topic which you might find interesting.
@@HistoryCalling As they say about great minds: When one great mind speaks, the other gets confused! Is it about the Edward V living as John Evans? I did see that. Starkey shreaded it with criticism by throwing the DaVinci code around to dismiss some pretty powerful clues. The Dan Brown novel remark, was simply a comment by the article's author to describe it. Personally, I have reservations about Mr. Starky after 1) such a poo pooing dismissal; and even more, 2) his take on Catherine Howard being the sexual deviant who had all the power and control over older men who were truly, sexually abusing her. Being a victim many times myself then, learning about perpetrators, his take makes me feel very uncomfortable so much so, I prefer not to watch him anymore. With regard to whether those clues do mean John Evans was Edward V: The chances of it being Edward V, are about as high as finding Richard III under a red letter "R" drawn over the 1st trench dug, in a Leicester car park, with Philippa Langley standing overhead.
My kids look so different that when they were taking a class together in college the professor actually asked the class if they thought that they were blood relatives. My son 6’3 with blond hair and my daughter 5’3 with dark hair and a more darker complexion than my son. I know for sure that they had the same father. FYI
It would be fascinating if DNA analysis could be done on the purported bones of George and the purported hair locks of Edward, to compare to Richard's, although it's true that discrepancies could easily be due to the lack of certainty as to the authenticity of George's and Edward's purported "relics". Matches, though, could shed considerable light on many questions.
thats a really good point that Henry Tudor was King before the marriage, but the fact that the marriage happened so quickly implies Henry Knew it was urgent to cement his legitimacy as King.
He actually waited a year to marry Elizabeth to get across the point that he was king by right of conquest, and not because of a marriage. However it did make his children's descent more decidedly royal, which was prudent of him to consider.
Talk about a dysfunctional family, one younger brother spreads rumours that Edward is illegitimate to take his crown, which leads to Edward killing his brother, and then another younger brother probably murdering Edward’s son’s.
Even if Cecile Neville had been unfaithful to her husband, I personally would NEVER choose to look down on her or any other royal lady for making that choice in those times. A royal marriage was purely for business, not necessarily for love, and not necessarily by either partner’s choice. I actually feel contented knowing there were some royal women who chose to find love in those times despite their circumstances, or to live their life on their own terms. Of course, the way history has always treated women is a disgrace. It can’t truly be certain that Edward IV was illegitimate, but even if he was genuinely thought to be by his brother Richard III, it could have been a major factor in Richard’s decisions as king. But, of course, we will never know his true motivations.
My two brothers and I (female) are taller than our parents. However, both our maternal and paternal grandfathers are quite tall and married short women. I think that sort of thing often pops in and out every couple of generations. Especially with mixed height couples.
This is great! Thanks. I think King Edward was a good King. I think if Richard and the Queen would have had the respect for each other and worked together it would have changed history. I’m not sure how but it would have. Looking like Aunts and uncles happens a lot in America 🇺🇸
I absolutely agree. And the exact same thing could be said for what hsppen d during the reign of Henry VI as well. Which is what started the wars of the roses. If Margaret and the Duke of Somerset would have worked together with Richard Duke of York, history would have been much different. They all wanted the same thing, stability and good rule for England. They just refused to work together and the Yorks took the throne. As far as Richard III and the Woodvilles, I can see why Richard didn't want to work with them. They fought against the Yorkists all throughout the Wars if the Roses and especially at the battle of Towton. Richard was doing what Edward IV wanted, for Richard to be protectorate. It wasn't until after the council kept denying him this right that he took the throne from his nephew Edward V. As far as whether his legitimacy would have mattered, yes I absolutely think it would have. The Lancastrians, starting with Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), still a Plantagenet, had a claim through Edward III. Richard Duke of York, also a Plantagenet, had a claim through Edward III. Henry Tudor (Henry VII) also had Plantagenet blood through another of Edward III's sons. Every monarch to sit the throne can trace their lineage back to the Plantagenets, even today, albeit not as much. The dynasty/last names may have changed, but they're all still Plantagenets.
Henry Tudor technically had two blood claims, and one for the French throne as well I believe, as he was the grandson of Catherine Valois, daughter of King of France (I want to say Charles but I don't remember which one the mad one Henry V beat at Agincourt). His claims were super flimsy, but he had a blood claim nonetheless
@@glow4200 it was Henry V who won Agincourt ( I can not believe I spelled that right ) ? I watched the movie “ The King”. On Netflix wow that’s a brutal movie.
@@roolenoir3183 that's what I said. Charles the mad king was the one Henry V beat at Agincourt and then Henry married his daughter, Catherine of Valois passing his madness onto their son, Henry VI, leading to the Wars of the Roses. And Catherine of Valois was Henry VII's grandmother with Owen Tudor. Oh I loved the King! They left out a LOT and skewed some timelines a bit, but overall it was very well done!
@@glow4200 Ohmygosh! The ending just shocked me!! After that I started trying to learn more about the 100 year war but it’s very convoluted and a bit hard for me to keep track of everyone. I also read about some curse the Templar knights put on some French king and it really happened. That’s disputed I understand but they are dead and so is everyone they cursed and in a year too. History is so cool and I have no one to bounce ideas off of.
I think he was legitimate but I agree with you it doesn't matter. Important point to note however, Elizabeth II is Queen today not because of her descent from any historical monarch but as a result of the Act of Settlement 1701 as legislated by Parliament which designated that the heirs of the Electress Sophia shall inherit the crown. In effect Parliament rejected any previous monarchs and their ties and selected an entirely new Royal Family, not dissimilar to what has happened in other countries such as Norway or Greece. It is indisputable that under the terms of primogeniture there are vast number of claimants with superior claims (when Sophia was selected there were numerous Catholics before her in the line of succession) through blood descent to Elizabeth II but Parliament is of course supreme.
The Act of Settlement was certainly very important in determining where the Crown was going to go after Queen Anne's death in 1714 and in making sure it didn't revert to the Jacobite branch of the Stuart royal family, however Sophia was in line for the throne because of her descent from James I of England, who was in turn descended from Henry VII via Margaret Tudor. You've made me ponder doing a video on it at some point actually, as you're perfectly correct that there were lots of people with better claims than Sophia and her descendants. Hmm...
My sources aren't reliable, per se, but I read that Cecily Neville had a favorite son, and that was Clarence. Perhaps her outburst was meant to shore up Clarence's claim to the throne. Re the timing of her outburst, I gathered that E Woodville was generally unpopular with her new husband's court and family. Maybe Cecily was willing to trade her reputation for a blow to Edward's new queen. Regarding the illegitimacy of Edward's two sons, that was due to a precontracture Edward IV made with a woman named Butler. This was alleged by a priest who claimed to have witnessed the contract. When he spoke up about it, it brought Edward's marriage to Elizabeth into question and their progeny.
My grandfather was 5’8. He had 2 sons with my grandmother and 1 daughter. My younger uncle was 5’7 while my older uncle was 6’4. Everyone on my grandmother’s side was short. My grandfather’s father was about 5’10 I heard. So it is possible for a short family to have a tall child so it means nothing.
Very much agree! In my own family history, there's one sister where her and her daughters average around 5" tall, the other two sisters and their daughters average around 6" tall. The number of traits that are so unambiguous, simple, and understood, that they can be used to definitely establish parentage? Well, there's not very many, that's for sure.
Hmm, I don't know anything about them (except Katherine of Valois), but I don't see why not. I have quite a few things in the pipeline at the moment however, as I've just starting working on a series of videos on the women of the Wars of the Roses, so I'm afraid it would be quite a way down the line.
@@HistoryCalling No worries, I am very excited for your series on the women of the Wars of the Roses (especially Cecily), but I think that Charles the Bold, his mother, Isabel of Portugal, and his daughter, Mary the Rich, are super interesting if you ever consider it. I know that Charles the Bold’s marriage to Edward IV’s sister was very important later on.
hi i did read that the john of gaunt was supposed to have been the son of a flemish bucther i dont know if it is true but it is in a book. also the persent duke of beufrot and richard the 3rd and patrice de warrne an d another relative of the duke of beufort do not share the same dna so what went wrong there tish
I was curious about the christening. Was there a plague or outbreak in the area at this time. IMO I feel that he’s legitimate. Whether these are rules by conquest or blood, I’m not sure. Thank you so very much for sharing this with us all. Absolutely fascinating!❤️🍀🌈😇🙏❣️
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think Edward was illegitimate? Let me know below and check out my PATREON site for extra perks at www.patreon.com/historycalling Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE as well :-)
I haven’t finished the video yet, but I personally believe he was.
Thank you so much for this video and the evidence.
Interesting video! My impression is that the claims made against him were rumors and propaganda.
No. Not at all. His appearance, a true Plantagenet, and that lame doc by Tony Robinson (an actor, not a historian), was fun, but not based in anything but “Illegitimacy” was bandied about SO many times to legitimize their own claims. Come on.
He was legitimate. I have a hard time believing Richard of York would have put up with an illegitimate child.
The idea that someone is illegitimate because their parents weren’t near eachother nine months to the day before their birth is kinda silly. Babies don’t have calendars in the womb, the nine months is largely just a general time frame. If Edward’s father had been absent the entire year they’d have a point, but a few weeks? Babies are born a few weeks early or late literally all the time, especially at the time
I completely agree. There's a definite margin of error and Edward falls right into it. Plus, his parents might have met up while his father was on campaign.
Edward’s grandson Prince Arthur was born a month early. I agree that babies don’t have a calendar and come when they want.
This is where all the home remedies came from.
Ten month babies are not unusual. I know someone who was born 37 days late.
@@bjbj3853 the first baby often arrives late.
Edward was 6'4 in a time when the average male was 5'5. His ancestor Lionel of Antwerp was 7 feet tall. Not many people were over 6 feet tall, let alone 6'4. He's a royal for sure.
Yes, some other people mentioned Lionel and it's a really good point. There were certainly tall genes in his line already.
@@HistoryCalling love your videos
Can you do some from the era of edward iii and his sons? Some interesting stories from that period im sure.
@Joseph Porras gaunt and Lionel were brothers. So it was the same family line.
Don’t forget his great great grandfather (Edward 1) was nick- named “Longshanks” because of his great height.
@Joseph Porras his descendancy from Lionel was from his dad and his descendancy from John came from his mother Cecile Neville. Thus he could have inherited height from John and still be illegitimate. But he was legitimate. The only way they judged a child was by size. Since Edward was a large man it is most probable that he was a large baby. Thus if he were normal sized he was most probably premature.
Another fact that suggests Edward IV was legitimate rests with contemporary accounts that demonstrate Richard, Duke of York, and his wife, Cecily Neville, were a happily married couple who were quite devoted to one another. They were raised together in the same household, and once married, it was said that Richard, DoY remained faithful to his wife, never taking a mistress. The idea that Cecily would have taken a lover (and a low-born one at that) was frankly ridiculous.
Yes, I'm just reading about her at the moment and they did indeed grow up together and were married off to each other very young.
It is easy to pin blame on a woman in these times. Look to the Tudors. Though it was all Henry's fault. If one targets a monarch. You go for the queen first.
Also I believe Cecilly didn’t like Elizabeth because she was considered a commoner (plus other reasons) so thinking that Cecilly would take a lover of a low born person is hard to think she would do.
@@anneliese.bannieshe was literally known as ‘proud Cis’ the idea that she would commit the worst crime she could with a lowborn man is fanfiction at best
To be fair, Edward may have been a few weeks late/early. I was born 3 weeks late. Edward's father never questioned his son's legitimacy, I mean, he had more than enough other sons that could have taken on the family name and legacy so he could have easily said this boy is illegitimate but he never did.
Exactly. I certainly don't think he would have raised the boy as his own had he had any doubts.
Yea, Fitz could have been added to his name and that would have been that. That’s one thing that confused me why didn’t they throw Fitz in front of the Tutor boys? Instead of putting it in writing that “ that “part of the family
wasn’t eligible for the crown ? Does anyone know when Fitz came in to play? Maybe that happened before they did that.
My sister was born a month late. Mom, already a mother of two by then, maintains that my sister looked and acted like a month old baby, not a newborn. The doctor at the time said sometimes they get the estimated conception date wrong, and sometimes they’re just born late. If this could happen in 1975 it certainly could happen in 1442.
Problem is that if you call one son’s legitimacy into question and allude to the mother being less than virtuous, you are actually questioning the legitimacy of all the sons. Not that I believe Edward IV was illigitimate, but fathers of the era had to either just swallow their pride and accept all their children, or get rid of their wife somehow and start over.
Ummmmm.... does your father know??
I'm rather disinclined to believe the story of Cecily threatening to expose Edward as illegitimate, due to what that would mean for her. Punishment for a woman's adultery was horrific in that time. Edward was likely baptized in such a shoddy ceremony because they thought he would die. I believe there is evidence of Edward's lung capacity being less than it should be, which was possibly a factor in his early demise.
Even if we assume he was illegitimate, he claimed the throne of England through right of conquest, not of blood, so it would not impede on the legitimacy of his rule.
I completely agree :-) I haven't heard about the lung capacity story, but that would be very interesting and suggestive of him being born premature.
Great post! I absolutely agree with you!
People forget that is how we used to work. Conquest had been the only way for centuries of winning land. I’ve been the recipient of a lot of hate when I say we won America by right of conquest. But that’s all we knew even as we were maturing , conquest was still the law of the land.
Cecily Neville was descended from Edward III anyway, via John of Gaunt and the Beaufort line. But in this period of confused and contested ancestry, Edward IV's decisive military victories, charisma, popularity with Londoners and support for traditional and highly profitable trading links with Flanders, must surely have appeared far more important to the country, especially after the shambles created by Henry VI and the machinations of Queen Margaret and the Earl of Warwick.
Right of Conquest was a formal way to claim a throne in medieval Europe, which Edward IV did not make and Henry VII did.
Edward's claim was based off him being the heir General to Richard II and the he should be king rather then the grandson of usurper Henry IV, and the Act of Accord 1460, which created his father prince of Wales and heir to the throne and his line after him.
Medical professional here.
THANK YOU, thank you so much for taking this up.
That old Tony Robinson documentary drove me bananas.
I’d also like to add, a pregnancy is said to be 40 weeks long, but this is just a counting convenience. A pregnancy is dated from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period. Not from the day of conception.
Commonly, a woman ovulates 14 days after the first day of her last period. Therefore, a woman conceives on week 2 of the “40 week pregnancy“. This would’ve made Edward IV exactly on time.
Also, as you point out, a full term pregnancy is anything from 37 weeks to 42 weeks. It’s very rare for somebody to be born on the dot. This isn’t new news though. I was taught that in the 1990s and it was old news then
100%
Whether Edward IV was illegitimate or not is now moot. The dna test on the skeletal remains of Richard III showed no connection with the Dukes of Beaufort as far as I can recall. This might have had something to do with the fact that Edmund of Langley, the Duke of York and fourth son of Edward III was in severe doubt that Richard of Conisburgh, Richard III's 'Yorkist' grandfather, was his child. What is certain however is that Edward IV was a lineal descendant of John of Gaunt as Cecily Neville, his mother, was Gaunt`s granddaughter through her mother, Joan Beaufort. The Wars of the Roses was definitely a family affair; Game of Thrones doesn't match it.
Yes, the suspected biological father was the 1st Duke of Exeter John Holland, rumored at the time to be having an affair with Edmund of Langley's wife. His father openly disfavored him and I believe left him out of his will. Holland was the son of Thomas Holland and Joan of Kent, whose secret marriage was scandal of the day. After she was widowed she married the Black Prince and gave birth to Richard II. Wish you would do a video on her! Known as "the woman with two husbands" for a period of time and always worried Richard II's legitimacy would be questioned later on.
Oh, there is a wonderful novel, Katherine, by Anya Seton, that brings to life the love story of John of Gaunt and Katherine or Kathryn Swinford, who was his mistress and later his Duchess. Their children were illegitimate, but given the Beaufort name/title and later made legitimate. It is a love story to thrill the heart of a teenage girl or any woman.💕And historically accurate. However, so Richard III had no Beaufort dna? that is a new twist in the story, and puzzling because if Cicely , his mother was descended from Joan Beaufort , what happened to the dna? This is so much fun and I am inspired to re-visit the whole War of the Roses Another great saga of a historical novel is “The Wheel of Fortune by Susan Howatch. She re-creates the story through a family. the Godwins, in Wales, living on their estate of Oxmoon, on the Gower Peninsula it is the War of the Roses -beginning with Robert Godwin (Edward III) and his sons , Robert,(Edward, the black Prince) John, Edmund and Thomas, set in pre WWI era.Beautifully written, it helped me to sort out all the”players” in the history of the War of the Roses.🌹👑
@@prarieborn6458 cicely could only have been illegitimate then. Unfortunately there are many non paternal events and most people are not descendants of whom they think they are descendants of, because women are easily seduced. That is why they were so closely guarded
Exactly right: Cecily had a Plantagenet descent herself, and there seems to be serious likelihood that Richard, Duke of York's, father, Richard of Conisburgh, was not a true heir of Edmund, the first Duke of York. But Richard, Duke of York's, senior claim to the throne actually derived from his mother, Anne Mortimer, as the ultimate heir of Edward III's second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, a descent that passed twice through the female line. So, even if the York title had passed down spuriously, the dynastic claim that the House of York had wouldn't have been affected. They were senior to the Lancasters because of their Clarence, rather than their York, descent.
The DNA a person has comes from both their parents BUT only half from each and this happens down the generations. For the half that is passed on there is half that is not, meaning that one ancestors genes may not be found in some of their descendants especially that what is passed on is random in each child. This is especially the case as it dilutes fast down the generations from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 to 1/16 in just four generations. Ancestry and other genealogy companies offer testing to help with tracing ancestors but the DNA says little unless it connects you with another descendant and you can swap information that they have researched.
Completely agree, doesn’t matter if he was legitimate by blood, he was legitimate by conquest. Edward IV was truly a Warrior King, pity he is not remembered as such.
Yes, I felt like the documentary makers didn't properly grasp that point. There was more to holding the throne than just having the best blood claim on it.
@@HistoryCalling They sure do love using the same name.
Richard commanded much of Edward’s army at the age of 18.
@@savagedarksider5934too darned many Edward’s, Richard’s, and George’s. Makes it confusing. I guess you just have to number them.
Edward IV, in my opinion, certainly has the physical resemblance to his father's family. I don't believe he was illegitimate. As pointed out, illegitimacy was thrown around as a weapon so often, this was probably just more propaganda.
I think so too. Mary I even tried to say Elizabeth I wasn't Henry VIII's daughter, even though E looked a lot more like their father than Mary did. Mind you, Elizabeth was arguably illegitimate for other reasons, but that's another story!
It was also thrown around against John of Gaunt.
True. But when your maternal and paternal grandparents/great grandparents are siblings, the DNA is all over the place, lol!
You made interesting points. Edward IV took the throne by conquest during the War of the Roses. His legitimacy shouldn’t be an issue. Allegations that he’s a product of adultery were only appalling political tactics in my opinion. When all fails blame the woman. That’s how it was done in the past.
You sound better. Thank you for this video. Have a great weekend. 😊
Thanks Leticia. Yes, I don't think it ultimately matters either in terms of who got the throne.
He claimed the throne through right of blood, he held it through right of conquest.
Actually dont bother blaming anyone Else than a woman
The theory of them not being related “because they don’t look similar” doesn’t hold much weight to me. Like you said, full siblings don’t always look alike. I am 5’11” tall, blonde-ish hair, pale, and blue eyes. My sister is 5’5” tall, black hair, olive skinned, and brown eyes. We couldn’t be more different! But I take after my dad, and she takes after my mom
Exactly. I've seen lots of stories similar to yours here in the comments and I don't doubt for a second that those people are full siblings. Sometimes people just put too much stock in a familial resemblance. I would say for instance that I look more like one side of my family, but my personality more strongly resembles the other. You just never know which bits of DNA you'll get from each parent.
@@HistoryCalling exactly! Every family is different and that argument doesn’t hold a lot of water, given my own personal experience in the difference between siblings.
Also, I just wanted to say how much I love your videos!! I stumbled upon your channel a few months back and have watched just about every video! I’ve always loved history, so your channel is the perfect fix for me after a long week! ❤️
I would take the claims of illegitamacy more seriously if it wasn't the fact that every person who made such a public claim had some sort of political reason to discredit Edward. None of these claims were made in good faith because all had some sort of bone to pick with him whether it be over his marriage, over his alliances or lack thereof, or because of a want of power. Unless there can be found some source which wasn't made for a direct political reason and could be verified by outside sources such as say the record or lack of for his Christening or the exact whereabouts of Cecily Neville and/or Richard Duke of York only then will I consider it credible. Otherwise it's just gossip that has made its way into the historical record. Plus, as you point out, it doesn't even matter in the long term anyways considering the Tudors took the crown from the York line.
Yes, I think it's just one of those claims made against a King who'd taken the throne by force and who had a lot of enemies (including his own family sometimes) who wanted to see someone else on it.
Except that these rumors and claims dogged Edward significantly more than most kings. It's hard to put that all down to bad luck, and I don't think Edward's circumstances were that unique, were they?
@@stephaniechristensen5551 well he had double illegitimacy rumors to deal with. Both his because of his mother, and his son’s because of his bigamy.
@@stephaniechristensen5551 But they weren’t dogging him until people wanted to contest his right to the throne. It’s not brought up earlier in his life and there are no rumours circulated by people who don’t have something to gain from his downfall. The rumours appear later, fuelled by people who have something to gain from it. And as is pointed out.. even if he wasn’t legitimate by birth he was still the legitimate king. The crown can be taken legitimately by conquest and he did that. So even without a birthright he still rightfully sits on the throne.
@@MadHatterDJ- Oh, I wouldn't say those rumors never circulated except after Edward died. They might not have circulated much openly when he was established in power, but before Edward was king? And when he had to flee the country and retake it again?
Yeah, right of conquest. (Of course, what support would he have had if his York claim to the throne had never been valid and people knew that?) But he never put to rest the bigamy rumors either and those were the ones that were truly poison to his sons' claims. I haven't seen a good discussion of that issue, though it doesn't seem to have gotten much traction ultimately.
Thanks again for an informative and entertaining video!
What I love about your channel is that you walk us through all the evidence in detail. Most regular documentaries seem to assume that watchers are not interested in the 'boring' analysis of the source material. But you prove that quite the opposite is true! Being able to understand the scientific process and the uncertainties and debates is so refreshing. Thank you for taking your audience seriously!
Agreed. A lot of documentaries feel the need to fudge facts or present fringe theories as truth in order to get viewers (the History Channel) rather than presenting the facts as they are.
Thank you. I like to think the focus on the evidence is what makes me a little bit different from a lot of others too, as opposed to just jumping straight to the conclusions. Mind you, I'm actually surprised that people have responded to that approach so well, as I worried when I started the channel that viewers would find it too dry.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Hear, hear, plus so eloquently & flowingly done with a pretty accent to boot ❤
So the primary thing to justify Edward being illegitimate is that he was a tall man with a short father...
My father is only 5'8"and my brother is 6'3" ( and he haven't reached puberty yet)... So... I think my stepmother has to explain a few things 🤣
Great video! 🙂 Really well done! 🙂
Thanks Lara. Yes, the 'evidence' is really weak. As you say, lots of people don't physically resemble their parents, or they look more like one than the other. Too much emphasis is placed on familial resemblance sometimes.
My husband is 6’2” and my FIL is 5’5”. Tall genes can come from anywhere!
King Henry VIII resembled his grandfather, King Edward IV far more than his father, King Henry VII, whilst his older brother Prince Arthur shows more resemblance to their father.
@@bethanyconboy Your FIL likely had "tall genes" too, but he didn't become tall due to some environmental factors. This is not rare, the same thing happened in my family as well.
Both my sons are quite a bit taller than their dad--these things vary all over the lot. Not very scientific evidence.
I think that for me, the claims of illegitimacy are marred by the fact that both George and Richard had ambitions and agendas of their own, and so it stood to their benefit to tear down Edward's claims. As far as Cecily goes, I think that as others have said in other comments, women just didn't have as much agency to commit adultery as men did in the Middle Ages. Isabella of Angouleme the wife of King John comes to mind, but even then she never produced a child with any of her reputed lovers, same with Isabella of France wife of Edward II. Even rumors of adultery on the part of a woman could destroy her such as the Tour de Nesle affair, which brought down three royal French women not to mention Anne Boleyn several decades later. Added to that the high notions of medieval honour (I mean could anyone have taken Richard Plantagenet seriously as a claimant to the English throne if he allowed himself to be so obviously cuckolded?), and the claims of illegitimacy just don't hold much water for me. Maybe I'm a little biased with Edward IV being my favorite English monarch, but I think you laid out a very compelling case over all.
Thank you. Yes, I find it very unlikely too, for all sorts of practical and moral reasons to do with Cecily's lifestyle and religious beliefs.
Yes, it seems accusing others of pre-contracts, betrothal vows etc was often the first shot in a coup
Richard had no agenda of his own and he did everything possible to force George to behave. When a baby is born weak or sick it is imperative that S/he be baptized immediately. Death without baptism meant Limbo not Heaven. If a baby could not be delivered the midwife would stick her hand in and baptize the baby in utero. Most of us don’t realize how seriously Middle Ages citizens took their religion. Mancini didn’t speak English and hung out with Lancastrians. He simply repeated the stories he had heard. He repeatedly says he didn’t know whether what he wrote was factual or not.
George's resentment of Edward would make sense if George believed Edward was illegitimate and thus ineligible for the throne. George might have genuinely thought he had a better right to the crown. George was his mother's favorite.
I can't see how Cecily Neville could have survived accusations of adultery, given the treasonous nature of the offence against the king. I'm more inclined to think the story stems from mischief or malice.
Yes, I think she would have been in very hot water too, especially if she was the one airing the accusations. Edward would surely have slapped her into a nunnery (best case scenario).
What if it was a pregnancy by rape? Surely that would not be considered adultery! She could threaten to tell the world she was raped and therefore he was not the King's son, thereby blackening his name, but not getting her into it.
@@maryblushes71895 back then it still would have been looked at as her fault. Rape victims weren't victims back then.
@@glow4200 you know Arthur did not put Guenivir down for being raped. Not that they were real people, but that was how the people looked at things when the tales were told.
If it was true she would of been sent to a nunnery. Royal women weren't executed for adultery. Henry the 8th was considered a monster in his time, for having his second and 5th wives executed for treason and adultery.
i thought this was related to the rumors that Richard Conisburgh, Edward IV's grandfather, was illegitimate, not actually related to King Edward III.
Firstly, historians note that Conisburgh parents had a very poor relationship, and that his mother was highly suspected of having an affair at the time of his birth, some ten years after his siblings, with John of Holland, another powerful Duke, and half brother to King Richard II. Both his mother Isabella of
Castile and Holland were supposed to have rebellious attitudes.
It is also noted that Conisburgh was treated unusually by his father the Duke of York, Edmund Langley ( 4th surviving son of King Edward III) but who left Conisburgh out of his will, and did not appear to do much to provide for him.
In reading about his life, Richard Conisburgh had very little income, a younger son and brother to the Dukes of York, who had enormous properties, and in fact were one of the most landed powerful families in England
By contrast, Conisburgh's older brother was granted every privilege and was a favorite at the court. There is no evidence that Conisburgh did anything wrong to deserve this in his earlier life ( his downfall came much later ) and he married an even more penniless, forgotten royal Anne Mortimer, which is also a sign of not being favored for a good wealthy match at that time.
In fact, it shows how forgotten they both were by the Lancaster King, Henry IV, that he even permitted such a potentially powerful and threatening match,
as we all see from the later events, the War of the Roses.
Watch out for those forgotten relations !
If Conisburgh was illegitimate, his son, Richard 3rd Duke of York who was a major figure in the War of Roses, who almost became king himself, and help paved the way for his son Edward IV, the figure of this documentary...
In this case,
they may all have descended from an illegitimate line, and are not a real Yorks, and therefore, their real claim to throne, really is only through Anne Mortimer, wife of Conisburgh, and descendant of the second son of King Edward III, Lionel.
I have wondered if that is why he married Anne, suspecting his own legitimacy,
and wanting to create a future for his children.
(As it turns out, the Edward IV, and other Yorkists had a shot at the throne not only to Anne's blood line, but due to the enormous income that they inherited through her and her brothers....
Anne was poor due to Henry IV carefully guarding her brothers and their family income ( to keep them in line ) and neglecting her , and the next king Henry V changed the policy and allowed Anne's son , father of Edward IV to inherit everything freely so he cleaned up the fortunes of both lineages, Lionel, House of Clarence and the Mortimer lands and fortunes, and that of House of York)
Thanks for this. I don't believe Edward was illegitimate. But as you point out he won the throne in battle at any rate. Interesting video as always
Thank you :-)
I’m with you. Edward IV was king because he took it and it had nothing to do with his supposed illegitimacy or not. It was a ‘legitimate’ way to make yourself king during that time. All that said, I vote that having an illegitimate child would have been totally out of character for Edward’s mother. Also, Illegitimacy was one of the most common ways to insult someone at the time, so flung around pretty indiscriminately.
Yes, I think so too. it really seems like a politically motivated insult.
Even today it's a fairly common insult
Love hearing about the characters from the Wars of the Roses! To me, whether Edward was legitimate doesnt even matter, for all the reasons you listed. Additionally, at that time, the legal father was the husband of the mother, and NO WAY TO PROVE OTHERWISE. So, Edward was the son of the Duke of York!
I think so too. More Wars of the Roses coming soon :-)
The Duke of York was away at war at the time of conception.
@@cornishmade100 Didn't you watch the video?
999
@@cornishmade100 8
Thank you for such a measured and thoughtful look at this topic.
I watched the Tony Robinson documentary when it was first aired and was reduced to muttering rude words at the screen. Henry VII was careful to base his claim to the throne on his victory over Richard III. As you say, even if Cecily of York had hatched a cuckoo in the nest, (which would be very hard to do), then Edward was still the one who won the crown. Also Cecily herself was the granddaughter of John of Gaunt, so she had royal blood in her veins.
I am glad you pointed out that his legitimacy didn't matter, because he took the throne by force. And it's worth noting that Henry Tutor was VERY VERY VERY much NOT claiming his right to rule via Elizabeth of York. Certainly that marriage helped to prevent competition and sure up alliances, but it was not how he claimed his kingship. The rules of monarchs are not...divine rights handed down. There isn't one great hard and fast rule that everyone adhered too 100% and always played fair by. If that was the case, there never would have *been* a war of the roses in the first place.
I agree that it doesn't matter for the succession. Edward was a conqueror, and he took the throne in his own right. Had his father sat on the throne, then died? Different matter.
Or perhaps not. I doubt he was really illegitimate. For one thing, if Richard really thought Edward wasn't his son, I can't see it going over well, especially with how hard adultery was punished (in women). And, considering some of the other shenanigans Richard the 3rd allegedly got up to, claiming his brother was illegitimate to try getting the throne really isn't that surprising.
Absolutely. There's just no solid evidence beyond his grasping brothers saying it as they tried to get his throne.
@@HistoryCalling plus Richard III really detested Elizabeth Woodville because of her father's some what humble origins who married the Duke of Bedford's widow, thus inheriting some of Bedford's lands.
Richard never said that Edward was illegitimate. On the contrary, he remained loyal to his big brother all his life.
So many Edwards. I am fascinated with Edward 1, 111, VI and II. The Henrys are also fascinating. Anyway, thank you for another in-depth look at Edward VI. I loved the series “White Queen”. ❤️
You should see my videos on the Princes in the Tower and Edward VI if you haven't already and of course there's plenty on Henry VII and Henry VIII here too :-)
@@HistoryCalling thanks for the tip. I will watch them this weekend. Will you make one of Henry 11 and a separate one for his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine? I am fascinated how wealthy and independent she was, yet her husband commandeered her property. Guess you could do an entire series on the individuals in that family. Henry 11 was not nice to his son and heir Henry The Young King either. So much drama. Present day Royals live the good like. Just imagine if Prince William had to go out and fight 🗡 🗡 to take over from the Queen, instead of using the Daily Mail 🤣 lucky guy, Harry would have taken him on in some field or the other ages ago.
The White Queen was a total mess .
@@manchestertart5614 it was drama my lovely, however, it was a jumping off point for me to do a deep dive into learning about Edward IV and Elizabeth Yorkville etc.. I am a military history buff, also any time I watch a show that’s based on historical figures I always do try about them. It’s a win-win for me.
I like the way CGP Grey puts it inheritance "is a free for all, home team advantage to the oldest son. But never forget bigger army diplomacy"
This was amazing.
I’m glad you sound better!
I’m curious. Is your historical focus and ‘specialty’ the medieval era or do you just happen to pick these topics as they feel more interesting and untouched?
You would literally never guess it from the content of this channel, but my official area of expertise (as in it's what my PhD and publications cover) is in fact primarily the 18th century! I do enjoy the earlier part of the early modern era though and the medieval period and select the video topics based on a combination of what I'm interested in and what I think will do well. The video on Queen Anne Stuart's children though, is the only one so far which is really in my field.
@@HistoryCalling oh! Your PHD and my master's are closer than I thought! My BA was on the Boer War, but my master's was far more recent - the Falklands. Much of the work my lecturers did was between the Napoleonic wars and the first world war.
My grandmother was 5 foot tall on a good day (4.8,) and I'm 6.1. Nor do I look anything like her! Wow, you put Time Team and Tony Robinson in their places, and you did it under an hour!
My brother is a foot taller than I.
Thank you :-) (I still enjoy his shows though, both factual and acting - I just disagree with this one).
All the men on my fathers side are over 6ft my auntie my father's sister is 5'7"/ 5'8". My grandmother my father's mother is about 5'1/5'2 and I am 4'10. Also most of cousins and siblings look like my father's side of family where as I look like my mother. Although my mum is 5'4 so no one is as short as me.
I can't see a reason why he is not legitimate. None of the evidence can hold much water when you get down to it.
Hello History Calling! How nice to watch your videos! You are very well informed, obviously a true historian, and also the conversational tone you use in telling the stories is so much easier to listen to than anyone else's who do historical videos on RUclips. Thank you for that. I watched the video suggesting that Edward IV was illegitimate before I watched yours above, and very much appreciate your considered position here. Seems to me that Edward's slandered mother was just more misogyny from times long past, along with political mudslinging. You've made a good case which rings true, and I agree with you. Well done!
That was wonderful. As a Native American…I’m fascinated by all this. Not (oddly) the Tudors. But by “The War of the Roses.” Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville (in particular) fascinate me. So I can’t wait to get some more time off…to explore THEIR parents.
Thank you.
Thank you so much Margaret Beaufort is one of the most important women in English history.
Extremely pious and a major founder of education.Christ's College and St John's College Cambridge were founded by her and Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is named after her, Saint John Fisher was her confessor.
Her relatives The Dukes of Somerset, had been killed but she never wavered from her loyalty to her house, her only child in exile and even carried Anne Neville's train at her dual coronation was daily in danger at the Yorkist Court.
Both Margarets were the among the main reason the House of Lancaster triumphed. Margaret of Anjou supporting her son after he was disinherited after Northampton.
If anyone thinks history is something black and white in old books, a collection of dates etc without relevance to everyday life they need to think again.
For instance a little purported fact is that Richard II, yes, Peasants Revolt and all that, invented the handkerchief!
Lady Margaret Beaufort's third husband was Sir Thomas Stanley.
The Stanley family came to prominence in the 1300's as mercenaries during the French wars.
They became gentry rather than nobility but Bosworth was to change all that. When Richard III arrested Lord Hastings in the Tower of London Thomas Stanley was injured in the scuffle. He was a member of the Yorkist Court. Richard III ordered that Stanley was responsible for his wife and her actions.
Three armies turned up at Bosworth, Richard III's, Henry Tudor's and the Stanley brothers', Sir Thomas and Sir William. Sir Thomas's son was kept as hostage by Richard III.
The Stanleys were there officially to support Richard but who would they support, their king or Lady Margaret's son? Would they risk the execution of Sir Thomas's son?
History tells us they came in on the side of Henry Tudor. One of them legendsrily crowning Henry on the battlefield. This catapulted the Stanleys into the A-list nobility as the Earls of Derby where they remain to this day.
Played a major role in government ever since.
Always a sporting family, the "Derby" was named after one. Another very close to Americans hearts, donated the ice-hockey cup.
Sir Thomas Stanley's son should you wonder, though Richard did order his execution, survived.
In a roundabout way therefore Lady Margaret Beaufort is responsible for the oldest sporting cup in North America. 🙂
Thank you. I'm so glad you like the videos. There's more on Margaret and Elizabeth (and Elizabeth's mother Jacquetta) to come in future offerings :-)
@@HistoryCalling I found that I am related to Elizabeth Woodville by more than one ancestor
Thankyou for your videos. You are fantastic. I watch so many documentaries and always end up scratching my head at the inconsistencies in them, but you far better than Jones, Starkey and other notable historians thourghly explain ALL clearly with multiple sources. Can't thank you enough 🤗
Aww, blushing over here. Thank you ☺
Thank you for this video, I know I'm late coming to it but I'm currently working my way through your entire catalogue in a rather haphazard way. I love the way that you look at each of the sources and relay the information from all of them to us, not just the ones that justify your own point of view. My only complaint about your content is that, because I refuse to pay for RUclips premium, I can't listen to it on the go!!
Thank you for closing with the aspect of the “concurring” king. No matter the bloodline, once claimed in battle, he was king. The whole thing comes down to that in actuality and when Henry Tudor did the same, he too was a legitimized king, no matter who he descended from originally.
I started watching the documentary you talked about, I couldn’t stand it. I love your videos better. It’s fun to look up the info myself:) I know it takes you a while to research your videos, but I could listen to you every day!
I randomly stumbled over this, although I have never seen one of your videos before, but in hindsight I do not regret watching it. Great work!
My take about the question, how great the effect of E4 (Edward IV.) being illegitimate would have actually been:
I think that the effect on the rule of E4 himself should not be underestimated, even though he entered the throne by conquest. The subjects at the time tend to rebel against kings they did not think were legitimate, which I guess is connected to the strong christian believe in the late middle ages in europe, that sees the king as the representative of god himself. Coming from another family line would basically annihilate this asumption for your reign. The example about W1 (William I.) you brought into the argument and how he conquered england by force aswell gets mitigated a bit, when you consider the absolute mess, that was the succession after EtC's (Edward the Confessor's) death around 1066, him actually being related to EtC's family through Emma, the mother of the latter and his great-aunt, and the fact, that EtC himself told W1, that he will be his successor, when he was in Normandy (I cant give you the source for the last point, but I think I got it from Oversimplifieds video on the battle of Hastings, just in case you want to fact-check it).
Coming back to E4, one of his most valuable claims to the throne and one the reasons for the Wars of the Roses to begin was, that RoY's (Richard of York) father RoC (Richard of Conisbourgh) was married to Anne Mortimer, who was a decendent of LoA (Lionel of Antwerp), who was an older son of E3 (Edward III.) than JoG (John of Gaunt), who is the father of H4 (Henry IV.), and therefore had a higher position in the succession. This claim would have also vanished, should E4 have been illegitimate.
If we create the scenario, of E4 being dethroned due to his illegitimacy, I doubt that the people would accept another mendacious Yorkist on the throne, so I assume they would either try reinstating the Lancastrians or they would move on to the next line of succession. In this scenario, R3 (Richard III.) could obviously never "succeed" his brother and H7 (Henry VII.) would never usurp the throne. Like this the entirety of the royal history of england would not be like it is today. But this is just a scenario.
Assuming, that everything happened the same it actually did, but suddenly historians find a proof for E4 really being illegitimate, I dont think it decreases the legitimacy of the tudors, the stewarts, or any other royal house, because, while EoY (Elizabeth of York) was H7's main connection to the blood line of the royal family, he was also a direct decendent of H4's father JoG, through the Beaufort line, which I know were excluded from the succession, but still had royal blood. In the aftermath, the people would have probably been fine with this. Another, admittedly very small, argument would be, that H7's grandmother CoV (Catherine of Valois) was also H6's (Henry VI.) mother.
I'm thankful to everyone, who took their time to read through this mess, and I'm really interested in your opinions on this. Also I'm sorry if there are some grammatical mistakes in this text, but you need to know that I'm a 17 year old german, so please forgive me.
Have a blessed Sunday.
Wether he was or was not legitimate, he was a great ruler, who tried so hard to right by the nobles & the commoners. He married for love regardless of the consequences, manaded to win the crown by winning in battle for the sake of the realm. Tried to convert enemies into loyalists by making enemies friends. He cared & tried so hard to make a country peaceful, united & free of civil war. He without realising started the tudor dynasty (Elizabeth Woodville who birthed the daughter Elizabeth Woodville & who married Henry v11. A true warrior king with all the right values & responsibilities. He cared, fought & won. No matter his birth heritage, he did everything he could to stabalise England.
I love & respect him despite his birth origins. The last of "Arthurian" Warrior Kings. A true & well defined hero. No matter his birth origins.
Thank you so much for this wonderful in site.
I can't wait to hear all about cecily neville! Xxx
I must say that I always defer to the facts I learn from this channel, because of your meticulous investigations into all the subjects you present. Your research is painstaking and carefully, honestly presented, whatever the subject. As an avid Anglophile, it is very comforting to have a source I need have extremely few-read virtually NO- reservations going forward-with.
I appreciate the fact that, unlike most Ricardian-biased sources, you do not attack Shakespeare or Sir Thomas More for what are generally accepted as their Tudor-favored views on Richard III. Shakespeare in particular, to my knowledge, anyway, wrote his plays primarily as ENTERTAINMENT.. since all his "historical" plays are replete with historical inaccuracies, The Scottish Play (MACBETH) being amongst them. Yet I'm not aware of Scottish groups eviscerating The Bard for these. I find it highly distasteful that any group would be willing to vilify a PLAYWRIGHT for painting a still clearly-recalled Public Personage with the same brush as so many observers writing at the time of Richard III's highly disturbing acts or very shortly thereafter. Like all good writers, Shakespeare made free use of the most sensational-and therefore the most intriguing-qualities possessed by historical persons. The label of "Tudor Toady" plastered onto William Shakespeare *may* be accurate to an extent; but he DID have a Living to make, and it in NO WAY detracts from the sheer genius which formed and fleshed-out a fascinating and engaging character.
MANY fascinating and engaging characters.
Again, thank you for your accurate and engaging posts. I shall be watching for more.
Thank you so much. I actually haven't even read much Shakespeare, but never think of him as an historical source unless there's little or nothing else to use. As you said, he was writing entertainment. I wouldn't think of him as an historical source any more than I would think of the TV show The Tudors as such.
If Edward was indeed illegitimate, I think it far more likely that he was a product of Lady Cecily being assaulted by someone, not by her own choice. It would explain why her husband was more than willing to claim Edward as his son, for he would then not have been the product of a willing adultery, but rather the shameful r4pe of his wife, something both she and he would have every motivation to keep quiet.
For what it's worth, though, I think that Edward likely was legitimate, and accusations he wasn't were just some attempt at blackening his claim that stuck more than other claims against him due to the "what if...?"s and the fact that one could never TRULY know for sure who fathered a child before modern decades. It was likely just a nasty comment that people repeated during his life because they knew it riled him, and repeated it after his death to further sully his reputation as it's an easy insult that's hard to both prove or disprove, making it harmful words that were relatively cheap to say.
Fascinating presentation as usual. Well done!
Many thanks! :-)
'To the victor, belong the spoils' to quote William L. Marcy. I agree with you as the possibility that Edward may, or may not, have been legitimate becomes irrelevant, as he was the acknowledged king - even at the expense of Henry VI. I think your debunking of the more recent theories concerning Edward's illegitimacy are fascinating, and make me wonder how previous historians were not more attentive to the importance of primary sources. Thank you for another insightful and thought-provoking video.
Thank you. I have to say in defence of other historians that most of them are just as attentive as me and indeed I read their work to help me put the videos together. Every so often though, someone either makes a genuine mistake (happens to us all, myself included), or gets a bit carried away, develops tunnel vision around their theory and refuses to listen to those who disagree and who might steer them back onto the correct path.
Very interesting. Thoroughly researched and beautifully presented.
Many thanks :-)
I was going to avoid this one as Edward IV is my favourite king but I couldn't resist😂😂😂
Edit... I'm impressed!! All the points I was ready to rant about you mentioned yourself 😍 I didn't realise someone else cared enough to research Edward IV as I have 💕
hen the 7 th is the most brill 💫💫💫💫🤣
Thank you. :-) Not to worry, I always care about my research subjects. :-)
@@HistoryCalling such a refreshing way to do things, I know a lot of 'historians' that should follow your lead 😍😍🤷♀️
Same he's also my favourite king
Very very interesting. I’ve always been intrigued by Henry V1 and his mental state. His grandfather ( the French king ? ) was mentally unstable ? , and since his daughter was married to Henry V , and Henry V1 their child, was this mental instability inherited …..leading to the Wars of the Roses ?
Yes, Henry VI is interesting. Maybe worth a video at some point.
@@HistoryCalling Henry V exploited what was in effect a French wars of the roses within the French Royal house, allying with the Burgundian faction, possible because of the mental state of the French king. Marrying his daughter , Henry V transferred than “illness” to his son who became Henry V1. I can’t support my suspicion with evidence, but the week rule which followed , combined with the House of Burgundy again swearing loyalty to the French king, saw the defeat of the English in the Hundred Years War. It’s a fascinating period in the history of both countries.
Your research is first class and I concur with your theory on all aspects of this very interesting story, superb as always and thank you HC. 😊
Thank you very much :-)
@@HistoryCalling always a plesure HC. 😊
Thank you so much for all the amazing content 😊
My pleasure and thank you for watching and commenting :-)
I love how you organize and present your information. My humble opinion is that Edward IV was not illegitimate.
Thank you so much. I always appreciate it when someone acknowledges the work behind the scenes to put the videos together, as even something like the order in which info. is presented can actually be quite tricky to figure out sometimes :-)
@@HistoryCalling You’re very welcome! I found your videos very recently and I’ve been loving them. How you keep all those details and connections straight! I’m not a details person so you have my respect and admiration!
Wonderful video! I love your channel! Cheers from the USA!!
Just an idea about the hair color... I have dark blonde hair myself. I often engage in living history scenarios, and treat my hair with historic methods (though I reenact nineteenth century). The products make my hair look much darker than it does naturally. It also looks darker when I do not wash it for several days, though not as dark as when I use some kind of pomade or product on it. I rather doubt that anyone in the distant past washed their hair as frequently or as well as we do now, so if their hair looks dark in the paintings to us, they could still have been considered blonde to people of the day, to whom this would have seemed perfectly normal.
I find the “they didn’t look like their father” argument so funny. I have 3 sons. 1&3 are the spitting image of their dad, tall and thin. 2 looks very much like my side of the family, shorter and stocky. I myself strongly resemble my dad’s side of the family and hardly look like my mom at all. Genetics is just funny that way. It’s not evidence of an affair lol
Exactly. None of my children even resemble me.
Thank you for your wonderful content every week!
You're very welcome :-)
I would love to see a video about Edward's sister Margaret of York/Burgundy. Her surviving crown is one of the most beautiful objects on earth.
Your videos are just superb ! From your facts , pictures ...to your fantastic voice !! Your efforts are appreciated across the English speaking lands !!
Thanks Julie. That's very kind :-)
"More like guidelines", love it! Sadly, I know next to nothing about The War of the Roses; guess I'll have to beef up my library. I think you made a good case for Edward's legitimacy. Mudslinging, as we all know, has been and remains a persistent bit of politicking. Thanks for another great video full of details I rarely encounter elsewhere. I'd love it if you would one day address your method of research for us. Until next week, stay healthy and safe.
Thanks Stephen. :-)
I’m loving your channel and your accent is Devine. Thank you for these videos. I studied history but you have still shown me things that I must have missed or forgotten 😂😂 it was the 70’s 🙏🏻
Thank you so much and I'm happy to be of service :-)
Edward IV is a Plantagenet. He had Plantagenet features and coloring. So Edward IV was too tall. So were the early Plantagenets with either red or blonde hair. The dark haired Plantagenets came later by Blanche of Lancaster who had dark hair.
Yes, having Spanish grandparents may have played a part in his coloring, as well.
I appreciate all your work. Loved this video. I don’t believe Edward IV was illegitimate. I remember seeing Tony Robinson’s program on this and when Tony went to the “true king’s” house down in Australia, to let him know he’s Britain’s true king, I was shocked how much the true king and the portraits of Edward IV looked alike!
The “true King” is a descendant Edward IV and of Henry Tudor ,so if Edward was illegitimate then the Hastings family is not legitimate heirs to the throne.
I don’t think that Edward is illegitimate.
My daughter was born 3 weeks before my due date, 7 pounds 10 ounces and physically full-term. And there was no doubt about the date of conception.
Yes, I've heard stories like that before. 40 weeks is really just a guide. Sometimes they're just ready a little bit before that :-)
@@HistoryCalling(or too cosy/snug to move out!)
Most informative and enjoyable. Your voice is most pleasing as well.
Thanks Jerry :-)
I think the most obvious answer is probably the right one. It’s not like babies are always born exactly 9 months after they are conceived.
That’s true. I can attest to that since I was born prematurely.
Very true :-)
BRILLIANT analysis! Thank you! 🙂❤
You are very welcome :-)
I've only just discovered this channel. Love love love it. My new favorite.
Phenomenal demonstration of the significance of primary sources!
Thank you. I am indeed rather partial to them :-)
@@HistoryCalling It is fascinating how tales like the Washington cherry tree get retold so many times that we accept them as fact. The concept of checking primary sources is not mainstream. I admire how you not only cite the sources, but also evaluate the intent of the sources. After centuries of the winners writing history, we are finally seeing more academically rigorous accounts in more mainstream places. Histography is an adventure! I am "fan girling" lol
Loving your videos on history
It is a very sticky wicket here. I am almost convinced of your argument, except for the kind of distance Cecily and her husband had to communicate such a distance. A bit complicated, but doable. It's not exactly a hop skip and a jump. But, what convinces me of your point is, the superstition of the people of that time. Child birth was difficult and if a child was unhealthy, they would not have as invested as they were with Edmund a year later. It really is like the scanal of Richard the 3rd. The Tudors were a nasty bunch. Thanks muchly Lady Natalie.
I'm confused. At what point would Cecily have opportunity to meet, let alone meet enough times to form an attachment with an archer? There seems to me to be quite a few steps on the social ladder between a random army archer and the queen of England. When would they have been in the same room together?
Cecilly was never Queen of England. She was the Duchess of York. Richard was the lieutenant (governor) in the English domain in France. She was a Neville but from the junior branch of Nevilles. Ralph Neville at the time of Henry V became the Earl of Westmorland had two families. The senior branch which remained loyal to the House of Lancaster and the junior branch which defected to the Yorkists.
@@English_Dawn Ah, my mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.
Exactly. It stretches credulity to breaking point.
Agree, it seems incredulous. And if an otherwise pious woman was to have an affair with a low born archer not in her own circle, why would she do it before having her first son and begetting the heir for her husband. She would have been under a great deal of scrutiny until, and even after bearing her firstborn son, even though she had already given birth to a daughter. It could hardly have been supposed that she was infertile, so the household would have been watchful for an heir. Certainly a woman of her piety would not have been able to bear the guilt and shame of adultery without entering a nunnery, or making a full confession and seeking pardon, which the account of her frenzy at the inappropriate marriage of her son does not seem to reflect.
Love how well-reaearched your videos are & that you include your sources. 👍
Thank you :-)
This is really interesting! I think he's legitimate. I highly doubt that the King of England would raise and make his wife's illegitimate child his heir. You would assume, if he believed the rumours, he would send the child away and send Cecily to a nunnery if he couldn't trust her to produce legitimate heirs for him. I would be genuinely surprised if Richard or George put forth the idea that their brother was illegitimate and had people believe them without anyone questioning their parentage as well. If she cheated and had an illegitimate child once, what would stop her from having another? I wonder why Richard and George's parentage aren't as heavily questioned as their older brother. I don't believe she did commit adultery but if the people of the court did, then why wouldn't the George and Richard's birth father be called into question 🤔. It seems as if the idea of Edward being illegitimate popped up when he was in a bad position or dead and disappeared or was conveniently forgotten when he was alive and at his best. I think it was just rumours spread by his enemies to discredit him. These rumours got circulated and that's why we still talk about it today.
Love the video, keep up the good work.
Thank you. Richard did actually hint that maybe George wasn't legitimate (as he wasn't born in England). Richard also supposedly looked a lot like their father which bolstered his claims to illegitimacy (just a wee fact-check as well, their Dad wasn't actually the King, though he had a good claim on the throne). I agree that the accusations against Edward seem very much politically motivated.
@@HistoryCalling Thank you for responding. I will keep the fact his father wasn't king in mind. I've got a question for you.
What do you think about King John and the murder of his nephew? And why doesn't poor Arthur get more attention for it? I'm pretty sure it's still a mystery so why is he over looked compared to the Princes in the Tower?
You can believe that King Richard killed his nephews or not, but if the story that they were suffercated is true then they seemed to have died far more peacefully then Arthur.
Anyway thank you for responding. Have a nice day!
An excellent account with which I concur.
There are two contemporary ‘portraits’ of Richard Duke of York. Unlike the ones you feature - the Shrewsbury statue and the glass at Penrith which are considered to be earlier and of other people misidentified as him, these two are apparently from his lifetime. Both show him with blonde or light coloured hair. That might be influenced by the technology of making a window at the time of course. One is a head in a glass roundel in Cirencester church in a chapel endowed by some of his retainers. This shows him with a straight crop hair cut. The other is at Trinity College in Cambridge shows him standing in armour with wavy hair. For hair colour this would match the manuscript illumination you use. Neither give an indication of relative height as there are no other figures in the panels. As a final point, how many people in the London of 1483 would accurately recall the hair colour of a man who had died in 1460 and who probably did not spend that much time in the city when he was alive.
I think he was legitimate. Nothing in the evidence presented strikes me as damning. The only thing that comes close is the dates for conception, which we know now can widely vary, woman to woman.
Yes, the dates are just too close to call to say anything definitive and of course they could also have met up during the campaign.
Just discovered your channel. Great stuff. Always enjoyable to discover other history RUclipsrs.
Thank you :-)
i love the little side stories of history! i never knew this was a thing besides the little bit in the white queen but i figured it was just for cinematic effect lol. very much enjoyed this!
Yes, I originally thought when I saw the TV version of the White Queen that it had been made up entirely.
Thanks for another informative video.
You're welcome :-)
I think your data is well researched and I defer to your conclusions. Lot of players to sort out in this one. Thanks for being our guide. Good job. Lvya
Thanks David. Yes, there are sooo many people to keep track of in the Wars of the Roses and most of them are called Edward, Richard or Henry, which really doesn't help.
Edward IV was a Plantagenet for sure. His height alone is a clue, and his hair might easily have darkened to brown after early manhood. Also he won the throne by merit on the battlefield, and he also seems to have been a fair enough ruler, as Kings of England go.
So, how tall where any males on his mothers side?
Not looking like your father doesn’t prove anything, I have a sister and we look so different that I sometimes joke that we are a “tv family” (actors don’t usually resemble one other in tv shows).
That's a great way of explaining families who happened not to look alike. I might use that in future conversations. I agree by the way that not all siblings (full or half) look alike. It's a bit of a myth. I don't know about heights on Cecily's side of the family I'm afraid.
I agree. My oldest son is 6’2 with hazel eyes and dark hair. My younger son is 5’8 with blonde hair and blue eyes. One has my coloring and the other my husband’s.
That was very interesting. You do great work. Thanks
You're welcome :-)
True, and a very well done, thorough job. I am very interested to learn, as I can't get enough of history, on even the smallest effort made by historians to flush out the most probable truth. Maybe you can do a video shedding a bit pf light on what and how a historian researches the past? That would be more interesting than any video I can think of.
I am baffled how historians come to different conclusians? Any historian today has no, or should have no stake in the answers having lived so far in time from the events. Still, it is like rooting for one team over the other. Doesn't matter what side wins!
As my grandfather said to my father, devastated after his teams lost: "Eh! Does it put any money in your pocket?" I remind myself of that when Iam upset about anything I have no power or claim to.
Thank you for reminding us how things worked back then.
Whenever people are bothered by Richard taking the crown from Edward V, they fail to remember that in truth, Henry Tudor would have gone to war to win the crown from Edward V if he'd have been king. To that end, since Henry Tudor won by conquest over Richard, he most likely would have taken the crown from Edward V.
Edward IV took the throne from Henry VI. Which means, it doesn't matter either way. Those were the norms back then so, it really doesn't matter. Let's see what this new discovery will bring in regard to Edward V being sent to live in the country?
Just a thought, (FYI) I do not belong to the Richard III Society) if what we know of Richard (how he treated his subjects as Constable of the North, his loyalty to his brother, and the many points brought forward from history regarding him as being fair, loyal and dedicated), if it does turn out Edward V was sent to the country, could it be Richard knew Henry Tudor was going to go to war to take the crown?
Possibly Richard as Lord Protector kept Edward hidden, being he was young, and more likely to die in battle? Richard wanted to fight Tudor himself until Edward V was older and experienced enough to fight off anyone who tried to take the throne?
Hard to know since history is written by the winners, in this case, the Tudors. England had a far bloodier future than anyone could possibly imagine.
Hi Felina. Thank you for watching and commenting. On the subject of the new theories around Edward V, David Starkey did a RUclips video a few weeks ago on that topic which you might find interesting.
@@HistoryCalling As they say about great minds: When one great mind speaks, the other gets confused!
Is it about the Edward V living as John Evans? I did see that. Starkey shreaded it with criticism by throwing the DaVinci code around to dismiss some pretty powerful clues. The Dan Brown novel remark, was simply a comment by the article's author to describe it. Personally, I have reservations about Mr. Starky after 1) such a poo pooing dismissal; and even more, 2) his take on Catherine Howard being the sexual deviant who had all the power and control over older men who were truly, sexually abusing her.
Being a victim many times myself then, learning about perpetrators, his take makes me feel very uncomfortable so much so, I prefer not to watch him anymore.
With regard to whether those clues do mean John Evans was Edward V: The chances of it being Edward V, are about as high as finding Richard III under a red letter "R" drawn over the 1st trench dug, in a Leicester car park, with Philippa Langley standing overhead.
My kids look so different that when they were taking a class together in college the professor actually asked the class if they thought that they were blood relatives. My son 6’3 with blond hair and my daughter 5’3 with dark hair and a more darker complexion than my son. I know for sure that they had the same father. FYI
Thank you for your balanced assessment of Edward IV and all the research I thoroughly enjoyed hearing it all
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
Very informative and interesting, thank you
It would be fascinating if DNA analysis could be done on the purported bones of George and the purported hair locks of Edward, to compare to Richard's, although it's true that discrepancies could easily be due to the lack of certainty as to the authenticity of George's and Edward's purported "relics". Matches, though, could shed considerable light on many questions.
Great video; very well researched
thats a really good point that Henry Tudor was King before the marriage, but the fact that the marriage happened so quickly implies Henry Knew it was urgent to cement his legitimacy as King.
He actually waited a year to marry Elizabeth to get across the point that he was king by right of conquest, and not because of a marriage. However it did make his children's descent more decidedly royal, which was prudent of him to consider.
Great video. Alison
Thank you :-)
Talk about a dysfunctional family, one younger brother spreads rumours that Edward is illegitimate to take his crown, which leads to Edward killing his brother, and then another younger brother probably murdering Edward’s son’s.
Yup, dysfunctional is definitely the word for it. They were still nothing compared to the Russian royals though.
Even if Cecile Neville had been unfaithful to her husband, I personally would NEVER choose to look down on her or any other royal lady for making that choice in those times. A royal marriage was purely for business, not necessarily for love, and not necessarily by either partner’s choice. I actually feel contented knowing there were some royal women who chose to find love in those times despite their circumstances, or to live their life on their own terms. Of course, the way history has always treated women is a disgrace.
It can’t truly be certain that Edward IV was illegitimate, but even if he was genuinely thought to be by his brother Richard III, it could have been a major factor in Richard’s decisions as king. But, of course, we will never know his true motivations.
My two brothers and I (female) are taller than our parents. However, both our maternal and paternal grandfathers are quite tall and married short women. I think that sort of thing often pops in and out every couple of generations. Especially with mixed height couples.
Love this channel, the information is so clear and thorough. 🙂💯
Thanks Alisha :-)
Fantastic video as always!!
Thank you :-)
This is great! Thanks. I think King Edward was a good King. I think if Richard and the Queen would have
had the respect for each other and worked together it would have changed history. I’m not sure how but it would have.
Looking like Aunts and uncles happens a lot in America 🇺🇸
I absolutely agree. And the exact same thing could be said for what hsppen d during the reign of Henry VI as well. Which is what started the wars of the roses. If Margaret and the Duke of Somerset would have worked together with Richard Duke of York, history would have been much different. They all wanted the same thing, stability and good rule for England. They just refused to work together and the Yorks took the throne.
As far as Richard III and the Woodvilles, I can see why Richard didn't want to work with them. They fought against the Yorkists all throughout the Wars if the Roses and especially at the battle of Towton. Richard was doing what Edward IV wanted, for Richard to be protectorate. It wasn't until after the council kept denying him this right that he took the throne from his nephew Edward V.
As far as whether his legitimacy would have mattered, yes I absolutely think it would have. The Lancastrians, starting with Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), still a Plantagenet, had a claim through Edward III. Richard Duke of York, also a Plantagenet, had a claim through Edward III. Henry Tudor (Henry VII) also had Plantagenet blood through another of Edward III's sons. Every monarch to sit the throne can trace their lineage back to the Plantagenets, even today, albeit not as much. The dynasty/last names may have changed, but they're all still Plantagenets.
Henry Tudor technically had two blood claims, and one for the French throne as well I believe, as he was the grandson of Catherine Valois, daughter of King of France (I want to say Charles but I don't remember which one the mad one Henry V beat at Agincourt). His claims were super flimsy, but he had a blood claim nonetheless
@@glow4200 it was Henry V who won Agincourt ( I can not believe I spelled that right ) ? I watched the movie “ The King”. On Netflix wow that’s a brutal movie.
@@roolenoir3183 that's what I said. Charles the mad king was the one Henry V beat at Agincourt and then Henry married his daughter, Catherine of Valois passing his madness onto their son, Henry VI, leading to the Wars of the Roses. And Catherine of Valois was Henry VII's grandmother with Owen Tudor.
Oh I loved the King! They left out a LOT and skewed some timelines a bit, but overall it was very well done!
@@glow4200 Ohmygosh! The ending just shocked me!! After that I started trying to learn more about the 100 year war but it’s very convoluted and a bit hard for me to keep track of everyone.
I also read about some curse the Templar knights put on some French king and it really happened. That’s disputed I understand but they are dead and so is everyone they cursed and in a year too.
History is so cool and I have no one to bounce ideas off of.
I think he was legitimate but I agree with you it doesn't matter. Important point to note however, Elizabeth II is Queen today not because of her descent from any historical monarch but as a result of the Act of Settlement 1701 as legislated by Parliament which designated that the heirs of the Electress Sophia shall inherit the crown. In effect Parliament rejected any previous monarchs and their ties and selected an entirely new Royal Family, not dissimilar to what has happened in other countries such as Norway or Greece. It is indisputable that under the terms of primogeniture there are vast number of claimants with superior claims (when Sophia was selected there were numerous Catholics before her in the line of succession) through blood descent to Elizabeth II but Parliament is of course supreme.
The Act of Settlement was certainly very important in determining where the Crown was going to go after Queen Anne's death in 1714 and in making sure it didn't revert to the Jacobite branch of the Stuart royal family, however Sophia was in line for the throne because of her descent from James I of England, who was in turn descended from Henry VII via Margaret Tudor. You've made me ponder doing a video on it at some point actually, as you're perfectly correct that there were lots of people with better claims than Sophia and her descendants. Hmm...
Another excellent video.
Thank you :-)
My sources aren't reliable, per se, but I read that Cecily Neville had a favorite son, and that was Clarence. Perhaps her outburst was meant to shore up Clarence's claim to the throne. Re the timing of her outburst, I gathered that E Woodville was generally unpopular with her new husband's court and family. Maybe Cecily was willing to trade her reputation for a blow to Edward's new queen. Regarding the illegitimacy of Edward's two sons, that was due to a precontracture Edward IV made with a woman named Butler. This was alleged by a priest who claimed to have witnessed the contract. When he spoke up about it, it brought Edward's marriage to Elizabeth into question and their progeny.
Very interesting! Love your videos
Thank you! :-)
My grandfather was 5’8. He had 2 sons with my grandmother and 1 daughter. My younger uncle was 5’7 while my older uncle was 6’4. Everyone on my grandmother’s side was short. My grandfather’s father was about 5’10 I heard. So it is possible for a short family to have a tall child so it means nothing.
Exactly. Couldn't agree more.
Very much agree! In my own family history, there's one sister where her and her daughters average around 5" tall, the other two sisters and their daughters average around 6" tall. The number of traits that are so unambiguous, simple, and understood, that they can be used to definitely establish parentage? Well, there's not very many, that's for sure.
Thank you for another video!
You're very welcome and thank you for clicking on it as soon as it went live too. You even beat me to be the first comment :-)
@@HistoryCalling Lol, you’re welcome
@@HistoryCalling If you don’t mind, would you ever consider making a video on one of the Valois-Burgundians? They were very interesting.
Hmm, I don't know anything about them (except Katherine of Valois), but I don't see why not. I have quite a few things in the pipeline at the moment however, as I've just starting working on a series of videos on the women of the Wars of the Roses, so I'm afraid it would be quite a way down the line.
@@HistoryCalling No worries, I am very excited for your series on the women of the Wars of the Roses (especially Cecily), but I think that Charles the Bold, his mother, Isabel of Portugal, and his daughter, Mary the Rich, are super interesting if you ever consider it. I know that Charles the Bold’s marriage to Edward IV’s sister was very important later on.
hi i did read that the john of gaunt was supposed to have been the son of a flemish bucther i dont know if it is true
but it is in a book. also the persent duke of beufrot and richard the 3rd and patrice de warrne an d another relative of the
duke of beufort do not share the same dna so what went wrong there tish
I was curious about the christening. Was there a plague or outbreak in the area at this time. IMO I feel that he’s legitimate. Whether these are rules by conquest or blood, I’m not sure. Thank you so very much for sharing this with us all. Absolutely fascinating!❤️🍀🌈😇🙏❣️
Enjoyed!
Oh my! I laughed so hard when you quoted from Pirates of the Caribbean that I missed the last part of the video and had to rewind.
Thank you. That little quote just called out to me :-)