The great Tudor rose. Red for Lancaster and white for York. A symbol that good King Henry had united the waring houses and brought stability to England.
And of course it wasn’t just a piece of empty imagery; it was a symbol of success. He had infused his Lancastrian blood with the rival genepool of Elizabeth of York, thanks to an alliance between their respective mothers, giving birth in turn to a host of young Yorkcastrians, better known to us as the Tudors.
But what if there was a break somewhere in the chain? What if instead of uniting his line with the descendants of Richard, Duke of York, Henry had inadvertently hooked up with the heir to a little-known French archer? According to rumours, he had done just that.
The story goes that when they were both in France, Cecily, Duchess of York and her husband the Duke were temporarily estranged due to his military commitments. During this separation, she succumbed to the advances of an archer named Blaybourne and fell pregnant with the child that would one day become Edward IV, hero of the house of York and father to the first Tudor Queen.
Most damagingly, it is claimed the story originates with Cecily herself. As even the most casual observer of this era will be aware, Edward’s marriage to the low-born Elizabeth Woodville (whose family were both known as Lancastrian sympathisers and fierce social climbers) was immensely controversial. Apparently, so enraged was she with her son, that she threatened to confess that he was illegitimate and deprive him of the throne.
It’s a serious accusation but one we should be cautious about taking at face value. There is no record of the rumour before 1483 when it emerged in the pages of Dominic Mancini, an Italian scholar dispatched to England to serve as the eyes and ears of a continental Bishop. It must be remembered that at this point, Richard III and his cronies were putting it about that Edward IV was a bastard, in order to bolster his younger brother’s claim for the throne. It is likely therefore that this rumour crops up for the first time in 1483 and probably didn’t spring from Cecily’s lips.
Without being able to depend on this fundamental plank of evidence, the rest of the arguments fall down somewhat. Let’s explore them.
- The absence of the Duke of York at the time of conception – When you look at Edward’s birthdate (in late April 1442) and work backwards, it appears as if the Duke of York was away from home at the time of conception, but the truth is, we just don’t have enough evidence to read too much into it. The couple resided in France at the time and while the Duke was away, he wasn’t so far that the Duchess couldn’t have joined him for some of this time. Of course, the future King could also have been slightly premature or even a little late – there isn’t much time in it. All of these seem more likely than the Duchess secretly ‘liaised’ with a man of such lower rank, that tongues would surely have been set wagging. We should remember that no rumours of Edward’s paternity are recorded before a time when they were politically advantageous to someone.
- A low-key baptism – It has been suggested that Edward’s low-key baptism (in the corner of the church), which contrasted a year later with a more lavish christening for his younger brother, indicate that the Duke of York was not going to splash out for a baby that he didn’t think was his. However, this is counter-intuitive; if the Duke of York had decided to raise this child as his heir, even if he was suspicious of paternity, surely he would have gone out of his way to maintain a pretence of legitimacy rather give the world a sign that his wife had so embarrassingly betrayed him. Besides, the Duke and Duchess had previously had a son who died very soon after birth; their decision to go for a low-key baptism was probably a sign that they had concerns for his health and wanted to make sure he was dedicated to God before anything went wrong. Incidentally, this somewhat backs up the suggestion that he was premature.
- A lack of physical resemblance between father and son – This is a bit of a non-starter. Yes, Edward was tall and strapping (which his father was not) but there are plenty of obvious people in his blood line (on both mother and father’s side) where he could have got this from. Family resemblance is tricky and for those of us analysing today, we don’t have an awful lot to go on.
- Both his brothers accused him of being a bastard – Yes they did. Both had a political motive for doing so. Others made such accusations as well, but not until long after he was born and crowned. Besides, when a noble was born in another country, away from the glare of the commentators of the day, rumours often surrounded the circumstances of their birth. John of Gaunt is an example of this.
Aside from all the above there are other points worth mentioning. Cecily was outraged by such rumours (suggesting, again, that she didn’t start them) and it seems hugely out of character for her to have committed adultery, especially with someone of low-birth. I think it is also reasonable to assume that Richard, Duke of York believed that Edward was his; he is unlikely to have claimed the throne for his descendants and willingly passed it on to another man’s son.
All this said, I have only had chance to #digalittledeeper into this topic. One day I would love to research it more thoroughly and am certainly open to changing my mind.
I absolutely agree with you. Not only does an affair with a low-born archer go against what little we do know about Cecily and her personality (“Proud Cis”) but there is absolutely no concrete evidence to suggest it other than the shaky science of conception. As you point out, Edward might have been premature or he might have been late. Cecily may have made an unrecorded visit to her husband. Who is to say? I think it’s very telling that Richard always treated Edward not only as his son but as his heir. Another theory about the Christening, other than fear he might die as their first son had, was simply a matter of dynastic planning. Edward’s future was always to be in England as Duke of York. Richard’s original plan for Edmund however was for him to be landholder in the North of France, so in that case it would make great sense for Edmund to receive the larger celebration in Rouen.
The rumors of Edward’s illegitimacy actually originated much earlier than you suggest though. There is evidence that it first surfaced in the late 1460s at the hand of Warwick the Kingmaker when his and Edward’s relationship collapsed, and again in the 1470s when George was misbehaving. In both cases it is logical to assume that the rumor originated with George, as he was colluding with the Kingmaker. (There are several who have discussed this, most recently Amy Licence in her biography of Cecily). The rumor did pop back up in 1483 but it’s worth noting that Richard’s case did not rest on this rumor and he himself put far more emphasis on the pre-contract story. There is enough evidence to put their Shakespearean relationship aside and say that it appears that mother and son were close; some even suspect that Cecily was aware of and involved with Richard’s usurpation of the throne (Remember, she disliked the Woodville family as much as he did, and would have probably had no relationship at all with the grandson who had been raised at Ludlow). Some of the earliest meetings among Richard, Buckignham, and Hastings were held at her house, and if I’m not too much mistake the crown was “offered” to him at her house as well. It’s not as if she cut him off when he became King, far from it, though it is worth noting that once he died she more or less retired to a religious life away from court. Of course she was seventy by then, extremely old for the time, and who could blame her after all she’d lived through for wanting to retire from public life?
I’ve always been fascinated by Cecily. When you think of what she lived through; her life spanned from the few months before the Battle of Agincourt in the reign of Henry V to the reign of Henry VII and everything in between. She was old enough to have remembered Henry V’s reign and lived long enough to have met the toddler Henry VIII (though she probably never did). She lived during the time of the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the Roses, the collapse of Constantinople, the expulsion of the Moors, the Inquisition, Columbus’s voyage. She was born the daughter of a minor nobleman and died the wife of a powerful Duke, the mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother of kings and queens and came closer than many were comfortable to wearing the crown herself. Oh the stories she could tell…
Thanks for this. Really appreciate your comments.
Yes, I agree that rumours about Edward’s illegitimacy originate much earlier than 1483 – the point I was (perhaps not very clearly) trying to make is that I believe 1483 was the first time anyone had put those rumours directly in Cecily’s mouth.
I’ve read arguments from a variety of sources on this and it really boils down to one thing: did the class conscious Duchess lower herself to sleep with an unknown archer? I don’t see it. A woman of her time had few resources if caught in adultery. I don’t think she would take the risk, especially for someone she would have viewed as beneath her, someone who would never be able to help should the Duke find them out.
So far as I can see, there are no definitive arguments to support the illegitimacy assertions, nothing more than mischievous rumour and innuendo. Every straw of a suggestion can be easily accounted for by reasonable logic. It is right to look at the timing, source and motive for such allegations. They speak volumes.
Tony Robinson seems to be certain with his documentary claiming Edward was Illegitimate.. and stating that the real current monarch is Michael Hastings.. Coming down from Margaret pole.. ie.. Her father.. George.. Should have been king instead of Edward.. Tony’s jumped the gun a bit there.. Not enough evidence..
I think you’re right. I remain open minded to the possibility that Edward was not the Duke of York’s son. But there simply isn’t the evidence to substantial the claims you see on TV programmes.
First of all there is no real way of knowing who slept with who whether of royal bloodline or not and its safe to say things were a little loose as far as affairs go so who’s to really say who’s royal and who’s not only God knows ! how can anyone really know for the very reason there were no dna tests back than, now unless older branches of the true royal line from mitochondrial dna tests or ydna or use direct dna samples than thats more believable than actually believing in an unbroken line just because people want to have a nice story to tell about the past cause it makes a better story now we all have different opinions but thats all they are there are most likely more legitimate and true heirs out there not unsurpers who claim by conquest and not because they have true claim that goes for every dynasty in the past
You’re quite right. All these questions have to be conducted in the spirit of “we can never truly know.”
If DNA testing on the bones thought to be the princes in the tower is ever allowed, the DNA can be compared with Richard III. This might give us an indication as to whether Edward IV and Richard III were full brothers. However – and I’m no DNA expert – I understand results might not always be as inclusive as that.
I for one believe it is possible that Edward was not The dukes son. If the royals at least one did their DNA we’d know for sure. Secrets have away of coming out if u do ur dna…I believed Who my father was but DNA surely surprised ME, just saying!
Edward IV is buried at Windsor so a DNA test on his remains (however remote that possibility is) would settle the argument. It would be fascinating to see the results if such a test were ever to take place.
Because George, the Duke of Clarence was attainted as the result of his conviction of treason, his children were barred from claiming the throne. If they were not barred, they would have had a claim to the crown that was more valid than Richard III’s claim. Obviously, everyone agreed that they were no longer in the line of succesion. If Edward was illegitimate, George attainted, and Richard deprived of any surviving male heirs, the Yorkist claim to the throne would have settled on the descendants of the Anne, Duchess of Exeter, the Duke of York’s oldest daughter. John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln, Richard III’s nephew by his second sister Elizabeth, was designated as Richard’s heir after the king’s young son died. Speculation about crowning any of the descendants of Edward IV’s siblings became moot when Henry VII ascended the English throne by right of conquest. The line of descent no longer mattered. With that said, the line of succession, through Elizabeth of York, continued in the pattern outlined in English history. The result would be that Elizabeth II would still sit on the English throne.
If he was bastard, his resemble sister was also bastard, I think. For example, she was 1.80m tall (whereas he was 1.93m), resemble face, gray eyes, bright hair (he has bright brown hair as a his ring showed , she has blond hair), humor, good memory, good at foreign languages and riding and she is kind, popular to citizens. And when Edward was rumored bastard, her status was declined and finally she birthed no child. (I wonder it was necessary to duchess to birth a boy with the right of succession due to Salic law, like French kingdom)
The ring that I mentioned is in the below URL written in Japanese; https://www.bunka.go.jp/prmagazine/rensai/diary/diary_002.html