Edward IV of England - Was Edward Illegitimate?

Was Edward Illegitimate?

Evidence that Richard of York was not the biological father of Edward IV remains subjective and disputed among modern historians. For centuries it was generally accepted that the issue began as a propaganda exercise by his younger opponents, who exploited it in order to discredit Edward and his heirs for their own benefit. The claims were based around Edward's appearance and the circumstances surrounding his overseas birth.

During his own lifetime, it was noted that Edward showed little resemblance to his father. Subsequent portraits depict Edward with a large rounded face and lantern-jaw whereas Richard of York is shown as having had thinner and more pointed facial features. Also, Edward's then-exceptional height of over 6 feet contrasted notably with other members of the House of York, who were not well known for their height (though Edward's younger brother George was also tall and fair, and said to bear a marked resemblance to him). Questions about his paternity were raised during Edward's own reign, for example by Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, in 1469, and repeated by George shortly before his execution in 1478, but with no evidence; in propaganda wars, such as these, many statements were used that perhaps had no basis in truth.

Dominic Mancini claimed that Cecily Neville, mother of both Edward IV and Richard III, was herself the basis for the story: when she found out about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville in 1464, Cecily flew into a rage. Mancini reported that the Duchess, in her anger, offered to declare him a bastard. However, this is not supported in contemporary sources, but is probably reflective of contemporary opinion.

Prior to his succession, on 22 June 1483, Richard III declared that Edward V was illegitimate, and three days later the matter was addressed by parliament. In Titulus Regius (the text of which is believed to come word-for-word from the petition presented by Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, to the assembly which met on 25 June 1483, to decide on the future of the monarchy), Richard III is described as "the undoubted son and heir" of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and "born in this land" — an oblique reference to his brother's birth at Rouen and baptism in circumstances which could have been considered questionable. There is no confirmation for the view – as fictionalised in William Shakespeare's Richard III (Act 3, Scene 5) – that Richard made any claims about his brother's legitimacy, as his claim was based on the supposed illegitimacy of Edward IV's children. According to Polydore Vergil, Duchess Cecily, "being falsely accused of adultery, complained afterwards in sundry places to right many noble men, whereof some yet live, of that great injury which her son Richard had done her." If she had indeed complained – as would befit a high-ranking lady of renowned piety, as she had been regarded – these petitions may have had some effect: the allegations were dropped and never again pursued.

However, in a 2004 television documentary, records were found in the Rouen Cathedral archives which revealed that, from 14 July to 21 August 1441, the crucial five-week period in which Edward must have been conceived, Edward's supposed father was away on campaign at Pontoise, several days' march from Rouen (where Cecily of York was based), and that prayers were being offered for his safety. This was taken to suggest that the Duke of York could not have been available to father Edward, who was born on 28 April 1442 indicating a conception date close to 22 July 1441. It is unlikely that Edward was born premature, as there is no written evidence from the time to suggest that he was (sickly or premature babies with a claim to the throne were a risk and therefore almost certainly would have had their births recorded). Furthermore, the christening celebration of Edmund, Earl of Rutland, the second son of Richard and Cecily, was a lavish and expensive affair at the cathedral, while the christening of the couple's firstborn son Edward was a low key and private affair in a side chapel. This could be interpreted as indicating that the couple had more to celebrate together at the birth of Edmund. For more details about this theory, see the TV programme Britain's Real Monarch.

Counter-arguments to this theory are that the Duke of York could have returned to Rouen from Pontoise, as there was a road in English hands, or that Edward could have been born premature despite the lack of evidence. Baptisms were often performed quickly then for fear of the child dying, and Cecily had already had children who died young. It has also been pointed out that Edward IV could claim the crown from Henry VI by right of conquest, whether he was a legitimate child or not, and that he was the eldest male heir in the senior line, since Richard, Duke of York, never contested his paternity. Under English common law a child born to a married woman is presumed to be her husband's, although the husband may contest the presumption. Also, even if he were illegitimate, Edward still had a direct (albeit legally barred) blood-claim to the throne through his mother Cecily, who was a great-granddaughter of Edward III through John of Gaunt and his illegitimate daughter (Cecily's mother) Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Although this claim was through an illegitimate line, it was no weaker than that of Henry Tudor, who dislodged the House of York from the throne in 1485.