Births, marriages, deaths and burials of Edward IV's daughters

This is a series of questions about the daughters of Edward IV.

Firstly, could someone refresh my memory on their dates of birth.

I read in The Making of the Tudor Dynasty by Ralph Griffiths that
Elizabeth of York had already been mooted as Henry Tudor's bride
whilst Edward IV was still alive. I had read in Seward's The Wars of
the Roses that Morton, Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley were
negotiating for his return and absorption into the Yorkist
establishment by marrying one of the daughters. What year did these
discussions take place? Where is the evidence that Elizabeth was the
daughter of Edward IV that was being considered? I thought after the
Treaty of Picquigny that Elizabeth was betrothed to the Dauphin until
Louis XI repudiated the agreement after the Treaty of Arras with
Maximilian. I think Cecily was going to marry the future James IV
but after the war with Scotland Edward dropped the idea. Were any of
the other daughters "spoken for"? Was any particular daughter
specified for Henry before 1483?

I know that Cecily was married off to Ralph Scrope by Richard but
after his defeat they were divorced/had their marriage annulled. I
don't suppose anyone knows whether Cecily wanted out because Scrope
was beneath her as a re-legitimated daughter of a King or whether
Henry VII ordered it?

I know she was then married off to Henry's half uncle John, Lord
Welles. How old was Welles at the time? What was the date of the
divorce/annulment and the date of the re-marriage? I was wondering
if in between Henry considered packing Cecily off to Portugal.

Their maternal uncle Edward Woodville, who the Portuguese styled as
Lord Scales, was in Portugal in 1487-88. A Portuguese source (I
think it was Alvaro Lopes, the secretary to the previous King, Afonso
V) said Scales raised the subject of a marriage between a daughter of
Edward IV and Manuel, Duke of Beja. Lopes said that this idea had
been mentioned before when Brampton was negotiating for Richard to
marry Joanna. In 1485, presumably the daughter of Edward being
offered was Elizabeth. That would make sense because it would ruin
Henry's plan to marry her, Cecily had already been married off to
Scrope, and the other daughters were a lot younger and obviously not
the main heiress of Edward IV. There's nothing intrinsically
implausible about Henry reviving the idea but substituting a sister
of Elizabeth. Could Cecily have been the one he suggested or would
it have to be one of the other girls?

Obviously none of them ended up marrying into the Portuguese royal
family. So who did they marry and when? I know Bridget became a
nun. One married into the Howards. Did one marry the Earl of Devon?

Also when did they all die? Where are they buried? I know
Elizabeth's in Westminster Abbey and I think Cecily is in Quarr Abbey
on the Isle of Wight but what about the rest?

Thanks in advance for any information you can give.

Joanne

--- In , "jotwo2003"
<jsummerill@s...> wrote:
> This is a series of questions about the daughters of Edward IV.
>
> Firstly, could someone refresh my memory on their dates of birth.
>
> I read in The Making of the Tudor Dynasty by Ralph Griffiths that
> Elizabeth of York had already been mooted as Henry Tudor's bride
> whilst Edward IV was still alive. I had read in Seward's The Wars
of
> the Roses that Morton, Margaret Beaufort and Thomas Stanley were
> negotiating for his return and absorption into the Yorkist
> establishment by marrying one of the daughters. What year did
these
> discussions take place? Where is the evidence that Elizabeth was
the
> daughter of Edward IV that was being considered? I thought after
the
> Treaty of Picquigny that Elizabeth was betrothed to the Dauphin
until
> Louis XI repudiated the agreement after the Treaty of Arras with
> Maximilian. I think Cecily was going to marry the future James IV
> but after the war with Scotland Edward dropped the idea. Were any
of
> the other daughters "spoken for"? Was any particular daughter
> specified for Henry before 1483?

Hi, sorry, I'm only just catching up with missed postings after
return. Funnily enough, I thought of the same problem myself reading
Underwood & Jones' book on Margaret Beaufort (just finished). Looking
at the small print, the evidence seems to be:

I think the Tudor historians tell the story of Edward and Elizabeth
nearly marrying in Edward's reign. Seward must be very naive. Jones &
Underwood say that in 1486 Margaret recalled "that during Edward IV's
reign his wife and many others had discussed the fact that Henry
Tudor and Elizabeth of York were related in the fourth and fifth
degree of kindred. The other parties to the discussion included the
bishops of Ely and Worcester, an emissary from the pope, and the king
himself" (p61). The reference given is to the Calendar of Papal
Registers, 1484-92, so I assume this statement must have been lodged
by Margaret as part of the appeal for a dispensation for Henry's
marriage to Elizabeth, which was made in January 1486 only days
before the wedding.
However, the only evidence of any settlement regarding Tudor during
Edward's reign is a document drawn up between Margaret Beaufort,
Stanley and the king at Westminster on 3 June 1482, a month after the
death of Margaret Beaufort's mother the Dowager Duchess of Somerset.
It does promise that Tudor can inherit the West Country estates his
mother had set aside for him in 1472, and also "a larger portion" of
the late Duchess of Somerset's estates - on condition he return from
exile. It makes no mention of marriage to Elizabeth of York.
Underwood & Jones comment that if he were being thought of as a
husband for the King's eldest daughter he would have had to be
endowed better than that. They might also have added, as you rightly
point out, that at this time (and for several years previously),
Elizabeth had been "Madame la Dauphine" and didn't need any Henry
Tudors, thank you very much. Convenient for Margaret Beaufort that of
her "witnesses" Edward IV was dead; Elizabeth Woodville was hardly in
a position to object; the Bishop of Worcester, John Alcock, had been
on the wrong side of Richard III so would agree to anything (in fact
he was to replace Morton as Bishop of Ely); and the Bishop of Ely was
Morton; as for the Pope's representative, it may very well have been
the same papal legate who was being asked to provide the dispensation
(which he obligingly did 2 days later).
I must say, having read the book, it does seem to me that Margaret
was very good at fantasizing the past in order to justify the
present. There were clearly questions about this marriage; for one
thing, Elizabeth was in Margaret Beaufort's custody and therefore it
might be felt her consent was not necessarily freely given. One of
the people making a submission for the dispensation (can't recall who
now) made a big thing of how she wasn't being forced into it. I don't
know. If she had been unwilling it would make sense of Margaret
Beaufort's iron control of public access to her as queen.
>
> I know that Cecily was married off to Ralph Scrope by Richard but
> after his defeat they were divorced/had their marriage annulled. I
> don't suppose anyone knows whether Cecily wanted out because Scrope
> was beneath her as a re-legitimated daughter of a King or whether
> Henry VII ordered it?
>.

There's no way of knowing what Cecily felt. However, she was not a
free agent either. She too, despite being a married woman, was
brought to Margaret Beaufort's household after Bosworth. Henry
clearly didn't want Edward IV's second daughter married to a
supporter of Richard III. Suppose Elizabeth died?

I know she was then married off to Henry's half uncle John, Lord
> Welles. How old was Welles at the time? What was the date of the
> divorce/annulment and the date of the re-marriage? I was wondering
> if in between Henry considered packing Cecily off to Portugal

The annulment came in 1486, but the marriage to Welles didn't happen
until late in 1487 despite the fact that Welles was well overdue for
marriage. He was Cecily's senior by about 20 years; he'd only just
become a lord after Bosworth as his predecessor had been attainted in
1470 - and his situation had meant he'd never managed to get a wife.
Ralph Scrope, on the other hand, was probably a much better age for
her (his eldest brother Thomas Lord Scrope was born in 1459).
Underwood and Jones think that Margaret of Clarence only married
Richard Pole because Margaret Beaufort couldn't help herself (RP
being the son of one of her half-sisters). I suspect the same may be
true of Cecily. Henry himself may have preferred to put these York
girls in a convent. Once Cecily was married, of course, there was no
virtue in stopping her younger sisters breeding.

Cecily did apparently remain on friendly terms with Margaret
Beaufort. After Welles died she married a poor squire, Thomas Kyme,
and fled to Margaret Beaufort from the King's wrath; Margaret helped
her reach a compromise settlement with the King. Perhaps Margaret had
promised Cecily her own choice of husband next time round and felt
honour-bound to help. Certainly, however, it doesn't sound as though
Cecily had any intrinsic objections to a disparaging marriage. I've
never read what the grounds were for the annulment - it's possible -
just- that the marriage hadn't been consummated (Cecily was 16 at the
time of Bosworth).

Marie
>
>
> Their maternal uncle Edward Woodville, who the Portuguese styled as
> Lord Scales, was in Portugal in 1487-88. A Portuguese source (I
> think it was Alvaro Lopes, the secretary to the previous King,
Afonso
> V) said Scales raised the subject of a marriage between a daughter
of
> Edward IV and Manuel, Duke of Beja. Lopes said that this idea had
> been mentioned before when Brampton was negotiating for Richard to
> marry Joanna. In 1485, presumably the daughter of Edward being
> offered was Elizabeth. That would make sense because it would ruin
> Henry's plan to marry her, Cecily had already been married off to
> Scrope, and the other daughters were a lot younger and obviously
not
> the main heiress of Edward IV. There's nothing intrinsically
> implausible about Henry reviving the idea but substituting a sister
> of Elizabeth. Could Cecily have been the one he suggested or would
> it have to be one of the other girls?

I didn't know this idea was revived at this time. The virtue for
Richard is that the marriage between Elizabeth and the Duke of Beja
was being negotatiated in tandem with a better Portuguese marriage
for himself. This meant that he could make Elizabeth a good marriage
which would not pose him any threat - the Portuguese royal house
would not be tempted to knock him off his throne because he would
have a member of their own family as queen, and hopefully heirs by
her. I know Edward Woodville was in Portugal at this time - oddly
enough at the same time as the future Richard Duke of York/ Perkin
Warbeck. So if he had had word of a possible Yorkist pretender at the
Portuguese court it's quite likely that he would have tried to keep
them on side with a marriage alliance, but I'm not sure how offering
one of "Prince Richard's" sisters would have helped. Could you
possibly give me details and sources on this one?

Marie
>

<jsummerill@s...> wrote: > I read in The Making of
the Tudor Dynasty by Ralph Griffiths that
> Elizabeth of York had already been mooted as Henry
Tudor's bride whilst Edward IV was still alive.

***

Although I've read this in a couple of places, I don't
believe it's true.

I remember asking myself why Elizabeth Woodville and
Edward IV would give any consideration to Margaret's
ambitions for her son, but I can't remember anyone
explaining why Edward IV would consider marrying his
oldest daughter to Henry Tudor when she was already
betrothed to the dauphin of France.

Even if Elizabeth had never been betrothed to the
French dauphin, it seems more advantageous for
Edward IV to marry his oldest daughter to a European
ally's son. It seems to me that marrying Elizabeth to
the son of a Spanish, Portuguese, or even German ruler
would give England some help against France. How
would marrying Elizabeth to Henry Tudor ever
strengthen England's position in Europe?

***

Marie wrote: I must say, having read the book, it does
seem to me that Margaret was very good at fantasizing
the past in order to justify the present.

***

In my opinion the claim that Edward IV and Elizabeth
Woodville ever considered Henry Tudor as a possible
husband for their daughters is as invalid as Henry
Tudor's backdating the start of his reign to Aug.
21st, 1485.

The Tudors seem to have gotten away with spreading
this story. But that doesn't mean events really
happened that way.

Marion






_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com