Elizabeth of York.
A Tudor queen and her world.
Alison Weir.
We will unite the white rose and the red.
Smile Heaven upon this fair conjunction That long hath frowned upon their enmity!- What traitor hears me, and says not Amen?
England hath long been mad and scarred herself; The brother blindly shed the brother"s blood, The father rashly slaughtered his own son, The son, compell"d, been butcher to the sire: All this divided York and Lancaster, Divided in their dire division.
O now let Richmond and Elizabeth, The true successors of each royal House, By G.o.d"s fair ordinance conjoin together!
And let their heirs-G.o.d, if Thy will be so- Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace, With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days!
William Shakespeare.
Richard III.
INTRODUCTION.
Elizabeth of York"s role in history was crucial, although in a less chauvinistic age it would, by right, have been more so. In the wake of legislation to give women the same rights in the order of succession as male heirs, it is interesting to reflect that England"s Elizabeth I would not have been the celebrated Virgin Queen but Elizabeth of York. But in the fifteenth century it would have been unthinkable for a woman to succeed to the throne. Elizabeth lived in a world in which females were regarded as inferior to men physically, intellectually, and morally. It was seen as against the laws of G.o.d and Nature for a woman to wield dominion over men: it was an affront to the perceived order of the world. Even so, Elizabeth of York was important. She was the daughter, sister, niece, wife, mother, and grandmother of monarchs: daughter to Edward IV, sister to Edward V, niece to Richard III, wife to Henry VII, mother to Henry VIII, and grandmother to Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I; and she was the mother of two queen consorts. She was also the ancestress of every English monarch since 1509, every Scots monarch since 1513, and every British monarch since 1603, including the present queen, Elizabeth II.
Her impressive pedigree is not the only reason why I have chosen to write Elizabeth of York"s biography. She lived through a momentous, well-doc.u.mented period of history that saw the beginning of the transition from the medieval to the modern world. She was closely connected to some of England"s most controversial figures, among them Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, and the notorious-or possibly misunderstood-Wydevilles, her mother"s family. I wanted to discover how she interacted with these famous people and what we could learn of her through those dealings. Above all, what influence, if any, did she have on her son, the future Henry VIII?
I knew that there were conundrums relating to Elizabeth of York, and I suspected that too many a.s.sumptions about her had been based on unreliable sources. It seemed to me that there were two Elizabeths: the one who was proactive in intriguing behind the scenes to become queen consort; and, later, the docile, compliant royal wife who effectively lacked a voice. How could one reconcile the two? And was either view accurate?
I was drawn again to the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Elizabeth"s brothers, the Princes in the Tower, a subject on which I published a book in 1992. What did she know or believe? How could she apparently have contemplated marrying the man who was widely reputed to have had the boys killed? And later, when a pretender surfaced, claiming to be one of her brothers, how did that impact on Elizabeth? I wanted to investigate whether there was any way of finding out where she stood in the ensuing crises. Writing her biography has given me the opportunity of revisiting and re-researching these controversial issues, and revising in some measure my former conclusions. I have also been fortunate to be writing at a time when Richard III"s remains were discovered in Leicester. It has been illuminating to be able to explore the implications of his being found to be the "Crouchback" of the so-called propagandists.
I was interested too in new views on the Wydevilles. It seemed that they must have influenced Elizabeth enormously. Above all, I was struck by the dramatic dynastic changes with which she had to cope. Born a Plantagenet, of the House of York, she came to be identified with the Wydeville party, which was crushed by Richard III, with dire consequences for her and her relatives; then she married a Tudor, the representative of the rival House of Lancaster-no easy transition, one suspects. What really is striking is how successfully she met the challenge. Yet she has usually been perceived as a queen who had no influence, who was kept in subjection by her husband and dominated by her fearsome mother-in-law, Margaret Beaufort. Again we have a conundrum. Here was an intelligent woman who had suffered frightening events in childhood, and tragedy, dispossession, and virtual imprisonment as a teenager, yet was ambitious for herself and protective of her family. What was the truth about her relationship with Henry VII and her role as Queen?
I was aware that there was a wealth of source material to be explored. Having written historical biographies of women whose lives are doc.u.mented only in fragments, I knew that when it came to Elizabeth there would be scope not only for forensic a.n.a.lysis but also for a strong and dramatic narrative, a narrative carried by vivid and very detailed source material. It would be possible to write about the human side of her life. In these aspects, I would be returning to the form of many of my earlier books. As with all medieval biography, particularly of women, there are frustrating gaps in our knowledge; but there is sufficient evidence from which to draw conclusions about Elizabeth"s character. A wealth of reliable contemporary quotes underpins the authenticity of her story.
When I embarked on this book, I had no idea if I would find information to solve, or throw light on, all the conundrums, or where my research would lead me. Much remains conjectural, of course, but I have been able to draw new conclusions about Elizabeth, correct some errors, and reconcile some apparent contradictions. I did not expect to make one very startling connection between her and the mystery of the princes, but if one compares the chronology of events with information in her Privy Purse Expenses, it is there for all to see. Once that link was made and I dug deeper, even more significant facts emerged. The connection is open to speculation, but it is too much of a coincidence to be dismissed, and it is evidence that no one has taken into account until now.
What also emerged from the collation of source material was the significance of Elizabeth"s final progress in the summer of 1502. Put that in its historical context, and some surprising inferences may be drawn, showing that the story of her last year may be sadder than we knew.
It was Elizabeth of York"s "fortune and grace to be queen."1 It is our fortune and grace to have so many surviving insights into the life of this remarkable woman.
Alison Weir.
Carshalton, Surrey.
February 2013.
A NOTE ON MONETARY VALUES.
I have used the National Archives Currency Converter to determine the present-day value of sums quoted in the text. The approximate worth of such sums at the time of writing, rounded to the nearest 10, is quoted in brackets. Please note that values could change from year to year. Salary quotes are annual amounts.
PROLOGUE.
"Now Take Heed What Love May Do"
In January 1466, Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, and nine of his fellow bishops were summoned to the Palace of Westminster. The Queen of England, Elizabeth Wydeville,1 was shortly to bear her first child, and these princes of the Church were to be ready and waiting to baptize the infant "which the Queen shall bring forth" as soon as it was born.
The birth of a son and heir to a.s.sure the continuance and future prosperity of his dynasty was of paramount importance to King Edward IV, first sovereign of the royal House of York. Five years before, he had emerged triumphant after six years of conflict with the rival House of Lancaster, which had ended in a b.l.o.o.d.y dispute for the crown. The roots of that conflict went back to 1399, when Henry IV, the first Lancastrian sovereign, had usurped the throne. His son, Henry V, had been the respected and feared victor of Agincourt, but the warrior hero"s son, the weak and ineffectual Henry VI, proved a disaster, allowing himself to be dominated by court factions concerned chiefly with promoting their own interests. He failed to address the many problems he had inherited: a divided council, a legal system corrupted by local magnates and their armed retainers, an aristocracy that was growing ever mightier and losing its integrity, and a war with France-the Hundred Years" War, which had been waged since 1337-that could not be won but was draining the country of its resources. This lack of firm government had led relentlessly to a breakdown of law and order throughout the realm of England, and the weakening of royal authority.
Henry VI"s cousin, Richard, Duke of York (Elizabeth of York"s grandfather), arguably had a better claim to the throne, being senior to Henry in descent from Edward III, but through the female line. York was wealthy, respected, experienced in warfare and government, and-unlike the King-the father of a large family with healthy sons. To begin with, York"s ambitions had not included a crown, but he was dismayed at the misrule of the court faction that controlled Henry VI, which was led by the Queen, Margaret of Anjou, and Henry"s kinsman, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. York was determined to eliminate the endemic corruption and indiscriminate patronage that characterized their regime. In this, he had the support of his cousin and princ.i.p.al ally, the mighty Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, who was to become Elizabeth"s G.o.dfather. Warwick was the archetypal English magnate, whose chief motivations were self-promotion and the acquisition of wealth. He was power-hungry, proud, ruthless, violent, and forceful, but a brave commander and very popular with the people of England. Unlike York, he had the common touch, coupled with lavish, open-handed hospitality. The splendor and extravagance of his household was renowned.
By 1450 the Lancastrian government was bankrupt, milked dry by the court faction. Dissension festered, and the situation was exacerbated in 1453 when Henry VI lapsed into either catatonic schizophrenia or a depressive stupor. His incapacity put an end to any hope of unity between the opposing political factions. It brought Queen Margaret, with her poor understanding of English politics, to the forefront of power, and deprived the country of its head of state, removing the last brake on the rapaciousness of the court party. And while the King was comatose, Queen Margaret bore a son, Edward of Lancaster.
Parliament nominated York as regent, and he began to tackle the vast task of reforming the administration. But he had not made much headway when Henry VI recovered his senses and rea.s.serted his authority. The royal authority was back in the hands of a weak king debilitated by mental illness.
Convinced that the Queen and her party were about to destroy him, York raised an army. The first battle in what later became known as the Wars of the Roses-a term coined by Sir Walter Scott, but which contemporaries called the Cousins" Wars-took place at St. Albans in 1455, eleven years before Elizabeth"s birth. Somerset was killed, and York quickly reestablished his political supremacy. Resentment smoldered, and hostilities broke out again in 1459, with the Queen"s faction emerging victorious. But after York won a resounding victory at Northampton in 1460, the nature of the conflict changed.
After decades of misrule, the English people were beginning to view Richard of York as a serious rival for Henry VI"s crown, and it was at this point that York openly laid claim to the throne and the Wars of the Roses became a dynastic struggle.
A compromise was reached: Henry VI was to retain the crown for his lifetime, but would be succeeded by York. Queen Margaret, outraged at the disinheriting of her son, again went to war. In 1460, York and his second son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, were killed at the Battle of Wakefield.
York"s cause was immediately taken up by his capable nineteen-year-old son, Edward, Earl of March. In March 1461, having successfully routed the Lancastrians, March entered London in triumph and was proclaimed King Edward IV. One Londoner observed: "The commons love and adore him as if he were their G.o.d; the entire kingdom keeps holiday for the event." Edward"s enemies remained at large, but later that month, after a decisive but b.l.o.o.d.y victory at the Battle of Towton, he emerged as the undoubted ruler of England. Queen Margaret fled to France with her son, and Henry VI remained in hiding until 1465, when he was captured and placed in honorable confinement in the Tower of London. By then, England was enjoying the fruits of firm government.
Edward had not achieved power without the staunch help of his father"s ally, Warwick. Next to the King, Warwick was now the greatest man in England and Edward"s chief mainstay and supporter. For the first three years of the reign, he virtually controlled the government of the realm, carried along on a tide of popularity. Whenever he showed himself in public, attended by his customary train of six hundred liveried retainers, crowds would run to see him, crying, "Warwick! Warwick!" It seemed that G.o.d had "descended from the skies."2 "Warwick seems to me everything in this kingdom," observed the Milanese amba.s.sador,3 but although Edward IV relied on Warwick in many ways, he would not be ruled by him. This was not apparent to everyone, even Warwick himself, who certainly overestimated his influence over the King. Nor was it obvious to foreign observers, such as the citizen of Calais who wrote to King Louis XI of France: "They tell me that they have two rulers in England: Monsieur de Warwick, and another whose name I have forgotten."4 The Milanese amba.s.sador in France had already foreseen discord between the earl and his master.5 Elizabeth"s father, Edward IV, was a splendid figure of a king. Sir Thomas More described him as "princely to behold, of body mighty, strong and clean-made." According to the Tudor historian Polydore Vergil, who was commissioned by Henry VII to write a history of England, Edward was "broad-shouldered" and "his head and shoulders towered above those of nearly all other men."6 His skeleton, discovered during excavations in St. George"s Chapel, Windsor, in 1789, measured over six-foot-three, so he was unusually tall for his time. Above all he was "unusually handsome"7: the chronicler Philippe de Commines, a writer and diplomat who worked for Louis XI, remembered Edward as "the handsomest prince my eyes ever beheld." His hair was brown,8 as it appears in portraits and in the strands found near his skull. According to the chronicler Olivier de la Marche, Edward "was a handsome prince and had style."
The young king was well aware of the effect his dazzling good looks had on people. He loved to show off his "fine stature," displaying it to advantage in rich and revealingly cut clothes.9 By fifteenth-century standards, he was remarkably clean, having his head, legs, and feet washed every Sat.u.r.day night, and sometimes more frequently.
But it was not just good looks that made Edward IV a popular king. He excelled Henry VI in nearly every way, especially as a statesman and a general. He was a firm and resolute ruler, shrewd and astute, and had real ability and business ac.u.men, as well as the willingness to apply himself. He was successful in his determination to restore the authority of the monarchy and make it an inst.i.tution that once more inspired reverence and respect.
Edward was "of sharp wit, high courage and retentive memory, diligent in doing his affairs, ready in perils, earnest and horrible to the enemy, and bountiful to his friends and acquaintances ... Humanity was bred in him abundantly." Handsome, affable, and accessible, he was also "given to bodily l.u.s.t," and consequently "would use himself more familiarly among private persons than the honor of his majesty required." Edward"s chief vice was his sensuality, and his debaucheries were soon notorious. "He thought of nothing but upon women, and on that more than reason would, and on hunting, and on the comfort of his person."10 Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to England, thought him "licentious in the extreme. It was said that he had been most insolent to numerous women after he had seduced them, for as soon as he had satisfied his l.u.s.t, he abandoned the ladies, much against their will, to the other courtiers. He pursued with no discrimination the married and unmarried, the n.o.ble and the lowly. However, he took none by force. He overcame all by money and promises." It was not long before l.u.s.t would lead Edward into a situation that would have far-reaching consequences for himself and his children.
"Now take heed what love may do!"11 All went well between the King and Warwick until 1464, when Edward-"led by blind affection and not by rule of reason"12-married an impoverished Lancastrian widow, Elizabeth Wydeville, Lady Grey. The Wydevilles were an old established family in Northamptonshire, where they owned the manor of Grafton Regis. Elizabeth"s father, Sir Richard Wydeville, had boldly aspired to wed Jacquetta of Luxembourg, daughter of Peter of Luxembourg, Count of St. Pol, and "of the blood of Charlemagne." In 1433 she had made a highly prestigious marriage with John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford (the younger brother of Henry V), who had governed France in the name of the infant Henry VI. Bedford had died in 1435, whereupon the childless Jacquetta inherited all his estates. With almost indecent haste, she married Richard Wydeville, a member of Bedford"s staff. Immediately Jacquetta"s French relations cut her off, despising Wydeville as a mere "simple knight," and she was fined 1,000 [469,350] by the English Council for remarrying without permission. But that scandal was long past now, and Wydeville had been raised to the peerage as Baron Rivers in 1448.
Legend has it that Edward IV first encountered Elizabeth Wydeville under an oak tree in Whittlebury Forest, where she and her two young sons fell on their knees before him and she begged him to restore to her the lands of her late husband, Sir John Grey of Groby, who had been killed fighting for Henry VI.13 Sadly, there is no truth in the tale: Grey was never attainted, so his lands had not been confiscated. Even so, a big oak tree at Yardley Hill is still known as the Queen"s Oak.
Elizabeth Wydeville was "a woman more of formal countenance than of excellent beauty, of sober demeanor, lovely looking and feminine smiling, neither too wanton nor too humble. Her tongue was so eloquent and her wit was pregnant."14 She was "moderate of stature, well made and very wise."15 Her portraits show a poised, elegant, blond woman with the shaven forehead fashionable at that time, a slender figure, and facial features that would be considered striking in any age.16 Elizabeth of York was to inherit her mother"s looks.
Elizabeth Wydeville wasn"t interested in money or promises, but held out for marriage. Rumors abounded in the 1460s and beyond that she had refused to become Edward"s mistress, or had threatened to stab herself when he tried to rape her, or that he had held the dagger to her throat to force her to submit, or that her mother had used witchcraft to ensnare him. Whatever the tactics, they proved successful. The marriage took place in secret, probably after August 30, 1464. When it was made public that September, it provoked a furor. In an age in which kings married foreign princesses for political advantage, marrying for love was regarded as akin to insanity, and choosing the widow of a man who had fought for the King"s enemies was almost worse. Moreover no English king since the Norman conquest of 1066 had wed a commoner, one of his own subjects, and it was seen as scandalous that Edward had set aside all thought of duty and obligation to marry for love-and to marry beneath him.
His mother, Cecily Neville, d.u.c.h.ess of York, violently disapproved. She was the daughter of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, by Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward III and founder of the House of Lancaster, by the mistress he later married, Katherine Swynford. Cecily was thus the great-granddaughter of King Edward III, and sufficiently conscious of her high lineage to have earned the nickname "Proud Cis." In youth, they had called her "the Rose of Raby," for she had been born and raised at Raby Castle, County Durham. Her marriage to Richard, Duke of York, seems to have been a happy one. The various locations of the births of their twelve children indicate that Cecily accompanied her husband on his many forays to France and on his travels in England. She had never remarried, and in later life would a.s.sume the habit of a Benedictine nun. Now, however, she proudly carried herself as if she were a queen, styling herself in letters "the rightful inheritor"s wife of the realm of England, the King"s mother, d.u.c.h.ess of York."17 She did not take kindly to having a commoner for a daughter-in-law, and a later tale-probably without foundation-claims she was so furious that she offered to prove her son a b.a.s.t.a.r.d and thereby unfit to rule.18 Warwick was especially angered by the King"s marriage. He had been negotiating for a French matrimonial alliance, and Edward had made him look a fool. Warwick, like other n.o.bles, objected to Elizabeth Wydeville because "she was not the daughter of a duke or earl, but her mother, the d.u.c.h.ess of Bedford, had married a simple knight, so that though she [Elizabeth Wydeville] was the child of a d.u.c.h.ess"-who was also a princess of the House of Luxembourg-"still she was no wife for him,"19 but an upstart. When Edward began advancing his Queen"s numerous relations, Warwick could hardly contain his "secret displeasure."20 The marriage was unpopular with many of the King"s subjects,21 and now the Wydeville queen was expecting a child, the arrival of which-especially if it was a son and heir-could only boost the pretensions of her faction. Moreover, "the King was a.s.sured of his physicians that the Queen was conceived with a prince, and especially of one named Master Dominic, by whose counsel great provision was ordained for the christening of the said Prince."22 The birth of an heir with Wydeville blood was certain to lead to controversy in the future, as Elizabeth of York was to find out, to her cost.
1.
"The Most Ill.u.s.trious Maid of York"
The royal palace of Westminster extended along the Thames sh.o.r.e, southwest of the City of London. A royal residence had stood on this site opposite Westminster Abbey since the sainted King Edward the Confessor had rebuilt both in the eleventh century, and the magnificent Westminster Hall had been completed by William II in 1099; in the late fourteenth century, Richard II increased the height of its walls and added the splendid oak hammer-beam roof. The sprawling palace in which the Queen was to be confined was the work of successive medieval kings, and the chief seat of royal government until much of it was destroyed by fire in 1512. Parliament often met within its walls, usually in the Painted Chamber, the White Hall, or St. Stephen"s Chapel. Westminster Hall was used for state occasions and ceremonies, and also for coronation banquets. Daily, it was a hive of industry, housing the busy law courts and stalls selling books and other goods.
The rambling old palace was much in need of upgrading, and Edward IV had set about converting part of it into new royal lodgings, which Elizabeth of York would come to know very well. They included a privy kitchen for the preparation of royal meals, a wardrobe for the storage of royal possessions, and something very traditional in royal domestic arrangements: separate ranges of private apartments for the King and Queen.
The creation of a new "Queen"s side" for Elizabeth Wydeville, which was begun in 1464, may have come about because the King"s mother, the disapproving Cecily Neville, was living at court and appropriate accommodation was needed for both ladies. The apartments built for Queen Elizabeth included a withdrawing chamber and wardrobe; a great chamber would be added in 1482.1 It was in these new lodgings that the Queen was to bear her child.
For married women in those days, pregnancy was often an annual event, with all the risks it entailed. Contraception was rudimentary and would not have been practiced by royal couples, for whom a large family meant sons to secure the succession and daughters to forge political marriage alliances. It was a son, naturally, that the King wanted, and although, by medieval custom, male physicians did not attend pregnant women, Dr. Dominic de Sirego, Elizabeth Wydeville"s physician, was determined to "be the first that should bring tidings to the King of the birth of the prince," for messengers conveying such glad news often received "great thanks and reward." Only women were allowed into the birth chamber, so when the Queen went into labor, Dr. Sirego had perforce to wait in the "second chamber." The baby was a girl: "this year [1466], the eleventh day of the month of February, was Elizabeth, first child of King Edward, born at Westminster."2 She was the first princess born to an English monarch in over a century.
The waiting physician, hearing the child cry, "knocked or called secretly at the chamber door" and asked "what the Queen had," whereupon her attendants, much amused, called back, "Whatsoever the Queen"s Grace hath here within, sure it is that a fool standeth there without!" Whereupon Dr. Sirego hastily "departed without seeing the King that time."3 That same month, "my Lady Princess" was baptized "with most solemnity" in a new font set up in St. Stephen"s Chapel in Westminster Palace by her kinsman, George Neville, Archbishop of York,4 just as if she had been the desired prince. She was given her mother"s name; it was a happy coincidence that the Queen had a special devotion for St. Elizabeth.5 The name Elizabeth was not new in the royal line: it had been given to daughters of Henry I and Edward I, and to a granddaughter of Edward III. It had also been borne by Elizabeth de Burgh, the heiress who married Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence (Edward III"s second son), and brought the rich Ulster inheritance to the royal House of York.
Tradition decreed that the King and Queen did not attend the christening, but Edward IV made it the occasion for a show of solidarity, even though the players were privately at odds or disapproved of his marriage. The baby princess"s sponsors were her grandmothers, the d.u.c.h.esses of York and Bedford, and the Earl of Warwick. Walter Blount, Lord Mountjoy, Treasurer of England, received 1,000 marks [152,250] for his diligence at the baptism, then was promptly told to resign his office to the Queen"s father, Lord Rivers.
The King bought his wife a jeweled ornament costing 125 [62,550] "against the birth of our most dear daughter Elizabeth." Even though she had only borne a daughter, Elizabeth Wydeville"s churching ceremony that followed in late March was attended by great magnificence. The Queen left her childbed that morning and went to church in stately order, accompanied by many priests bearing relics and by many scholars singing and carrying lights. There followed a great company of ladies and maidens from the country and from London. Then came trumpeters, pipers, and players of stringed instruments. The King"s choir followed, forty-two of them, who sang excellently. Then came twenty-four heralds and pursuivants, followed by sixty earls and knights. At last came the Queen, escorted by two dukes. Above her was a canopy. Behind her were her mother and maidens and ladies to the number of sixty. Then the Queen heard the singing of an office. Following the service of purification that marked her return to society after her confinement, "she returned to the palace in procession, as before. Then all who had joined the procession remained to eat." So many guests were present-clearly a prince had been antic.i.p.ated-that they "filled four great rooms" of an "unbelievably costly apartment."6 Elizabeth Wydeville might have been deemed an unsuitable bride for the King, but she was determined that no one should remember it, and the etiquette that surrounded her on this occasion was rigorous. "The Queen sat alone at table on a costly golden chair. The Queen"s mother and the King"s sister [Anne, d.u.c.h.ess of Exeter] had to stand some distance away. When the Queen spoke with her mother or the King"s sister, they knelt down before her until she had drunk water. Not until the first dish was set before the Queen could [they] be seated. The [sixty] ladies and maidens and all who served the Queen at table were of n.o.ble birth, and had to kneel so long as the Queen was eating; the meal lasted for three hours. The food which was served to the Queen, the Queen"s mother, the King"s sister, and others was most costly. Everyone was silent and not a word was spoken." Afterward, no doubt to everyone"s relief, there was dancing, with the ladies curtseying elegantly to the silent Queen, and glorious singing by the King"s choristers. A foreign observer noted: "The courtly reverence paid to the Queen was such as I have never seen elsewhere."7 Like all babies in those days, the infant princess was swaddled in tight bands with a close-fitting cap on her head, and she would have remained swaddled for the first eight or nine months of her life to ensure that her limbs grew straight. She was a.s.signed a stately household that included a nurse (each of the royal children had a separate nurse) and a wet nurse, for queens did not suckle their children. The household was under the charge of a lady mistress, or governess, Margaret, Lady Berners,8 who received a salary of 100 [50,000]. Under her were pages of the chamber, a "knight of the trencher," and rockers to watch over the princess in her cradle.
The kingdom into which Elizabeth of York was born was a land of prosperity, according to an Italian observer writing in 1500: "The riches of England are greater than those of any other country in Europe. This is owing, in the first place, to the great fertility of the soil, which is such that, with the exception of wine, they import nothing from abroad for their subsistence." The export of tin brought large sums into the realm, "but still more do they derive from their extraordinary abundance of wool. And everyone who makes a tour in the island will soon become aware of this great wealth, for there is no small innkeeper, however poor and humble he may be, who does not serve his table with silver dishes and drinking cups, and no one who has not in his house silver plate to the amount of 100 [50,000]. But above all are their riches displayed in the church treasures ... You may therefore imagine what the decorations of these enormously rich Benedictine, Carthusian, and Cistercian monasteries must be. These are, indeed, more like baronial palaces than religious houses."9 And all, of course, would be swept away within seventy years of Elizabeth"s birth, on the orders of her son. But for now, England was celebrated as "the ringing isle" because of its many churches, abbeys, and priories.
Much more of the land was covered by forest and woodland than it is now. The country was largely rural and given over to agriculture; as the Italian perceived, it had become prosperous through the export of wool and, latterly, woolen cloth. The people were often turbulent, unruly, and vociferous-especially when it came to new taxes-and it was said that while the French vice was lechery, the English vice was treachery. The latter were perceived to be lazy-"it is received as a prescript that they should sweat by no means"-and gluttonous: "though they live in hovels, they eat like lords." Most people lived in the country, and society was generally localized. It was the upper cla.s.ses and merchants who traveled.
Elizabeth would have learned early in life that she was a very special little girl. Her father was the King, whose person was regarded as sacred. Divinely appointed to rule, he had been invested at his coronation with a sanct.i.ty that set him apart from ordinary mortals and bestowed on him the grace to govern with a wisdom denied to others. The royal prerogative was believed to be the will of G.o.d working through the will of the King.
The court over which King Edward presided, and in which Elizabeth grew up, was a magnificent one-"the most splendid court that could be found in all Christendom."10 The royal family was its central focus, so Elizabeth would have grown up with a sense of her importance in the world. It would have seemed a crowded world to a young child-Edward IV"s household numbered about eight hundred persons or more, not counting the members of his queen"s separate establishment. The court was itinerant, with the King dividing his time between a dozen of his palaces (most of them in the Thames Valley), according to the demands of state, the hunting to be had, or the need for cleansing a house after hundreds of courtiers and servants had tested its capacity for drainage to the limits.
Elizabeth would have become used to travel from infancy. The royal household would regularly wend its c.u.mbersome way about the country, taking with it a long train of servants, carts, and packhorses laden with furniture, tapestries, personal belongings, and state papers, all packed in chests, coffers, and bags. The royal women and children traveled either by barge-the Thames being the main highway through London-or in covered horse-drawn coaches, like wagons, with four wheels, which could not have been very comfortable, as they were unsprung; or in smaller versions called litters, chariots, or "chairs." A household could travel an average of twenty-six miles a day, depending on the state of the roads. Most were little more than tracks, with a few surviving Roman exceptions, and their condition depended on the weather and the public-spiritedness of the parish authorities or landowners who were supposed to maintain them. It was for this reason that royalty often preferred, where possible, to travel by river.
In his tastes, King Edward followed the dictates of the court of Burgundy, which at that time led the rest of northern Europe in art, architecture, style, dress, manners, and court ceremonial. He understood the value of magnificence that underpinned Burgundian court culture, and spent lavishly on clothing, jewels, plate, and tapestries from the Low Countries, but it was not until later in his reign that he was able to patronize the arts and indulge his pa.s.sion for building. Today, the Perpendicular-style glory of St. George"s Chapel, Windsor, and the great hall at Eltham Palace, bear witness to the largely vanished splendors of his reign.
Elizabeth grew up to know these places well, especially the Palace of Westminster. Opposite stood Westminster Abbey, where kings were crowned and many of her royal forebears were buried. Elizabeth would have grown up knowing the neighboring City of London well too. "All the beauty of this island is confined to London," wrote the anonymous Italian in 1500.11 It was one of the greatest cities in Christendom, prosperous and teeming, its skyline dominated by the soaring Gothic edifice of St. Paul"s Cathedral and the spires of over eighty churches. About 60,000 to 75,000 of England"s estimated population of three or four million people lived in the City, which possessed "all the advantages to be desired in a maritime town" and was a flourishing mercantile center. "On the banks of the Thames are enormous warehouses for imported goods; also numerous cranes of remarkable size to unload merchandise from ships ... Whatever there is in the City, it all belongs to craftsmen and merchants,"12 such as would supply Elizabeth with luxury goods all her life.
In buildings of timber or brick, "the Londoners live comfortably." The City abounded "with every article of luxury, as well as with the necessaries of life. In a single street, named the Strand, there are fifty-two goldsmiths" shops." This was especially remarkable to a foreigner because the citizens were not n.o.blemen or gentlemen, but "persons of low degree and artificers,"13 many made wealthy by trade. The City authorities were fiercely protective of their liberties.
Around 1500, the Scots poet William Dunbar was so impressed by London, "sovereign of cities," that he wrote a long poem in praise of it, of which this is an extract: Strong be thy walls that about thee stand; Wise be the people that within thee dwell; Fresh be thy river with his l.u.s.ty strands; Blithe be thy churches, well sounding be thy bells; Rich be thy merchants in substance that excels; Fair be their wives, right lovesome, white and small; Clear be thy virgins, l.u.s.ty under kirtles; London, thou art the flower of cities all.
The luxurious court in which the princess grew up was dominated by two opposing factions: Warwick and the Wydevilles. The latter, and their connections, were especially prominent in the Queen"s household, and their influence on the young Elizabeth and her siblings should not be underestimated.
Her mother, Queen Elizabeth, was confounding her critics and adapting to her role with grace and dignity. In every respect but her background she was a model consort. As the years pa.s.sed, she proved that she could fulfill her royal duties as well as any born princess and use her influence in beneficial ways. She was pious and charitable; she ran her household efficiently and lived within her means. She enjoyed the King"s absolute trust, and, having resolved to turn an unseeing eye to his many infidelities, she retained his respect and affection. Thus she was highly influential behind the scenes-and it was this that Warwick and others continued to resent, along with the power enjoyed by her kinsmen.
Not since the aggrandizement of the Savoyard relatives of Henry III"s unpopular consort, Eleanor of Provence, in the thirteenth century, had the English court witnessed such large-scale promotion of a queen"s relations.14 For the King was advancing his legion of in-laws by securing for them the best matches the aristocracy could offer. He built up the power of the Wydevilles by these marriages, and by bestowing on them t.i.tles and offices, while the Queen "attracted to her party many strangers, and introduced them to court, so that they alone should manage the public and private business of the crown" through their power to "give or sell offices, and rule the very King himself."15 That power was steadily increasing, "to the exaltation of the Queen and the displeasure of the whole realm."16 While some n.o.bles were eager to mate with the new queen"s relations, seeing such marriages as a means to advancement and royal favor, others-especially Warwick-were scandalized and resentful, for they regarded the Wydevilles as too lowborn for such honors17 and influence, which was then considered the privilege of the n.o.bility, not of upwardly mobile parvenus.
Naturally, the Queen was blamed for leading the King astray; she was seen as grasping and interfering, and responsible for the aggressive promotion of her relations and their undue influence with Edward. The Duke of Milan was informed that, "since her coronation, [the Queen] has always exerted herself to aggrandize her relations. She has five brothers and as many sisters, and has brought things to such a pa.s.s that they have the entire government of this realm, to such an extent that the rest of the lords about the government were one with the Earl of Warwick, who has always been great, and deservedly so."18 Even though there may have been some exaggeration in foreign reports of the 1460s, twenty years later we find that the Wydevilles were still "detested by the n.o.bles because they, who were ign.o.ble or newly made, were advanced beyond those who far excelled them in breeding and wisdom,"19 a viewpoint in keeping with the social and cultural sensibilities of the age.
The unpopularity of the Wydevilles centered chiefly upon the aggrandizement of the Queen"s father and elder brothers (and later her sons by her first marriage), which led to the whole family being vilified. Yet the Wydevilles were not without virtues or political strengths, even if they were rapacious. Of Elizabeth"s uncles, Anthony, the Lord Treasurer of England, was an erudite man of many talents, and Lionel, who became Bishop of Salisbury, was an Oxford-educated canon lawyer.
The power of the Wydevilles was everywhere acknowledged. Appearing one day in 1469 equipped with walking boots and a staff, King Edward"s fool jested to his master"s face, "Upon my faith, sir, I have pa.s.sed through many countries of your realm, and in places that I have pa.s.sed the Rivers have been so high that I could barely scape through them!"20 Yet the Wydeville men were loyal to Edward IV and served him well in the various capacities to which he appointed them; and they did not dominate in his counsels to the exclusion of all others, for Warwick, William, Lord Hastings, and John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, remained highly influential in Edward"s inner circle of advisers.
Elizabeth"s grandparents were an attractive couple. Lord Rivers had been "renowned for being the most handsome knight in England"21 and Jacquetta of Luxembourg was "an exceedingly handsome gentlewoman."22 She had retained her t.i.tle and rank, and remained first lady in the land until Henry VI married Margaret of Anjou in 1445. She had borne Wydeville sixteen children, of whom Queen Elizabeth was the eldest. During the first phase of the Wars of the Roses, the Wydevilles had naturally supported the House of Lancaster: Lord Rivers and his eldest son, Anthony, had fought for Henry VI at Towton. After Edward IV became King in 1461, they speedily changed sides, and Edward pardoned Rivers for "all manner of offenses and trespa.s.ses done against us." Jacquetta, d.u.c.h.ess of Bedford, was frequently at court during Elizabeth"s childhood, so the princess must have come to know her grandmother well.
She probably grew up with only dim memories of her maternal grandfather, Richard Wydeville, who died when she was three. He had been created Earl Rivers in the year of her birth, to "the displeasure of the whole kingdom."23 Having distinguished himself fighting in France under Henry V and Bedford, he had since risen high on his own abilities. Yet his enemies never allowed this man whom Warwick"s father had sneeringly called "knave"s son" to forget his humble origins, and there were accusations that he had been "made by marriage."24 His reputation was compounded by his being rapacious and vengeful, and he was not above using extortion to get what he wanted.
Elizabeth Wydeville was to bear the King ten children. On August 11, 1467, at Windsor Castle, she was delivered of the second, another daughter, Mary, fair-haired and blue-eyed.25 The Queen"s mother, the d.u.c.h.ess of Bedford, came to court to a.s.sist at the lying-in. The new princess was baptized at Westminster in the presence of the French amba.s.sador, with Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury, acting as one of the sponsors.
On October 9, 1467, at Westminster, the King granted "for life" to his twenty-month-old elder daughter, "the Princess Elizabeth, the manor of Great Linford, county of Buckingham, lately belonging to James [Butler], Earl of Wiltshire, and in the King"s hands."26 Butler had been executed in 1461 and his t.i.tles confiscated to the crown. It is unlikely that Elizabeth ever visited Great Linford; the King would have a.s.signed it to her so that the manor rents could maintain her during her childhood. She held it until 1474, when it was sold to Gerard Caniziani, a London merchant.27 The manor of Sheen, a royal palace in Surrey, had been granted to the Queen in 1467, for life, probably as a nursery for her children, and by October 9, 1468, the two little princesses, Elizabeth and Mary, were living at Sheen Palace in the care of Margery, Lady Berners, their lady mistress. On that date, the Queen was granted 400 per annum [200,200] for their expenses until such time as they married.28 The Italian visitor was not the only foreigner struck by "the want of affection strongly manifested" by the English toward their children; "for everyone, however rich he be, sends his children into the houses of others ... And on inquiring the reason for the severity, they answered that they did it in order that their children might learn better manners."29 There was some concept of the innocence of childhood, but fifteenth-century parents were more concerned about civilizing their children and preventing them from falling into sin and wantonness; they recognized that mothers might not be as strict as others less close to their children: "let not the feminine pity of your wives destroy your children, and pamper them not at home ... Dandle them not too dearly lest folly fasten on them."30 There were also, of course, many advantages to be gained from placing offspring in great establishments, even as apprentices.
Royal children were not sent into n.o.ble households, as aristocratic children were, but at an early age were a.s.signed households of their own, away from the court, and their day-to-day upbringing was supervised, not by their parents, but by the lady mistress. Giving royal children separate establishments not only reflected the magnificence of a ruler, but protected his infant offspring from the health hazards they risked in London and the court. Nursery palaces were usually outside the City "because, the air [in the country] being somewhat at large, the place is healthy; and the noise not so much, and so consequently quiet."31 Sheen Palace dated from the early fourteenth century, when the original manor house had been owned by Isabella of France, wife of Edward II. After her death in 1358, her son, Edward III, had spent a fortune converting it into a fabulous palace. It became his favorite residence, and he died there in 1377. Appropriately, the name "sheen" meant "beautiful" or "bright." In 1395, after his beloved queen, Anne of Bohemia, had died there of plague the year before, Richard II had the palace "utterly destroyed." In 1414, on an adjacent site, Henry V erected what his chronicler, Thomas of Elmham, described as a "delightful mansion, of skillful and costly architecture, becoming to the royal dignity." Completed by Henry VI, and moated, it was built of Caen stone around two courts, with the royal Privy Lodgings overlooking the River Thames, and was decorated in brilliant hues with stained-gla.s.s windows in azure, red, and purple tones. Edward IV"s rose-en-soleil badge featured prominently in the ceiling moldings alongside "antelopes, swans, harts, hinds," and lions.32 This was the house in which Elizabeth spent part of her childhood.
The daily regimen followed by Elizabeth and Mary was probably similar to that later laid down by the King for their brother, the future Edward V, when he was three years old, and the routine described in the household ordinances of their paternal uncle, George, Duke of Clarence, Edward IV"s younger brother.33 The children would have been roused around 6:00 A.M., so that they could "get up at a convenient hour according to [their] age" in time to attend Matins in their bedchamber. Then the bell rang for them to go to Ma.s.s, which was sung by the household chaplain in their chapel or their closet. The regular observance of the liturgical services was seen as essential for the children of the King. Immediately after Ma.s.s they had breakfast, which might have consisted of bread, b.u.t.ter, ale, fish, meat, or eggs. Dinner was at 10:00 or 11:00 A.M.; it was "honorably served" with dishes "borne by worshipful folks" and liveried esquires, and might have lasted for up to two hours. During mealtimes, edifying and n.o.ble tales would have been read out to the royal sisters. That the young princesses lived in some state is evidenced by the appointment of a knight of the trencher and a page of the chamber to be in continual attendance upon them.34 After dinner, the girls would have been expected to wash and perhaps have a nap. Later, drinks and bread were served before the bell summoned everyone to Evensong. Supper would be served at 4:00 P.M. Evening was customarily a time of "honest disports," recreation such as games and music, until bedtime, which for Elizabeth and Mary was probably at 8:00 P.M., after a snack called "all night" (comprising bread, ale, or wine) had been served. Although their attendants were no doubt ordered to "enforce themselves" to make the children "merry and joyous toward bed," household accounts of the period contain barely any references to toys.35 After the traverse-the door curtain-was drawn at 8:00 P.M., no one but the princesses" own attendants might enter their chamber. At night, a candle or cresset would be left burning there, and they slumbered safely, for the outer gates were barred at 9:00 P.M. in winter and 10:00 P.M. in summer, porters were on watch, and watchmen patrolled three or four times a night, checking every chamber. Their brother would have someone watching over him all night, lest disease rob the King of his "precious son and gift," and it follows that his older sisters" attendants watched over them too.36 Religious instruction began at a very early age, and children were expected to know their psalter by the age of four.37 Feast days-notably Candlemas, Easter, St. George"s Day, Whitsun, All Hallows, and Christmas, as well as a crowded calendar of saints" days-were marked by special services in chapel, sermons, and entertainments, and the children made offerings at Ma.s.s on holy days. On Maundy Thursday the girls would have given gifts to the poor; on Good Friday they would have been taught to creep to the Cross on their knees. During Lent and Advent they were expected to fast or abstain from meat. At New Year they would have received Yuletide gifts, as was customary; on Twelfth Night they would have been allowed to join the feasting and revelry; and no doubt they laughed at the antics of the Lord of Misrule on the Feast of the Epiphany. Such was the cycle of their year.
Religion played a major role in Elizabeth"s upbringing. The great houses in which she was reared had chapels, oratories, and closets with sumptuous furnishings and tapestries, brilliant stained gla.s.s, illuminated psalters, primers, missals, offices, and other devotional books, rich altar cloths, bejeweled crucifixes, statues of the Virgin and the saints, painted retables, gleaming vestments, gold and silver chalices and candlesticks, carpets, chairs for the King and Queen, and an organ. Often the royal pew was in a gallery above the body of the chapel where the household worshipped. Elizabeth"s day would have been punctuated by bells announcing Ma.s.s and the liturgical hours, her ears regularly a.s.sailed by the singing of antiphons and polyphony, her nose used to the smell of incense. Small wonder that she grew up to be deeply pious.
Sometimes the little princesses were brought to court, to be paraded at festivals and state visits. There they joined their mother"s retinue, learning by her example (and that of her ladies) manners, music, singing, dancing, embroidery, and anything else considered needful to prepare them for their future roles as royal wives and mothers and the ornaments of courts. They would have been dressed in miniature versions of the luxurious attire worn by ladies of high rank, learning as they grew older to manage heavy fabrics, long court trains, and elaborate headdresses. Good deportment was taught from an early age.
To the young princesses, their parents-whom they did not see often-would have appeared as awe-inspiring figures, distant and worthy of the highest reverence, not only because they were royal, but also because children were brought up to revere, honor, and obey their parents, and be dutiful toward them all their lives. How much more daunting that would have been when your parents were the King and Queen! Each evening, whenever they were together, they would kneel before their father and mother and crave their blessing, which was given "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."38 Good manners and courtesy were drummed into them. The Babees" Book of 1475, a manual of courtesy for the young, exhorts children to cut their bread with a knife, eat quietly, wipe their mouths and hands after drinking, share the dishes served to them with guests, "and in your feeding look ye appear goodly, and keep your tongue from jangling, and always advance yourself in virtue. Sweet children, always have your delight in courtesy and in gentleness, and eschew boisterousness with all your might." The young were taught that they must never lean their elbows on the table, pick their noses, teeth, or nails at mealtimes, eat food with their knives, or pick up meat with their fingers. The humanist scholar and theologian, Desiderius Erasmus, insisted that a child should have "a kind, modest, and honest look"; it should not speak unless spoken to, have a furrowed brow or a dirty nose-signs of bad breeding-or wipe its nose on its clothing, or suck in or puff out its cheeks, stick out its tongue, yawn, laugh immoderately, spit, or be seen with messy hair or uncleaned teeth. Swearing was seen as particularly offensive, and children and servants were often punished for it. Elizabeth"s elders would have enforced rules like these. Naughty children were often beaten, and it was felt that indulging or spoiling a child would lead to the need for physical chastis.e.m.e.nt later: "who spareth the rod hateth the child."39 Edward IV"s officers were instructed to restrain the chatter of young guests at the King"s table. There is some evidence that royal mealtimes were kept in silence, or possibly only a low murmur of conversation was permitted. The King was insistent that no "customable swearer, brawler, backbiter, common hazarder, or adulterer" be allowed to work in his children"s households, and all conversation in their presence was to be of "virtue, honor, cunning, wisdom, and deeds of worship [renown]." Those who came late to Matins were punished by being served only bread and water at dinner, and any who drew weapons in the household, or went to law without the permission of the Queen"s council, were to be clapped in the stocks or dismissed.40 Like most females, the princess and her sisters would have been reared to an awareness that they had been born of an inferior s.e.x, and that consequently their freedoms were limited-although the example of their mother would have demonstrated that women of rank could be enormously influential, albeit with the consent of their menfolk. Medieval women were regarded variously as weak and pa.s.sive; or as domineering harridans, temptresses, or wh.o.r.es. It was held that young girls needed to be protected from themselves so that they could be nurtured as chaste and submissive maidens and mothers.
The princesses would have grown up thinking it normal that their marriages would be arranged for them, and that it was their duty to render obedience first to their parents, and later to their future husbands. Marriage was seen as a desirable estate for both s.e.xes, and for most women it defined their role in life, for with monasticism in decline, relatively few became nuns in this era. It was expected that royal and aristocratic women would marry, and marry well; and it was rare to find one who died a spinster, unless she had become a nun. Thus the upbringing of girls was geared toward finding a suitable husband, one of the right social cla.s.s and standing, and it was inc.u.mbent largely upon mothers to ensure that they did, and to see that their daughters grew up chaste, discreet, humble, pious, and obedient. In the early years, queens, of course, delegated much of this role to the lady mistress of the nursery, but they did usually take a keen interest in preparing their daughters for marriage.
A girl"s future status, happiness, and success depended largely on the marriage she made, her relationship with her husband, and her ability to perform her wifely duties. Most aristocratic brides brought with them dowries consisting of lands, property, and perhaps money; if they were royal, their persons would be used to cement political treaties between princes, to secure peace, prosperity, or an ally in war. A father marrying off his daughter would also look to her future financial security, negotiating a jointure, or living, for her maintenance during her married life and in the event of her widowhood; often it comprised rents from estates, of which even a queen"s jointure was largely made up. Upon marriage, a woman"s property and t.i.tle (if she had one) transferred to her husband; she retained no control over any of it.
The desirability of a wife therefore lay not in her looks or character, but in her wealth and breeding. Marriage was essentially a contract. Love was not a prime consideration: it was hoped that it would develop after marriage, and indeed it was the duty of a wife to love her husband and to remain unquestionably faithful. Nevertheless, there is evidence that many parents did care that their children were happily married: they allowed the prospective spouses time to get to know and love each other, and on occasions would not even proceed with the wedding if either objected. At the other end of the scale there were parents who beat their daughters into submission,41 while nearly all frowned on clandestine marriages, and kept idle hands and minds busy to avoid them from being unsuitably diverted by bold and importunate young men.
Once wed, a married woman had no legal ident.i.ty of her own. She was expected to render obedience to her husband as her lord and head, for he was to be to her as Christ was to the Church, and he had the legal right to punish and chastise her. Toward him she was to show love, gentleness, and submission.
Nevertheless, women of Elizabeth"s cla.s.s could exercise power, patronage, and authority; they might even venture into politics. Yet all these advantages came only through marriage: what influence and autonomy they enjoyed was entirely at the discretion or behest of their husbands, and not all husbands were prepared to allow their wives such leeway.
Such was the future that awaited Elizabeth of York, but the most important event on her horizon at this time was not some distant marriage but the arrival of her sister, Cecily, on March 20, 1469, at Westminster. The birth of a third daughter, despite her being "very handsome," was a disappointment to the King. He and his lords "rejoiced exceedingly, though they would have preferred a son,"42 especially now, when Edward"s throne was under threat. With a son to follow him, a monarch"s position was invariably more secure. No one imagined for a moment that Elizabeth, the King"s eldest daughter, might rule after him as Queen. Her value was purely matrimonial.
Events of which the young Elizabeth can have had little awareness, but would adversely affect her life, were gathering momentum. By 1468 rumors were rife of conflict between "the Earl [of Warwick] and the Queen"s blood." Warwick could not stomach "the great rule which the Lord Rivers and his blood bare at that time within the realm,"43 and could not conceal his anger when, in 1468, the King married his sister Margaret to Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Warwick, who pursued Charles the Bold for years "with a most deadly hatred,"44 had favored an alliance with France, Burgundy"s enemy, but the Wydevilles had used "their utmost endeavors to promote the marriage, and were favoring other designs to which he was strongly opposed." This finally alienated the earl,45 and drove him, in 1469, to form an alliance with the King"s disaffected younger brother, George, Duke of Clarence, whom Elizabeth had displaced in the line of succession; whereupon the two men began intriguing against Edward IV.
Clarence was then twenty, tall, fair, and regal. He had a surface charm and "a mastery of popular eloquence,"46 but these barely masked a weak, discontented, and vicious character. Edward had been very generous to him, but Clarence was jealous and hungry for power. Warwick now bolstered Clarence"s pretensions by offering to overthrow Edward, make him King, and marry him to Isabella, the elder of his two daughters; as Warwick had no son, these girls were the greatest heiresses in England. Edward"s brothers, Clarence and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had repeatedly sought them in marriage, but the King had consistently refused, foreseeing that such alliances would enhance the already disconcerting power of the Nevilles. Naturally this had given Warwick further cause for grievance.
In July 1469, Clarence openly defied the King and married Isabella Neville in Calais, where Warwick was captain. Then he and Warwick sailed back to England, where they rose in arms against Edward IV, whom they took prisoner at the Battle of Edgecote in August 1469. They then spread the story that the King was a b.a.s.t.a.r.d, the son of Cecily, d.u.c.h.ess of York, and an unnamed English archer.