 - 1468
-
| Name |
Eleanor Talbot |
| Suffix |
Bareness of Sudeley |
| Gender |
Female |
| Name |
Eleanor Butler |
| _FSFTID |
L7LT-6F5 |
| _FSLINK |
https://familysearch.org/tree/#view=ancestor&person=L7LT-6F5 |
| Death |
30 Jun 1468 |
| Notes |
- http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/TALBOT.htm#Eleonor%20TALBOT%20(B.%20Sudeley)
http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/cssbct/cgi-bin/gedlkup.php/n=royal?royal05847
Most historians are today skeptical of the «b»Eleanor«/b» «b»Butler«/b» story, chiefly because it was «b»Richard III«/b»'s SECOND attempt to establish the illegitimacy of «b»Edward IV«/b» or his descendants. The first attempt, incredibly enough, was a claim that «b»Edward «/b»himself had been illegitimate. This story probably rested ultimately upon the fact that «b»Edward«/b» had been born outside England, in Rouen. There could, then, have been some doubts as to the circumstances of his conception and birth, as there had been with «b»Richard II«/b» who had been born in Bordeaux, and who had against whom there had also been charges that his real father had not been the «b»Black Prince«/b» but a "certain lady-faced priest" who was a member of «b»Richard«/b»'s mother's household. In «b»Richard«/b»'s case, his lack of close resemblance to the magnificent and warlike «b»Black Prince«/b» made it easier for people to give some credit to these rumors. What defeated this first claim by «b»Richard«/b» was, of course, that in order to establish «b»Edward«/b»'s illegitimate, «b»Richard«/b» perforce had to claim or imply that his own mother, «b»Cecily duchess of York«/b», had committed adultery--and she was still alive in 1483. By some cosmic coincidence, moreover, «b»Richard«/b» dined with «b»Cecily«/b» in her London residence at Baynard's Castle on the evening of the day «b»Richard«/b»'s partisans had first advanced the claim of «b»Edward«/b»'s illegitimacy. Many historians have expressed the wish they had been a fly on the wall in the dining room that night. Whatever happened, the story was withdrawn the next day and the «b»Eleanor Butler«/b» claim was then substituted for it. It is odd that given the clandestine circumstances of «b»Edward IV«/b»'s real marriage, to «b»Elizabeth Woodville«/b», «b»Richard«/b» never tried to establish that it was unlawful, except to claim that it was doubtful because «b»Edward«/b» had not consulted his barons about it, as a King should do. The only attempt to undermine the Woodville marriage was made through the claim that Edward had previously agreed to marry «b»Lady Eleanor Butler«/b», a daughter of the «b»Earl of Shrewsbury«/b». Nor has the text of such a marriage contract ever been discovered. When, in 1483, people began to ask if she couldn't be questioned about the matter, «b»Richard«/b»'s partisans explained that she had taken the veil after «b»Edward«/b» abandoned her, and had subsequently died--very convenient, one must say. It's significant that no members of the Butler family were ever interrogated on the matter, nor did the Church ever issue any declaration that the Woodville marriage was invalid.
Cokayne says «b»Eleanor«/b» was a sister of «b»Sir John Talbot«/b», but the pro-«b»Richard III«/b» camp has her as a daughter of an «b»Earl of Shrewsbury«/b». Exactly which Earl is not made clear, unfortunately.
In 1449 or 1450, «b»Eleanor«/b» married «b»Sir Thomas Butler«/b» (son of «b»Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley«/b»), who died some time before Mar 1461. In the political turmoil surrounding the change of monarchs then, the widowed «b»Eleanor«/b»'s father-in-law took back one of the two manors he had settled on her and her husband when they married, but he did not complete the required paperwork by obtaining a licence for the transfer of title, and the new King, «b»Edward IV«/b», seized both the properties.
The exact course of events is uncertain, but it seems that «b»Eleanor«/b» went directly to «b»King Edward«/b» to ask him to return her property. «b»Edward«/b» (who, though barely out of his teens, already had a reputation for womanizing) was more interested in her than in her property. It is said that «b»Edward«/b» made a legally binding contract to marry her. According to the French political analyst, «b»Phillippe De Commines«/b», the priest who later came forward and testified to having performed the ceremony was «u»«b»Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells «/u»«/b». «b»Edward«/b» married «b»Elizabeth Woodville«/b» in 1464, and it was later suggested that one reason the marriage was not announced publicly was the danger that «b»Eleanor«/b» would come forward with the news of her earlier marriage to the «b»King«/b». «u»«b»Stillington «/u»«/b» rose to be Chancellor of England, along with other lucrative posts.
«b»Lady Eleanor Butler«/b» died in a convent, and was buried in the Church of the White Carmelites, Norwich, England. Some years later, the priest in question (Commynes is the only source who identifies him as «u»«b»Stillington «/u»«/b») is said to have told «b»King Edward«/b»'s unstable and untrustworthy brother, «b»George, Duke of Clarence«/b», about the pre-contract. Clarence was already on the verge of rebellion against his elder brother; «b»Edward«/b» now threw both his brother and «u»«b»Stillington «/u»«/b» into the Tower of London. «b»Clarence«/b» was tried before Parliament (with «b»Edward«/b» himself as his accuser) in Jan 1478, convicted of treason, and sentenced to be executed.
There has been speculation that the reason «b»Clarence«/b» was killed privately in the Tower (whether he was really drowned in a "butt of Malmsey" wine or not) may have been that Edward wanted to ensure that he did not have an opportunity to disclose in public the secret that would make his brother's children illegitimate and himself the next in line for the throne. «u»«b»Stillington «/u»«/b»'s imprisonment was to be a warning. Only after «b»Edward«/b»'s death did he come forward publicly with that evidence, this time offering it to the future «b»Richard III of England«/b», to prevent «b»Edward IV«/b»'s son from being crowned as «b»Edward V«/b». «b»Richard«/b» then took the throne.
No records survive of the meeting of the Parliamentary lords on 9 Jun 1483, where «u»«b»Stillington «/u»«/b» is said to have presented the evidence of the pre-contract, including documents and other witnesses. The «b»Duke of Buckingham«/b» is supposed to have told «u»«b»Morton «/u»«/b» afterwards that he had believed that evidence when he saw it but had later changed his mind. When «u»«b»Henry VII «/u»«/b» came to the throne, he ordered all documents relating to the case to be destroyed, as well as the act of parliament by which «b»Richard«/b» was enabled to claim the throne; so efficiently were his orders carried out that only one copy of Titulus Regius has ever been found.
After «b»Richard«/b»'s death, Tudor "historians" - including «u»«b»Sir Thomas More «/u»«/b» in his History of «b»Richard III«/b» - named «b»Elizabeth Lucy«/b» as the woman «u»«b»Stillington «/u»«/b» testified he had married to «b»Edward«/b». «b»Elizabeth Lucy«/b» (who may also have been called «b»Elizabeth Wayte«/b») was probably the mother of «b»Edward IV«/b»'s bastard son «u»«b»Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle «/u»«/b». An autopsy has revealed that a corpse most likely to be «b»Eleanor Butler«/b» had borne no children. Thus his two daughters must have been from a different mother.
Father: «u»«b»John TALBOT (2° E. Shrewsbury)«/u»«/b»
Mother: «u»«b»Elizabeth BUTLER (C. Shrewsbury) «/u»«/b»
Married: «u»«b»Thomas BUTLER (B. Sudeley) «/u»«/b»
Associated with: «u»«b»EDWARD IV PLANTAGENET (King of England) «/u»«/b»
Children:
1. «u»«b»Dau. PLANTAGENET «/u»«/b»
2. «b»Dau. PLANTAGENET«/b»
|
| Person ID |
I3101 |
Glenn Cook Family |
| Last Modified |
26 Jan 2015 |
|
|
