The death of Edward IV

#91
Thibault Sorry, Louise - I meant what is your evidence for his ambition before the death of E4.

Controversial marriage to Anne Neville? bringing him much wealth and land. He invested much time and effort into securing popularity in the North, he knew should he ever need it he would have much support there?
and yet - though i dispute the idea that his marriage to Anne Neville was controversial - Richard gave no thought whatsoever to winning friends and influencing people in the south, which even a shaved monkey would have known to be vital if any opportunities were to be taken...

it is an undeniable, grass-is-green, sky-is-blue fact that Richard was known by everyone in England to be the apple of his brothers eye. he was rich, loyal, he was an able battle commander, and he was an acclaimed administrator - if he had been looking for friends and allies in the south he could have had them by the wheelbarrow load. he was a person to be seenm to be friends with, he was to a large degree the star of the second half of Edward IV's reign - all he had to do was hold his hand out and it would find a hundred hands eager to be grasped in friendship.

but he didn't. he made no attempt over the 10 years to curry favour, or spread his influence south of the Trent, infact he withdrew from the south - his manners he sold or swapped. the only way this points to kingly ambition is if he wanted to cut England in half and rule only the Northern bit, which is as daft an idea as i've ever read.
 
Dec 2012
888
UK
#92
Absolutely, Dried Fruit, couldn't agree more. The fact that Richard had no Southern affinity was a serious disadvantage for him when he became king. His reign was so short, that he had no time to develop one.
 
Nov 2015
3
Frome
#93
The allegation was that Richard was an ambitious man and his taking of the throne was driven by ambition, the question was what evidence is there for him being ambitious. Not what evidence is there that he had always aspired to the throne. I believe there is evidence to suggest that Richard was ambitious, in the sense that if an opportunity came along to better himself in some way then he would take it (Anne Neville), no matter what the cost (enmity with his brother, George Duke of Clarence), if necessary ruthlessly (Tewkesbury - to ensure the position of his family in the country). I doubt he did aspire to the throne during Edward IV reign, however when the opportunity arose it was likely his ambition, as opposed to morality, which was the driving force to him claiming the throne.
 
Apr 2016
8
Texas
#94
Strange you say that, Edward V education was carefully instructed by Anthony Woodville and Edward IV had little say in his upbringing. The Woodville's had a strange hold on Edward IV, like what happened to George, Duke of Clarence. There lots of other crimes that the Woodvilles had done back then.


This comment is very bizarre indeed.

Why is it strange that Anthony Woodville was governor to young Edward VI? Anthony Woodville was one of the most intelligent men of the age. In fact, he was an early renaissance man. A fierce and famous warrior that consistently brought fame to England. Furthermore, his love of books and learning was also famous. As an early patron of William Caxton and his printing press, Woodville can be seen as one of the leading men responsible for bringing the written word and education to the masses. All of the Woodville's were extremely well educated. John, Duke of Bedford and brother to Henry V had one of the largest and most impressive libraries in Europe...when he died his widow - Jaquetta inherited his books. Jaquetta went on to marry Richard Woodville and became the mother to Anthony and Elizabeth Woodville and raised all of her children to be very educated and well read. Anthony Woodville is also know to have been very devout...he wore a hair shirt under his clothing, and in battle. Why would Edward IV not have chosen his as his son and heir's guardian????

The medieval royal family's standard way of raising children was to send them to an outside household for education and upbringing. Furthermore, the heir to the throne had a responsibility to maintain his own house hold and have a presence in Wales while the King held court in London.

It's interesting that while very little is known of Edward VI he is always portrayed as being intelligent and impressive.
 
Aug 2019
1
Sydney
#95
Hi All,

I have an interest in Richard III and I have read Annette Carson's book. I believe that her theory on poison is an accurate one. I have an understanding of constitutions. From what I have read about Edward he had a very robust and virile constitution throughout his life. He may have indulged excessively but it was not possible for him to catch a chill, or infection and die so quickly. If he caught a bacterial infection such as TB, venereal disease or viral infection he would have should signed of lesions, coughing, blood. His body would have been fight it for months. He would have had a slower death with months of fever and downward malaise before he would death. Everything about his death points to Arsenic poison for me.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,314
Las Vegas, NV USA
#96
Everything about his death points to Arsenic poison for me.
There's a number of causes of sudden death, especially for a fat fortyish king. Actually death from arsenic poisoning is not that fast. Heart attack is most likely. I once read about the chicken bone theory. Someone claimed to have that chicken bone and was willing to sell it for the right price.

As an aside, I always thought Elizabeth of York had a better claim to the the throne as England's first official queen regnant. Henry Tudor should have stepped aside because it was the right thing to do.:halo:
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
1,199
Queens, NYC
#97
As a Ricardian of long standing, I'd like to address the subject of Edward IV's death: I think the earlier posts in this thread have made the valid point-that Edward IV probably died of heart condition or other natural cause. He wasn't living the most healthful style of life.

On some other points:

There was nothing odd about Anthony, Lord Rivers being entrusted with the advanced education and training of the Prince of Wales. He was a man of intellectual standing, some creditworthy military service to Edward IV, and a close relative of the young prince. There's nothing in any source to indicate the king was cut out of his son's education.

Croyland Chronicle mentions the allegation of the Edward & Eleanor precontract as the reason to set aside Edward IV's children. Nothing of an attack on Edward IV's legitimacy. Mancini, writing about 8 months after the events, and probably not in full command of the English language, may well have repeated later rumors.

Incidentally, as to that assertion of Edward IV's bastardy, THE RICARDIAN, Volume XXVIII, 2018, in "By just computation of the time" pages15-28, shows the likelihood that Edward was legitimate.

If other aspects of the 1483-85 period are to be discussed, I suggest a new thread be started.
 
Likes: Fiver

Fiver

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,724
#98
Hi All,

I have an interest in Richard III and I have read Annette Carson's book. I believe that her theory on poison is an accurate one. I have an understanding of constitutions. From what I have read about Edward he had a very robust and virile constitution throughout his life. He may have indulged excessively but it was not possible for him to catch a chill, or infection and die so quickly. If he caught a bacterial infection such as TB, venereal disease or viral infection he would have should signed of lesions, coughing, blood. His body would have been fight it for months. He would have had a slower death with months of fever and downward malaise before he would death. Everything about his death points to Arsenic poison for me.
It took 2 days for Enlightenment era doctors to turn a minor illness into a death sentence for George Washington, so I have no doubt that Medieval doctors could have finished off Edward IV in 10. Period sources do not agree on what Edward died of and do not give enough information know what caused his death. Stroke, heart attack, and pneumonia are all possible causes. Arsenic poisoning appears to result in severe stomach pain, vomiting, and delirium, none of which seem to be mentioned by the sources. That doesn't rule out arsenic poisoning, but it does make it unlikely. The biggest arguments against poisoning are lack of motive and/or opportunity for everyone. Antony Woodville, as tutor for Edward V is the only person who might have more influence with Edward V than with his father, but he wasn't there during Edward IV's illness. Edward V would also gain by becoming king, but he wasn't there, either. Court favorites, like Hastings and most of the Woodvilles had no chance of gaining influence and a significant chance of loosing it. Henry V and Richard III had no way of suspecting it would improve their power, let alone lead them to becoming king, and they weren't there, either.
 
Aug 2015
2,840
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#99
...It's interesting that while very little is known of Edward VI he is always portrayed as being intelligent and impressive.
Did you mean Edward IV, Edward V, or Edward VI when you wrote Edward VI?

... Edward V would also gain by becoming king, but he wasn't there, either. Court favorites, like Hastings and most of the Woodvilles had no chance of gaining influence and a significant chance of loosing it. Henry V and Richard III had no way of suspecting it would improve their power, let alone lead them to becoming king, and they weren't there, either.
Edward V was also only 12 years old, and the vast majority of evil murderers don't commit their first murder util they are a lot older than that.

Did you mean Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Henry VII, or Henry VIII when you wrote Henry V?

Of course people who weren't present when Edward IV got sick and died could have hired someone to go there and poison Edward IV. So maybe it was an evil plot by King Louis XI or Sultan Bayezid II to make trouble for England.:D:)
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions