User talk:Smlark

Welcome!
Thomas Stafford now with link to John Strype on googlebooks. Unoquha (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward IV of England
I think you're missing the point here. Titulus Regius does not record any pre-contract although it alleges there was one. Neither is there any evidence, apart from Commines' testimony, that Stillington was the priest in question or that he made the allegation. Deb (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: A secret marriage requires just two or three people: a bride, a groom and a witness (unless the first two provide written evidence or a confession). Edward IV's first marriage had himself, Lady Eleanor and Stillington - the later evidence of their lives and career paths demonstrates this. The third person testified in 1483. Like Ann Boleyn with Edward's grandson, Lady Eleanor evidently refused to be a royal mistress. His second "marriage" remained secret for years, being disclosed only when a foreign bride was suggested for him. Until 1464, there was no solid evidence that it had happened. What changed is that Lady Eleanor didn't become pregnant (her probable remains show no child unless she miscarried very early) but Elizabeth Woodville did. The child and it's later siblings needed a veil of "legitimacy". Edward may not have meant what he said in the promise that sealed either of the marriages but people say "I do" today without meaning it. A King with a pregnant partner and no public wife could write Lady Eleanor out of history and establish a dynasty as Henry VIII sought to do. Oh, one other thing. I didn't mention that I know Dr. Ashdown-Hill quite well and we met several times in the years leading up to revealing her as the "Secret" Queen. Should I have done? Smlark (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no documentary evidence of any marriage or betrothal having taken place. Everything you have said above is mere speculation. Deb (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have answered your other question. I don't think you need to worry about a conflict of interest as long as you are not related to Dr Ashdown-Hill or anything like that.  What you do need to think about is quoting actual evidence, if you are aware of any.  That does not include their later careers or your personal opinions about Edward's motivation, which are at best circumstantial. Deb (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is gallons of evidence - Lady Eleanor leaving no will, although a widow would have done, and receiving land that neither her father nor first husband was associated with - unless Edward just gave land to random women because he felt like it. There is evidence implicit in Titulus Regius that there was documentary evidence (Stillington's testimony) even though this was destroyed later. There is evidence in the trajectory of Stillington's career: arrested, released and raised to a Bishopric, then imprisoned for life. Clarence had been disloyal for years but is suddenly executed when he discovers the secret and threatens to reveal it. Not only does this explanation make sense but no alternative explanation makes sense any more. The pre-contract was regarded by Parliament and the Council as proven, as the passing of TR shows, and the bi-posthumous revelation supplies the publicity to reinforce the marriage (JA-H). After all, there is no documentary evidence of Edward's other secret "marriage" (to another older, Lancastrian widow) because registration of births, deaths and marriages dates in England from the following century. The latter confided in her mother, of course. QED. Smlark (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree, there is no evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. The difference is that Elizabeth was publicly declared to be Edward's wife and was crowned queen (in May 1465, when she could not yet have known she was pregnant with Elizabeth of York).  But none of the other statements you have made constitutes evidence.  The fact that Eleanor did not leave a known will could have a myriad of explanations.  The fact that she was Edward's mistress doesn't prove that she had a marriage contract with him.  Stillington's career progress (whether or not he was actually the priest who performed the alleged ceremony) is highly suggestive of someone whose allegiance was up for sale to whomever the monarch of the time (or the most likely alternative claimant) happened to be.  Titulus Regius may be regarded by some as likely to have been based on documentary evidence; the contents are regarded by others as propaganda to bolster Richard's usurpation of the throne.  Try and come up with something concrete if you want your edits to stand. Deb (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Stillington's evidence before the Privy Council or Parliamentary would have been transcribed unless it was submitted in written form already. PS Are you suggesting that Edward's secret marriage ceremonies be treated consistently on here? If neither have surviving written evidence, fully recognise neither or both, and edit other pages accordingly. Smlark (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained the difference, and what I see in the article reflects that difference. You are trying to make it appear, without any evidence other than hearsay, that the marriage with Eleanor Butler definitely took place.  If you can't provide citations, these edits of yours will be removed. Deb (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops - I forgot to mention that Lady Eleanor was Warwick's niece (connected to his 1469 revolt) and that Catesby (executed three days after Bosworth, despite some connections to Margaret Beaufort) knew of the pre-contract bfore the rest of the Council. The first known child of Edward IV may only date from 1466 but was there a miscarriage or stillbirth earlier? Even an unsuccessful pregnancy would have hastened the "marriage" ceremony. "There can be few (if any) fifteenth-century marriages which have been accorded such impressive legal confirmation as to be authenticated by an Act of Parliament" (The Secret Queen, p.156). On the same page, TR is quoted: "King Edward was and stoode marryed and troth plight to oone Dame Elianor Butteler, doughter of the old Earl of Shrewesbury". So Edward IV's first marriage ceremony was publicly declared, just as was his second, making it the ONLY secret marriage with a written reference. The "difference" is no more. The marriage ceremonies are either equally invalid or equally potentially valid - but the chronological overlap would invalidate the second. Edward either died a bachelor or had been a bigamist. It goes without saying that someone took notes as Stillington testified - just as someone took notes at Leveson this year - and Catesby was a lawyer. These notes are not yet shown to survive the Tudor historiographical smokescreen but Titulus Regius itself went missing for many years, not by accident. This is something revisionist historians often face - an uneven playing field, although not always conscious by any means, worthy of Underhill: Prove that identical event one happened or that event two didn't, otherwise we will assume that two did and one didn't. A bachelor or a bigamist - these are the only two logically consistent positions. Which is yours? Smlark (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: this debate (apart from your last long comment), has been moved to Talk page of the Lady Eleanor Talbot article, which is properly where it should be taking place. Any further contributions should be added to the talk page there. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)