Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map
|Partial - but definetly not ignorant!!
Written by Deborah d'Bajor
(8/21/2004 9:05 a.m.)
It's pretty difficult, in my experience, for any historian to remain completely impartial on the suject of the Wars of the Roses - lovely to see Jane so unbashedly nailing her colours to the mast!! We know where she's coming from - not like some of those who proclaim to be impartial!
She pretty much brushes over everything - especialy if it doesn't interest her, but shows that she is definetly not ignorant in history! She makes brief mention of Edward IV's pre-contract to Lady Eleanor Butler. As has been discussed on L&T before, 'engagements' in the past were rather more binding than today. The claim is that Edward was pre-contracted to Lady E and this was as binding as marriage itself. A promise to marry (presumably witnessed) followed by physical relations was binding, and this pair appear to have gone through some sort of ceremony, officiated by Robert Stillington, (later?) Bishop of Bath & Wells. It's believable, because of Edward's reputation as a lady-killer. He ended up marrying Elizabeth Grey (nee Wydville or Woodville) because that was the only way he could have his wicked way with her! She was the widow of a Lancastrian knight, with two sons already. One of these, the Marquess of Dorset, used to go 'whoring' with his step-father and Lord Hastings - lovely!! Elizabeth Shore was the mistress of all three at one time!
It's funny JA doesn't mention the Kingmaker, but perhaps she just wasn't interested ;-)
Groupread is maintained by Myretta with WebBBS 3.21.