Comments on: Figures in Silk (aka Queen of Silks) | Was King Edward IV illegitimate?

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:13:21 +0000

Harold Godwinson was Harold II (Harold or Harald harefoot being he first).
There is evidence that the line of the Godwins were the Kings by primogeniture from Ethelred I (not the Unready), Alfred’s older brother.
Interestingly William was certainly a bastard but he did not claim by the throne by right of conquest, but that Edward the Confessor had willed it to him & by hereditary claim from the brotehr of Ethelred the Unready’s queen Emma.- which is patently absurd.

By: Liz Mims

Liz Mims — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 08:05:33 +0000

Every source from dry and boring to semi fictional and juicy, has implied that Proud Cis and Richard of York were a love match. They were raised together as children before they were betroved and married.

By: vanora

vanora — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:30:06 +0000

Dear Greg – yeah, it’s all been a bit of a game since the Godwins, I agree!

By: greg luland

greg luland — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:58:53 +0000

“According to Dominic Mancini, an Italian visitor to London in 1464, Cecily ‘fell into a frenzy’ at news of the marriage of her eldest surviving son Edward IV to Elizabeth Woodville and, in her rage, made the astounding accusation that he was a bastard, adding that she would be prepared to testify before a public enquiry that this was indeed the case.”

By: greg luland

greg luland — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:48:10 +0000

He may well be a bastard and this story seems possible as he certainly had no resemblance to his youngest brother or father. BUT, to me it’s a bit of a moot point as in my opinion the last real king of England was Harold I, and William was not only a bastard but NOT ENGLISH, he never had a SINGLE right to call himself King or any right to invade and enslave two separate races, English and Celts, so until we find the most direct descendant of the Godwins we will never have true legitimacy by way of birth.

By: Elizabeth Collins

Elizabeth Collins — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:23:15 +0000

If Elizabeth conceived on the day of her husband’s return, i.e. 21st August, then this would give her an approximate due date of 14th May, but normal human pregnancy lasts between 37 and 42 weeks from last menstrual period (or between 35 and 40 weeks from conception), which would make Edward’s birth occurring at 37 weeks and 5 days – perfectly normal, not premature, and therefore no proof of illegitimacy.

By: Randall

Randall — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:24:00 +0000

Once it is established that the bone found in the Liecester carpark is that of Richard III, his Y DNA could be compared to the Y Chromosome of Edward the IV burried in a vault at Windsor with his wife and 4 children.
Whether the Bones are indeed Richard III’s will be determined by the comparison of the mitochondrial DNA of a female descendant of Richard’s sister Anne of York. The problem will be in getting permission to test Edward IV’s bones.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:14:45 +0000

I think that it is entirely possible for the mother of Edward IV to have cheated on her husband the Duke. Why does anyone think that just because she was married to a Duke or that her son, Edward, became a king, that this somehow means that she could not possibly have cheated on her husband, the Duke? People cheat all the time, get over it. It’s not acceptable, but it happens.

By: Geraldene

Geraldene — Tue, 08 May 2012 16:58:28 +0000

I think the argument that Edward IV was illegitimate is ridiculous. He was born on 28 April and his father took leave of his mother on 14 July. That’s a period of 288 days and the average pregnancy is supposed to last 280 days. My 2 children were both one week late why should not Edward have been 1 week late? Cicely Neville’s nickname was ‘Proud Cis’ so how does anyone think that a woman of her background and pride would jump into bed with an archer a few weeks after her husband marched off to war? So what if Edward didn’t look like his father? Lots of people don’t as they inherit their looks from a grand or great grandparent. Edward III was tall as was Edward I, Longshanks. Richard III never stated his brother was illegitimate, that was just gossip.

By: Vladimir Sokolov

Vladimir Sokolov — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:11:44 +0000

To Brenda Blackburn: husbands are usually the last persons to know that their children are really not their children. Besides, the Duke of York had the elder son, Edmund, who was his heir. Edmund was killed the same day as his father. So, while Richard of York was alive, there was no question of making Edward his heir.