Replies

The only witness to the alleged marriage between Eleanor Talbot and Edward was Stillington himself. If he had knowledge of this at the time Edward married Elizabeth Woodville, why didn't he bring it up then, or at any time before Edward's death? Talbot was born circa 1436, and married Sir Thomas Butler around 1449 or 50, which would make her 13 at the time of her marriage to Butler. Edward was born in 1442, so what age were these two children when a marriage allegedly took place?

Edward didn't marry Elizabeth Woodville until 1464, and it looks like Eleanor didn't take her alleged vows with Edward all that seriously since she married someone else before he did. There is no date provided for this alleged wedding. As I said, Stillington never brought it up until after Edward's death, at an appropriate time when Richard was usurping the throne. Stillington had an excellent reputation as a canon lawyer and theologian, so it is hard to believe that he would have married these two kids without witnesses. At the time, a marriage without witnesses was automatically considered to be invalid. So why did Stillington wait until after Edward's death to come up with this story?

Stillington, who had previously been Bishop of Bath and Wells, and High Chancellor of England, and had enjoyed the favor of Edward IV, was arrested between February 27th, and March 5, 1478 on a charge of "violating his oath of fidelity by some utterance prejudicial to the King and his estate." No one knows what he allegedly said to give offense. It's been suggested that he may have been instrumental in spreading the gossip of Edward's illegitimate birth to help George, the Duke of Clarence, but there's no real proof of that, and if he had been a real threat, he would have been done away with. He was released from imprisonment on June 20th of that same year, and although he was given some decent positions at court, he never regained his former influence with Edward. So what was Stillington's motivation to come forward with this story. Was it to gain favor with the new monarch? Could be, but there's no record that Richard rewarded him like he did his other supporters. But Stillington could have been hopeful that he would be able to regain his previous influence. It should be noted that there is no record that Stillington appeared before the Privy Council, or was even examined by the Council about his allegations. If this was supposed to be such a credible tale, why wasn't it reported in the Council's meetings at the time?