As proof that DNA is powerful, especially the male line, compare the above sculpture of Henry as a child to the current Prince George, the son of Prince William and Kate Middleton:
Posted on 01/28/2018 9:43:51 AM PST by beaversmom
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?
He did it out a sense of duty. It does happen, you know.
And what possible reason could Edward have to want more than one witness? The more witnesses, the more the story could have leaked out.
Not my theory. The Pope called for her death. There were plots around England to kill her. Remember the Spanish Armada? Spain attempted to invade England to displace Elizabeth and wipe out the Protestant reformation in the British Isles. John Knox in Scotland was calling for the eradication of the 'monstrous regimen of women', in reference to Elizabeth and Mary of Scotland.
Thanks. I’ll have to look up more about her.
If Stillington stepped forward after Edward’s death out of sense of duty, why didn’t he do it at the time Edward married Elizabeth Woodville? Where was his sense of duty then? Talbot was already married to Butler by that time. Why didn’t he come forward then either? I guess after almost 20 years, and Edward’s death, he finally had a flash of conscience, and spilled the beans about a previous marriage he officiated at, that had no witnesses, and under church law, was not a valid marriage either. Kind of sounds like all the “me toos” claiming sexual harassment many years after the fact. No proof, but it sounds good, and gives them their 15 minutes of fame.
But according to Blackadder II, Elizabeth said that all the Catholics were demanding to have their heads nicked off!
LOL!!
Except thats not really the case, the French nobility still exist and there are three noble house waiting in the wings should a miracle occur and duty calls. There’s a House of Bourbon contender, House of Orleans contender and an upstart House of Bonaparte contender. I think if the chance ever occrs - “Nobility Wrestling” and televise t!
Elizabeth 1 didn’t persecute Catholics until several attempts on her life had been made.
“In the belief that the revolt had been successful, Pope Pius V issued a bull in 1570, titled Regnans in Excelsis, which declared “Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime” to be excommunicated and a heretic, releasing all her subjects from any allegiance to her. Catholics who obeyed her orders were threatened with excommunication.
The papal bull provoked legislative initiatives against Catholics by Parliament, which were, however, mitigated by Elizabeth’s intervention.
In 1581, to convert English subjects to Catholicism with “the intent” to withdraw them from their allegiance to Elizabeth was made a treasonable offence, carrying the death penalty. From the 1570s missionary priests from continental seminaries came to England secretly in the cause of the “reconversion of England”. Many suffered execution, engendering a cult of martyrdom.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England
Why didn’t people speak up about the Clintons’ criminality? Why didn’t people speak up about Weinstein? Fear, loss of face, loss of position and power. In Stillington’s case, he could have ended up in prison before execution (although the Plantgenets weren’t into murdering clergy or women; the Tudors brought that innovation). But definitely prison.
He spoke up when it was safe to do so.
They did. Check out Robert Aske and the Pilgrimage of Grace, 1536. Many stood against Henry and he murdered a goodly number of them, it was horrid and vile and unchristian. This rebellion carried on in different forms through Edward and Elizabeth's reign. At one time any Catholic priest found in England was subject to the death penalty. Look up priest holes and the English martyrs, St Edmund Campion and his companions.
Stillington shouldn't have had any fear of stepping forward with the knowledge of Talbot having been married to Edward when she married Butler in 1449. Edward hadn't met or married Elizabeth yet. He wasn't even King until 1461, and would have been only 7 at the time Talbot married Butler.
That’s true about Robert Aske. Thanks for reminding me about that. Henry got rid of everyone who wouldn’t support any desire he had. England might have been a better place had he never woken up from the coma he’d been in.
The good old days weren’t so hot.
As proof that DNA is powerful, especially the male line, compare the above sculpture of Henry as a child to the current Prince George, the son of Prince William and Kate Middleton:
I’ll bet George’s cousins will look a bit different.
Jane Seymore was good as Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman
Except that Prince George, his dad William, grandfather Charles and great grandmother Elizabeth II are of the House of Windsor - previously called Saxe-Coburg and Gotha but changed to Windsor during WWI as to sound less German. Possibly somewhere distantly related to some Tudors but not directly in lineage.
Don't understand why they have Prince Harry's title as Prince of Wales.
Diana was a direct descendant of Edward I (Longshanks). Maybe that’s where she got some of her height from. Edward I was 6’2”. Diana was 5’10”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.