Edward, indeed, married Eleanor Talbot. Robert Stillington was a witness to it. Here is Paul Murray Kendall on the subject: “In the eyes of the Church, the essence of marriage was consent, a mutual interchange of personal vows; therefore, betrothal had the force of a legal tie and the sanction of sacred obligation.” Henry 8 used Anne Boleyn’s supposed betrothal to the Earl of Northumberland to get rid of her. We cannot view betrothal in a modern way. It was legally binding and used to put aside a child king who would have been a disaster given his villainous mother and her villainous and rapacious family.
Nicholas Von Poppolau was a diplomat, not a “so-called” diplomat. His account of staying with Richard 3 several months before Bosworth Field is one of the few real glimpses we have of this maligned king. He reports that the boys were alive. Von Poppolau turns up in every decent history book written about R3. There is now a tantilizing hint put forward by my friend, Stephen Lark, that the children were seen at Gipping Hall in Suffolk. That was the ancestral home of the much-maligned and lied-about Sir James Tyrell. It’s been suggested that this is where they were sent before slipping into the continent. (This is still speculation.)
I’m not going to bandy words and try to prove a negative - even with a law enforcement professional. Believe what you want to believe about the disappearance of those children. But I wouldn’t take the remains in the urns at Westminster Abbey too seriously. From their brief examination we are not even sure if they were male or female or from what era they were from. And one had a serious jaw disease. Neither of the princes was reported to have that. Elizabeth 2 will not allow the urn to be reopened - perhaps Charles will. I think it will be akin to Al Capone’s vault.
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?