#and using this to argue that Eleanor considered herself married to Edward and as a married woman unfortunately could not bequeath real

[wonder-worker]

Here’s the thing I need people to understand:

Even if we believe that the (entirely unproven and far too politically convenient) pre-contract story between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot was true, it doesn’t actually matter. Even if it was hypothetically true, there was still no reason why Edward V – who was already King at that point and was referred to as such – couldn’t have been able to succeed his father regardless.

David Horspool (Richard's own historian) summarizes it better than I could, so I’m just quoting him here:

"[Richard also made] no allowance for any potential solution to the problem that might have re-legitimized Edward V and his siblings. These included securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, as happened to Henry VIII’s variously tainted offspring; or even ignoring the issue and proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed, and render allegations of his bastardy as newer versions of the old tittle-tattle about his father."

In short, even if Edward IV truly had a pre-contract with Eleanor Talbot, and even if all of his children with Elizabeth Woodville were supposedly illegitimate, it should by no means prevent Edward V from succeeding his father to the throne. If Richard truly wanted to support his nephew, he had a variety of useful and entirely workeable options to choose from. Instead, he officially declared his nieces and nephews (including a literal 3-year-old) illegitimate, kept Edward V and his even younger brother confined in the Tower of London, and declared himself King.

Why didn't Richard take these actions, all of which he would have been well aware of? As Horspool says simply: "that Richard took none of these courses was because he had no interest in doing so."

The ONLY conclusion we can come to based on Richard's actions is summarized most succinctly by A.J Pollard:

"The truth of the matter is that Richard III did not want Edward V to be legitimate because he did not want him to be king."

#r*chard iii #richard iii #my post #edward iv #princes in the tower #imo this is the main crux of the argument #it DOESN'T MATTER if the pre-contract story was actually true #even if it was true there was no actual reason why Edward V couldn't have been crowned regardless if Richard had truly wanted to support hi #sorry I saw something annoying on Twitter and wanted to rant #(I wasn't even searching for it lol it just popped up; it's very annoying) #I saw a bunch of people quoting John Ashdown-Hill (yeah that guy) on the fact that Eleanor chose to deed some of her property to her sister #Elizabeth Talbot during her lifetime rather than leave it to her in her will #and using this to argue that Eleanor considered herself married to Edward and as a married woman unfortunately could not bequeath real #property by will without her husband's consent #which is absolutely ridiculous considering the fact that #A MARRIED WOMAN ALSO COULD NOT DEED PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF HER HUSBAND #Eleanor choosing to deed property to her sister during her life proves that *she did not consider herself married to anyone at the time* #Which ... should be extremely significant and indicative! #and should in fact settle the argument once and for all #I don't know how Ricardians have somehow twisted it and claim the opposite #anyway im done ranting. bye