Editing Lady Eleanor Talbot (section)

==Views of historians==
Because Commines does not name the "beautiful young lady", and the official copy of ''Titulus Regius'' in parliament had been destroyed, [[Tudor dynasty|Tudor]] historians confused Talbot with Edward's long-standing mistress [[Elizabeth Lucy]] (also known as Elizabeth Wayte), the probable mother of Edward IV's bastard son, [[Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle]]. [[Thomas More]], in his life of Richard III, states that Lucy was interrogated at the time of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, because Edward's mother was strongly opposed to the marriage and had suggested that Edward was pre-contracted to Lucy. But Lucy denied that any contract had been made. More says that Richard revived the claim after Edward's death.<ref>J.R. Lumby (ed), ''More's History of king Richard III'', Cambridge University Press, 1883, pp.61–2, 70</ref>

[[George Buck]], who found the only surviving copy of ''Titulus Regius'', was the first to identify Eleanor Talbot as the woman in question. Buck, a defender of Richard, accepted the validity of the precontract. His view has been followed by many defenders of Richard since, including [[Horace Walpole]]<ref>''The Works of Horatio Walpole, Earl of Orford'', G. G. and J. Robinson, 1798, p.113.</ref> and [[Clements Markham]].<ref>Clements R. Markham, ''Richard III: his life & character, reviewed in the light of recent research'', London: Smith and Elder, 1906, pp.94–101.</ref> Later [[Ricardian (Richard III)|Ricardians]] have also either accepted it as fact, or argued that Richard sincerely believed it to be true. It is also commonly argued by Ricardians that Stillington was imprisoned by Edward IV in 1478 because he incautiously spoke of the precontract to [[George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence|George, Duke of Clarence]].<ref name = "john"/><ref>John Ashdown-Hill, ''Eleanor, the Secret Queen: The Woman Who Put Richard III on the Throne'', The History Press, 2009.</ref>

Other historians have been more sceptical. John A. Wagner states that "most modern historians believe the precontract to be a fabrication devised to give Richard III's usurpation a veneer of legitimacy. The betrothal cannot be documented beyond the account rehearsed in ''Titulus Regius'', and Richard never attempted to have the precontract authenticated by a church court, the proper venue for such a case".<ref name = "john">John A. Wagner, "Butler precontract (1483)", ''Encyclopedia of the Wars of the Roses'', ABC-CLIO, 2001, pp.42–3.</ref> Anne Crawford takes the view that any actual precontract with Eleanor Talbot is unlikely. If it had occurred before her marriage to Thomas Butler it would have been invalidated by the marriage. She suggests that the story may have originated with discussions between Edward's father [[Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York|Richard, Duke of York]], and Eleanor's father [[John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury]], of a possible marriage, while both men were serving in France. But even that "seems hardly likely".<ref name = "anne">Anne Crawford, ''The Yorkists: The History of a Dynasty'', "appeandix II, Edward IV's Possible Pre-Contract of Marriage", pp.179–80.</ref> Any valid precontract would most likely have been made in the early phase of Edward's reign, but the fact that Eleanor did not come forward when Edward married his queen militates against it. She also considers it odd that Eleanor's family did not support Richard's claims about the precontract. Since Edward was "not stupid enough" to have been unaware that any precontact would threaten his children's claim to the throne, if it had existed he could easily have applied to the Pope to free himself of it, which would have been the action of "any prudent king and his advisors".<ref name = "anne"/> Michael Alexander argues that a precontract of marriage to Eleanor Talbot would not have affected the legitimacy of Edward's sons, since they were born after she died, her death negating any marriage.<ref>Michael Van Cleave Alexander, ''The First of the Tudors: A Study of Henry VII and His Reign'', Taylor & Francis, 1981, p.9.</ref>

However, according to Helmholz (1986),<ref>R.H. Helmholz, 'The sons of Edward IV: a canonical assessment of the claim that they were illegitimate', in Richard III: Loyalty, Lordship and Law, ed P.W. Hammond (London, 1986, repr. 2000).</ref> canon law in this situation would not mitigate the illegitimacy of Edward's sons as, if the pre-contract existed, it would have meant that adultery had taken place on the part of Edward with Elizabeth. As such the illegitimacy could not be overcome by the death of Eleanor before the birth of Elizabeth's sons, even if Edward and Elizabeth married 'again' after Eleanor's death.<ref>[[s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Legitimation|Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)- Legitimation by William Henry Windsor Fanning]]</ref>
{{Failed verification|reason=Source does not support this interpretation|date=August 2022}} <!-- Source actually supports the views in the previous paragraph: "It is to be noted that all children born of marriage are presumed in canon law to be legitimate. This holds, not only for valid marriages, but also for such as are commonly reputed to be valid, though really invalid, provided such marriages were entered into, by at least one of the parties, in good faith. A marriage of this latter kind is called a putative marriage. ... Illegitimate natural children are legitimated by a valid or putative marriage subsequently contracted between their parents, even if that marriage be not consummated... But this privilege is extended only to those between whose parents a legitimate marriage would be possible either at the time of birth or conception, or, at least, at some intermediate time, not to those whose parents, during that whole period, would be bound by a diriment impediment." -->

Even if there was no formal precontract it is possible that Eleanor Talbot's name was used because she was known to have been one of the king's lovers. According to Thomas More, Edward had three "concubines" to whom he referred as the "merriest", the "wiliest" and "the holiest harlot in the realm" (who was always in church when she wasn't in bed with the king).<ref>The "king would say that he had three concubines who in three diverse properties diversely excelled: one the merriest, another the wiliest, the third the holiest harlot in the realm, as one whom no man could get out of the church lightly but it were to his bed." Keith Dockray (ed), ''Edward IV: a sourcebook'', Sutton, 1999, p.15.</ref> More names the "merriest" as [[Jane Shore]], but does not name the others because they were of higher social status ("somewhat greater personages"). It has been speculated that Elizabeth Lucy and Eleanor Talbot were the other two.<ref>Linda Simon, ''Of virtue rare: Margaret Beaufort, matriarch of the House of Tudor'', Houghton Mifflin, 1982, p.58.</ref><ref>Chris Given Wilson, Alice Curteis, ''The Royal Bastards of Medieval England'', Routledge, 1984, p. 12.</ref> Her loss of property after the death of her husband may have initiated the affair. [[Michael Hicks (historian)|Michael Hicks]] suggests that King Edward was liable to give "benefits" in exchange for sex: "Three young widows, Eleanor Butler, Elizabeth Lucy and Elizabeth Wydeville [Woodville], may have bought concrete benefits from Edward IV with their sexual favours".<ref>Michael Hicks, ''English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century'', Routledge, New York, 2002, p.16</ref>