I’ve become side tracked by Edward IV’s mistresses and illegitimate children. I’ve already posted about his holiest mistress – Lady Eleanor Butler and I posted last year about the ‘merriest mistress’ Jane, or rather Elizabeth, Shore. I may write another post about her in due course. That just leaves the wiliest mistress – who would appear to be Elizabeth Lucie or Lucy nee Wayte and who often merits only a sentence in works on Edward IV because unlike the other two very little is known about her.
There were other women as well but they seem to have been so numerous and so unimportant in the great scheme of things that no one bothered to jot down their names. Polydore Vergil writing after 1505 for his Anglica Historia commissioned by Henry VII suggests that Edward may have made overtures in some very inappropriate places – including the Earl of Warwick’s wider household “and yt caryeth soome colour of truthe, which commonly is reportyd, that king Edward showld have assayed to do soome unhonest act in the earls howse; for as muche as the king was a man who wold readyly cast an eye upon yowng ladyes, and loove them inordinately.” Obviously it wasn’t in Vergil’s best interest to sell the York king as a choir boy but then neither did anyone else. Commines noted that much of Edward IV’s problem was his interest in pleasure. Mancini described him as “licentious in the extreme.” He also wrote “he (Edward) pursued with no discrimination the married and unmarried the noble and lowly: however he took none by force.” According to Ross, the Croyland Chronicle was amazed that Edward was able to rule a kingdom whilst partaking of so many “sensual enjoyments.” Gregory’s Chronicle, which Ross notes is the most contemporary of the reports, commented that Edward wasn’t very chaste…something of an understatement it would appear.
Sir Thomas More, who was only four when Edward died, wrote about Elizabeth Lucy and seems to have mistaken her with Eleanor Butler – either that or Edward spent his time running around the countryside promising to marry unsuitable widows whenever they put up a bit of resistance to his advances. He writes, “The Duchess (Cecily, Duchess of York, Edward IV’s mother), with these words nothing appeased, and seeing the King (Edward IV) so set thereon that she could not pull him back, so highly she disdained it that under pretext of her duty to God, she devised to disturb this marriage [to Elizabeth Woodville], and rather to help that he should marry one Dame Elizabeth Lucy, whom the King had also not long before gotten with child. Wherefore the King’s mother objected openly against his marriage, as it were in discharge of her conscience, that the King was betrothed to Dame Elizabeth Lucy, and her husband before God….Whereupon Dame Elizabeth Lucy was sent for. And although she was by the King’s mother and many others filled with good encouragement-to affirm that she was betrothed unto the King-yet when she was solemnly sworn to say the truth, she confessed that they were never betrothed. However, she said his Grace spoke so loving words unto her that she verily hoped he would have married her, and that if it had not been for such kind words, she would never have showed such kindness to him, to let him so kindly get her with child.”
So just who was Dame Elizabeth Lucy? Ashdown-Hill, pro-Richardian historian, identifies her as the daughter of Thomas Wayte of Hampshire. Further digging around reveals that this is not necessarily the case. Michael Hicks notes that More was wrong about the pre-contract and goes on to suggest that he was also wrong about the lady’s name as there is no one by the name of Elizabeth Lucy in the records – at least not some one of reasonably noble birth. Digging around on the Internet yielded an interesting forum discussion which identifies Margaret FitzLewis widow of Sir William Lucy. Its perhaps not surprising then that historians have placed her social status as anything from the wife/daughter of the peer of the realm to good-time girl or as the Seventeenth Century historian Buck described her – a ‘wanton wench.’
Byrne is much more clear cut in her introduction to the Lisle Letters. She places Elizabeth Lucy as being a nineteen-year-old widow of Lancastrian connections from an established Hampshire family holding a number of manors when she met the king.
Whoever the elusive Elizabeth really was she is the mother of Arthur Plantagenet (born anytime between 1461 and 1475 depending upon which source you read but Byrne opts for 1462) who is referenced as having family in Hampshire, a fact which is corroborated in the Lisle Letters which locates the Wayte family, or parts of it, in Titchfield. Arthur also had a sister called Elizabeth (born 1464 ish), though apparently we can’t even agree on that, some researchers argue that actually she was called Margaret…so there’s either a name error or possibly two daughters. And of course, some historians argue that because of the possible difference in their ages Arthur and Elizabeth might not have had the same mother (yes I know, if there’s only about three years between them that its not an issue but there is a reference which suggests Arthur was born in 1475 -so a lot of ifs, buts and maybes.)
Any way, Elizabeth daughter of Edward IV married Thomas Lumley of Durham. The Duchess of Cambridge is numbered among her descendants. Further evidence as to Elizabeth’s royal father is provided by the papal dispensation which allowed Elizabeth’s son Roger to marry Anne Conyers – the two of them being related within the prohibited degrees of affinity (something like fourth cousins) Testamenta Eboracensia 3 (Surtees Soc., vol. 45) (1865): 355).
History isn’t totally sure what happened to Elizabeth Lucy nee Wayte. She simply disappears from the records which suggests that either the king was no longer interested in her, she died or if she was from the lower social orders simply got on with her life along with countless other undocumented medieval people. Putting a post on Elizabeth Lucy together is rather like a composite character exercise!
Edward IV did have other illegitimate children, not counting his children with Elizabeth Woodville who found themselves delegitimised by their Uncle Richard, but history doesn’t provide them with mothers. Grace Plantagenet, for example, turns up at the funeral of Elizabeth Woodville but beyond that we know very little. There is a tantalising hint of an unknown daughter marrying into the Musgrave family but it was unsupported by any evidence. There’s a better evidenced possibility of the wife of the 6th Baron Audley being one of Edward IV’s daughters – though I’m sure that there are probably arguments for her being someone else entirely!
Ashdown-Hill, John (1999) ‘The Elusive Mistress: Elizabeth Lucy and Her Family’ in The Richardian 11 (June 1999), pp. 490–505. 31
Crawford, Anne. (2007) The Yorkists: The History of a Dynasty. London: Continuum
Given-Wilson & A. Curteis (1984) Royal Bastards of Medieval London:Routledge and Keegan
Hicks, Michael. (2002) English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century. New York: Routledge
Hicks, Micael (2004) Edward IV London: Bloomsbury
Ross, Charles Derek. (1997) Edward IV (English Monarchs Series) New Haven and London: Yale University Press
St. Clare Byrne, Murial (1983) The Lisle Letters: An Abridgement
Weir, Alison (1994) The Princes In The Tower London:Random House
Elizabeth Waite, in Lundy, Darryl. The Peerage: A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain as well as the royal families of Europe.
You have been digging.Bucks book I have it, praises Richard and really nothing else. A good argument but he like Joe Tey had no idea of the Paston Letters. Now Edward was a great general a good King but one hell of a liar over his conquests of the bed. Charles 11 had nothing on him. Yes if you believe Proud Cecile and Stephen Langton and Warwick himself then Edward had in truth married the Talbot girl months prior to getting into Woodville knickers with promises of marriage. Wrong slip up as she nailed him and may well have killed him for power. He of course whored on in secret now. It is easier to say who he did not have sex with than who he really did.I believe Richard, as loyal to him as ever kept more than one secret until it was too late and just had to come out.He even told the court,in front of his mother,that Edward himself was a bastard from a French archer his mother had had when living in France with her husband the Duke of York away fighting. No record really exists of what Proud Cec had said in reply but by that silence in record one must make ones own mind up. Richard and George both looked like the Duke their father but Eddie was giant blonde with blue yes and towered above his brothers. I ran a check on that French Archer that son Dick brought into focus. He too was giant blonde with a way with the ladies. His affair with the Duchess of York prod Ces was the talk of the wash house even at that time. It is beyond belief her returning husband had no idea. As he was bumped off not that long afterwards we will never know. I stood on that cobbled court yard at Richmond looking over perhaps the same view as The Duchess and her three boys at foot on hearing her husband was killed. I too had no place to go on that day having faced the court for divorce from Lady judith Cameron and sold the house in Wensleydale and the flat in London. I was free and just 30 years old after 9 years of fun and drinks and other men. Who cares she knows it all. I became a Baronet six weeks later when my old Uncle died at the rails at Ascot having won 45 quid. They rang me in Paris to come home. I was just a Hons from birth and found still I hand not managed the Peerage.Now retired and feeling the strain a bit one thinks back on what research I did on other peoples history family or others when all I had to do was study form om the inlaws and be a Duke by now.