Edward of Westminster (or Lancaster), the only child of king Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou, was born on 13 October 1453 and was the rightful Prince of Wales.
He was the touchstone for the War of the Roses and the only heir apparent to the English throne to ever be killed in battle. Edward of Westminster, sometimes called Edward of Lancaster, should have been king Edward IV when his father died, but another Edward took his place on the throne; his cousin Edward, the 4th Duke of York and the eldest surviving son of Richard Plantagenet 3rd duke of York), became king Edward IV following a political coup against Henry VI and the death of the Prince of Wales during the Battle of Tewkesbury.
Britain was torn apart by civil war while Edward of Westminster’s mother, Margaret of Anjou, fought tooth and nail for her son’s inheritance from the York cousins who were trying to usurp his throne. Often, historian blaming her for the Wars of the Roses, rather than Richard, 3rd Duke of York … as if fighting back against the man trying to steal her son’s crown was bad behavior on her part.
According to author and historian Susan Higginbotham, one of the reasons that Margaret of Anjou “continues to be so maligned by novelists and even some writers of nonfiction is that much of the material that is available about her (especially online) is out of date or based on dated or discredited sources.” For one thing, her reputation was besmirched by allegations that Edward of Lancaster was not the legitimate son of Henry VI, but there is no evidence to support these rumors. It is nothing more or less than than trying to justify the attempt to take Edward of Westminster’s rightful place on the throne after his father. Higginbotham additionally points out that “the loyalty of Margaret to her husband and to her son is depicted as the power-mad reaction of a vengeful woman. Evidently her modern-day detractors feel that she should have settled back and worked on tapestries while her son was being deprived of his crown.”
Her son, whose birthright was stolen from him by the men who killed him, has also been falsely depicted as bloodthirsty. He was certainly eager to fight the men who were holding his mentally ill father as a captive and ruling England in his stead, but this is perhaps understandable. Henry VI was in the throes of hallucinations and perhaps schizophrenia when Edward of Lancaster was born on October 13, 1453. Until the birth of the prince, Richard Plantagenet had been Henry’s heir. Richard was unhappy about being displaced; he and his followers quickly made accusations of bastardy against the newborn.
Prince Edward was only six when his father was taken prisoner by the Earl of Warwick, one of York’s allies. Richard then ruled in the King’s place. Margaret marshaled her forces and a few months after her son turned seven she rescued her husband from Warwick and killed Richard Plantagenet. Nonetheless, her army could not take London from Plantagenet’s son Edward of York. With his access to the Tower of London, Edward of York had himself crowned king Edward IV in March of 1461. Prince Edward’s parents were forced to flee to Scotland with their young son. Prince Edward spent the next nine years in exile and learning to fight so that he could one day reclaim his crown.
In 1470 it seemed as though Edward of Westminster wouldn’t have to lead an army, though, because Edward IV’s allies and brother turned against him and Henry VI was restored to the throne. It didn’t last long. Henry was a puppet king and his wife and son were banished to France. Soon, Henry was imprisoned in the Tower of London by his enemies once again. Margaret and Prince Edward brought an army from France to rescue Henry and reclaim the throne. The Yorkists and Lancastrians fought on May 4th, 1471 and Prince Edward was slain. He was only 17 years old.
With nothing left to fight for, Margaret surrendered. Henry VI conveniently died shortly there after, and Edward VI ruled England until his sudden death in 1483.
Now it was Edward’s young sons, Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, who were left to try to hold the throne while greedy nobles circled around them like sharks. The boys, known better as The Princes in the Tower, were declared illegitimate (just like Prince Edward of Lancaster has been) their uncle was declared to be the ‘real’ king and crowned Richard III. His queen was Prince Edward’s widow, Anne Neville. The boys disappeared shortly thereafter, most likely murdered by Richard’s allies and possibly at his command.
Margaret of Anjou didn’t get to see the karmic irony of Edward’s teenage heir being killed by relatives who wanted the throne, since she had died a year earlier. Nor did she get to see that Richard III’s son, another Prince of Wales named Edward, would die in less than a year after Richard took the crown. Richard himself would be killed by Henry Tudor’s forces at the Battle of Bosworth Field.
The Wars of the Roses was finally over.
Henry Tudor was crowned Henry VII and married Edward VI’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York, uniting the York and Lancaster factions, and founding the Tudor Dynasty.
This is an extremely problematic post. I cannot understand the logic of smearing Richard III in what was stated as an argument against smearing Edward of Westminster! I am not condemning Edward’s character in any case. Psychological profiling applied to history is problematic enough with recent figures, let alone someone who died in the 15th century. Whatever he was like, Gods help the kid if this approach is his only chance at a revamped image. Not only is there a glaring typo in here, it has never been necessary to vilianize Richard III to save the reputation of anyone except for Henry VII and his potentially sociopathic mother. (Who probably killed Richard’s beloved nephews). I see references to historical fiction in here (as if that proves a thing) and some avowals of Richard’s guilt for a crime that common consensus seems closer to exonerating him from as time passes. It continuously amazes me how many people willfully ignore the basic reality that Richard needed those boys ALIVE! Poltically, that was crucial for him. Failing that, he needed their bodies to expose publicly and mourn over. As a former Medieval History focus in University and Post Grad, (I admit I went over to another era for my MA in history) I would love to see historians from any academic, or popular training and any involved in public discourse work a great deal more thoughtfully and effectively than this.
Richard III needed his nephews alive AFTER he was haemorrhaging allies because he was accused of killing them. Before that, they were a major threat to his crown and his son’s inheritance and it was safer for him and his son if the Princes in the Tower joined their cousin Edward of Westminster in Heaven. By the time he needed to show that the boys were alive, he couldn’t bring them back from the dead. And as long as no bodies were found, his supporters could still argue the boys were really still alive (which is working even 500 years later, so it was a good plan). Once the boys were confirmed dead, the idea he murdered them would be entrenched in the public mind and he might lose even more allies who had formerly been staunch Yorkists. If they WERE alive, he could have helped his cause a great deal by trotting them out. So their absence, even when it would have helped Richard III, is a strong indicator that they were already mouldering in a shallow grave.