Treason and plots – a tale of 1468

Lady Eleanor Butler (born Talbot) probably knew that she was dying. In the early months of 1468, she transferred the lands that were hers to transfer to her sister, Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk. Where these lands came from is something of a mystery. John Ashdown-Hill has demonstrated that they were not dower lands, could not have been inherited, and were almost certainly not bought by Lady Eleanor, as she lacked the resources. The most probable origin of this mysterious land is that it was a gift from Edward IV. As King Edward was not in the habit of gifting land to random females this is suggestive of a connection between them. Of course, some people have pointed out that the land was not particularly valuable. Oh, well that makes it OK then! The point is that land –  even small amounts of it – was not just handed out for no reason. No one has satisfactorily explained where the land came from if it did not come from the King.

Anyway, no sooner was this sorted than King Edward appointed Duchess Elizabeth to go to Burgundy with his sister, Margaret of York, on the occasion of the latter’s wedding. This involved the Duchess being in charge of the whole female side of things – no mean responsibility when around one hundred women and girls were attached to Margaret’s train. The reason for Elizabeth’s selection was probably that she was the most senior English lady who was not either a member of the royal house or a Woodville, or both. It may also have been intended as a mark of favour to her husband, John Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, who, although apparently not the sharpest knife in the drawer by a long way, was at least a loyal Yorkist.

So off they popped to sunny Burgundy, to the celebration and pageantry that John Paston felt there were no words to describe. Elizabeth’s brother, Sir Humphrey Talbot, went with her. The unfortunate Eleanor was left behind in Norfolk to die without any of her birth family around her, although one would like to think that Norfolk himself visited with the occasional bunch of flowers. She was buried in the house of the White Carmelites at Norwich.

Elizabeth had scarcely set foot back in England (round about July 1468) when two of her servants John Poynings and Richard Alford, were charged with having treasonable dealings with the agents of the Lancastrians in Kouer-La-Petite. Brought to trial, they were found guilty and were hanged, drawn and quartered.

Now, as I mentioned above, Elizabeth’s husband, Norfolk, was a loyal Yorkist. So why should his servants have been suspected of intrigue with the Lancastrians? It makes no obvious sense. Elizabeth herself – though one of the most charming individuals to appear in the Paston Letters – was in no position to do anything of significance for the Lancastrian cause even if she was that way inclined. She did not control her husband’s retainers, or his castles, or anything helpful.

One of the Lancastrian exiles present in Flanders was, however, Somerset, Elizabeth’s first cousin, and brother to her good friend Lady Anne Paston. It is possible that she sought to pass on family news to him – but if this is the explanation, the treatment of her servants was extremely severe.

So was this a shot across the bows, to warn Elizabeth to keep her mouth shut about – certain matters? Who knows.

What can be said is that on 8 December 1468 the Duchess took out a pardon for all offences before 7 December. It is quite unusual for a married woman to take out a pardon without the inclusion of her husband. In civil matters she had no separate legal standing, she was under coverture. It may simply have been an insurance for any errors or omissions committed while serving in the office of Margaret’s Principal Lady-in-Waiting. There was, after all, potentially a lot to go wrong, jewels to go missing, whatever. But it could also indicate something more sinister.

On 28 January 1469, the Duchess’ brother, Sir Humphrey Talbot also received a general pardon.

It looks to me as if in the autumn/early winter of 1468, Elizabeth and Humphrey were under royal suspicion for something. The question is, was it something they did, or something they knew?




  1. There is only one thing of which they could have known: the pre-contract.
    In 1538, to persuade Sir Geoffrey Pole to implicate his brother (Henry, Lord Montagu) in a “plot”, his servants were threatened with torture. No gentleman would allow this to happen and Sir Geoffrey testified to the “plot”, resulting in his brother’s execution.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Edward was certainly ‘going some’ to execute the servants of an impeccably loyal Yorkist lord. This, by the standards of the time, was equivalent to giving a loyal follower a slap in the mush for no reason. It’s interesting to draw a parallel with how Clarence reacted when his servants came under attack by Edward – he lost it completely. Edward must have had his reasons.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Is it possible that Eleanor did not know she was close to death? That her sudden demise was a shock to all? I mean, I gather Elizabeth and Humphrey, and possibly the Lisle children, who had accompanied them to Burgundy, dashed back to England as soon as they heard. Caught on the hop, it seems. I think I must defend them from any suggestion they bogged off and just left her to die. They were close siblings, the only three of their father’s second marriage. I have my own theories about all this, but being your admiring pupil, Stephen, will keep them to myself.

    ????? words, and counting….

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Indeed. What is the truth of the possible pre-contract and even possible priest-blessed between Eleanor Talbot and Edward lV? We can only speculate, somewhat based on the later progress of Edward’s conduct toward Elizabeth Wydville. On an irrelevant issue, the Murrey and Blue author prompts me to jump down rabbit holes. (Not his fault, it takes little prompting, just a personal besetting sin.) Was Margaret of York/Burgundy married under “sunny skies”? Is Flanders sunny? Or is Dijon sunny? So I have to research the wedding location of Margaret and Charles. Totally irrelevant. But going down the rabbit-hole. 🙂


    1. The executions of the servants is an interesting little detail. Unfortunately like so many incidents in the lives of Edward IV and Richard III, there is little factual information available and one is reduced to making informed assumptions. Unfortunately, informed assumptions do nothing to convince traditionalists.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.