Was Edward of Westminster the product of an affair between Margaret of Anjou and Edmund Beaufort?

by Armchair_Aristocrat

I find myself very curious about whether Edward of Westminster was actually the son of Henry VI and I was hoping for clarification.

​

  • The Duke of Somerset seemed to be irrationally favoured by Margaret of Anjou, arguably to the point of self destruction.
  • Edmund Beaufort had a proven interest in the wives of kings, having pursued Catherine of Valois, the widow of Henry V previously.
  • Some sources claim that Henry VI was in his stupor period when Edward would have been conceived and Henry was noted (according to some sources)to have said something to the effect that the 'holy ghost must be the father'.
  • Henry and Margaret had produced no children in 8 years until (or right before) Henry went into his coma.

Other sources put no credence in this idea (Dan Jones doesn't seem to credit it) but it somewhat beggars belief. We know that people of the time whispered about this possibility but it seems like this would be the strongest casus belli for the Yorkist cause (instead of government mismanagement) and that it's underemphasised. I would like to know more about the arguments for or against Edward's parentage and what people were saying about it at the time.

Thank you for your time!

DogfishDave

You've pretty much summed up the arguments for and against and, as you point out, each side had an interest in being correct.

The Yorkists argued strongly against the legitimacy of Edward of Westminster (also known as Edward of Lancaster) because it strengthened their lineal claim to the throne through descent from Edward III. The Lancastrians naturally argued that Edward was the true son of Henry VI in order to continue their hold on power although ultimately the question was moot given Edward's subsequent death in battle.

The difficulty with any historical sources created at the time of such a key issue is that the majority of them will display a bias to one side or the other - all we can do is try to pick out the facts.

For example, it seems that the illness-based claim of Henry having reached incapability at the time of Edward's conception may be incorrect - contemporary sources lead us to believe that Henry VI succumbed to his mental illness shortly after Edward's birth. The "holy ghost" statement could well be propagandist, in counter we know that Henry VI publicly acknowledged Edward's legitimacy. We don't have any way of knowing if Henry VI was capable or incapable of the reproductive act at any time in his kingship and there's no reason to suppose that he was thus incapable even in the depths of his illness.

Furthermore it's difficult to assess the meaning of Henry and Margaret's eight year wait for a child when it's demonstrably true, even in this modern age of relative good health, that couples can wait years for a pregnancy.

As for the friendships between Margaret and Edmund Beaufort: it's evident that they shared a mutual trust but it is impossible to say if they did have assignations. However, in a court full of such intrigue it's difficult to believe that any physical relationship would not have been publicly reported and immediately scandalised. After all, it would have been the very thing that the Yorkists needed to seal their weakening grip on the inheritance.

On balance my own feeling has always been that Edward was indeed legitimate, but it's safe to say that the matter can never be truly settled.

​

^(Sources:)

^(The Reign of King Henry VI; Griffiths R A; 1981)

^(Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou: A Marriage of Unequals; Licence A; 2018)

^(Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England; Maurer, H; 2005)