] One is tempted to see it in the light of a childless couple who yearn for a child to whom they can leave their riches, and whilst I don't discount the importance of such feelings, I really wonder if there isn't more involved in all this. As Lief says, Edward was there even on the honeymoon, as if this was a calculated move which had nothing to do with childlessness. Why Edward? Apart from age and temper, which made him the most appealing of the bunch perhaps, and the one least likely to shine academically, from what can be known. Was there something about the inheritance of the Knight estates that precluded them being inherited by children of Thomas Knight?

Could it have been as simple as the Knights didn't want any children, but they wanted to have an heir? Adopting Edward was certainly less troublesome than having kids of their own. (I thought I'd throw that one out...) But as has been mentioned, it is pretty interesting that Edward went on their honeymoon with them. He wasn't the legal heir, though, until he was 16, right?
Pretty interesting.