Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:13 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
Just because Cecily left MB a religious book in her will, we should not imply friendship between them. It was probably political, after all, they had common descendants in the children of H7 and EoY. What is interesting is that Cecily’s will specifically refers to Edward IV as the true son of her husband, Richard, Duke of York. As her will was made close to her death, and as she was pious, I don’t think she would have died with such a lie on her lips, if Edward had been illegitimate.
I also don’t buy the story that before Bosworth, the country was in such a terrible state that it needed H7 to put it right. H7 was king by right of conquest, not a comfortable position to be in, given that there were a fair number of Yorkist royals with a better claim to the crown. Certainly H7 managed to imprison or execute all the Yorkist heirs he could lay his hands on, leaving it to his son to execute the remainder, including Clarence’s daughter, Margaret of Salisbury who was in her 60s at the time.
I don’t think EW chose to retire to a convent. stripped of all her possessions.
1:29 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Jasmine I have seen historians speculate that she left Richard’s name out of her will to appease Henry VII, but I don’t think she needed to at that point. Another thing I have seen speculated is her fury at Richard for claiming Edward was illegitimate, and I agree that her naming him as the true son of her husband in her will was to prove a point, and she would not have lied about it. I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say how she felt about Richard either way he was still visiting her close to his death.
Bo I am sure Cecily was being pragmatic, she had lived through her husband’s death and the death of four of her sons in war, Edward’s remaining family was now tied to the crown, there’s not much point raging against the victors, especially not at her age. I just read that EOY inherited a good chunk of land from her which increased her income. I am reasonably sure she was a presence around court on some occasions at least, but I have read a couple of conflicting reports, one has her at Prince Arthur’s christening.
The treasury was depleted enough that Richard was forced to borrow money after Edward IV’s death. Henry VII’s early imposing of fines was to try and keep the nobles in check and stamp out bastard feudalism, another thing that is often overlooked. The heavier taxes later in his reign are another matter.
I think the hunting down of all the Yorks by Henry VII is a little exaggerated. Yes he did keep Edward Plantagenet imprisoned, but he was only executed at the insistence of Ferdinand and Isabella, so that the marriage between Arthur and Katherine could go ahead. The Spanish ambassador crowed about it after the poor buy was executed, although obviously the plot between him and Warbeck was manufactured. He had also left Warbeck alone until that point, he didn;t have any plans to execute either of them. I have a theory that it affected Henry VII’s treatment of Katherine of Aragon after Isabella died, I think he hated Ferdinand for forcing his hand. But that is just my theory.
Then there is the Earl of Suffolk later on towards the end of his reign and that is about it as far as I know. I don’t think he really executed Richard’s illegitimate son John.
What Henry VIII did was another matter, but his throne was far more secure than his fathers. I think adding to his treasury always held an attraction for him. I also think that Margaret Pole suffered for Reginald at the end of it. She had lived with the Tudors for more than five decades without coming to any harm, although admittedly Henry was entering his severely paranoid stage at this point.
2:09 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga – you say that H7 kept Edward of Warwick imprisoned and only executed him because of the Spanish marriage, but consider – Edward was a child when H7 imprisoned him – Richard had had the boy in his household and had looked after him. The boy’s only ‘crime’ was being a son of Clarence. Then, H7 organised things so that he could be accused of plotting with Warbeck and thus executed. A complete innocent who had had no opportunity to live a proper life. It is interesting that Richard is accused of murdering ‘innocent’ children, but what Henry did to young Warwick was the same – he merely kept the boy in prison until he could justify killing him, yet his reputation has not been stained by it in the same way that Richard’s has.
I don’t agree that he had no plans to execute Warbeck, I think he did. After all, Warbeck was no Lambert Simnel to be kept on as a kitchen boy. He was a cousin by marriage of the King of Scots, he had foreign support and H7 could not have been sure that there would not be risings in his name. H7’s cleverness was using him to ‘safely’ get rid of Warwick.
No one knows what happened to John of Gloucester – he disappears from the record in the late 1480s.
2:56 pm
June 3, 2013
Offline
i think the relationships between the Yorkists and the Tudors post-1485 is actually extremely interesting, and is probably a bysantine mix of both the political and the personal.
i’m certainly inclined to believe that Cecilly Nevilles friendliness towards MB has a very significant political element, she is on the losing side, having friends on the winning side is probably a good idea – she’s a landowner in her own right, she has interests to protect, and by establishing a cordial relationship with MB she may be able to protect the Neville children as well as the Clarences. its also worth remembering that they were cousins, and that as has been mentioned, their dynasties are tied together – if one falls, so does the other.
much as i wouldn’t wish to stray into Phillipa Gregory territory, i find the women of the period very interesting – they were all related to each other, they all had birth family interests that clashed with their married family’s interests, and they faced events in which some of their decendants/relatives killed other of their decendants/relatives: it would be spectacularly interesting to know how they navigated such events.
Cecilly Nevilles will is interesting, does anyone know when it was written? the note about Edward IV being the ‘true born son’ of her husband may not be a criticism of Richard III – Richard only made a fleating reference to Edwards legitimacy in 1483, he almost immediately dropped the subject and concentrated on the legitimacy of Edwards children – its more likely to be a more general proclamation: the allegation was used by Richard Neville, her Nephew, and by George, Duke of Clarence – her son – against Edward IV. the absence of mention of Richard III may well be political in seeking to ‘draw a veil’ over memories of ‘Bad Dick III’, but it may also be a reflection of reality: when Cecilly Neville died in 1495 Richard, his wife and his legitimate child had all been dead a decade, the illegitimate daughter (Katherine) we think died by 1487, and we’re not absolutely sure when the ollegitimate son (John) died or when he was born – he may either have been executed by Henry VII after one of the many pretender rebellions against him, or he lived out his life as a bricklayer in Kent. Cecilly may have thought that she was doing more harm than good in mentioning him…
3:28 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
John of Gloucester certainly existed. His father made him Captain of Calais and referred to him as his ‘Dear Bastard’.
I don’t think Richard ever said his mother was an adulteress. He was living with her at the time the sermon was preached and it would be a very strange son to publicly brand his mother a scarlet woman whilst under her roof. The sermon certainly was about the illegitimacy of the boys and it’s possible that the reference was a mistake or misunderstanding.
As I understand it, Cecily’s will was written shortly before her death.
11:35 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
I don’t see why Henry would have kept Warbeck and his wife in his own household if he was so keen to have him executed Jasmine. He was only imprisoned after various escape attempts. That Henry took the Spanish Ambassador along to the Tower to show him Warwick and Warbeck were safely imprisoned and to prove they were no threat to his dynasty speaks volumes. If he were so intent on Warwick being killed he could have easily done it secretly and claimed he died of natural causes. He didn’t really need to keep him imprisoned for a decade until he could figure out how to kill him legally. Nobody at the time really believed Warwick was involved in a plot with Warbeck, it was accepted, just like Henry VI dying of ‘natural causes’ was accepted.
I don’t justify what Henry did by imprisoning Warwick either, it was dreadful, but I don’t agree it hasn’t stained his reputation at all. Henry has a terrible reputation as a king, miserly, paranoid and tyrannical, and that he spent his reign on fear of the Yorks. Richard’s reputation was so badly marred because the princes were still children. If they had been a little older or what was considered adults it probably would not have been quite as horrifying a thought to people. Then again King John’s nephew was about 16 when he disappeared and look at King John’s reputation.
I’ve got Desmond Seward’s Last White Rose to read which should be interesting, it looks at the topic of the Tudors trying to destroy all of the York claimants.
I actually find it a little strange that nobody tried to stage a rebellion in Warwick’s name after the Battle of Stoke. After all he was alive and accessible, he may have been barred from the succession legally because of Clarence’s attainder but that should have been no real obstacle.
I am still hazy on whether Richard accused his mother publicly, I have read that the sermon accused both Clarence and Edward of being illegitimate but I think it is just an interpretation of the wording. I don’t think John of Gloucester was Richard Plantagenet, or of Eastwell, Bob, he would have been recognised. There is an accusation that Henry had him murdered because of an Irish rebellion brewing, (was it Buck?) but it also says that Henry had him “long imprisoned”. I don’t see how that could be correct, he took the captaincy of Calais from him and gave him a pension.
Amy Licence has a biography on Cecily coming out next year which I am really looking forward to, she’s a fascinating woman. I don’t think reading about the women is “PG territory” Bob, there’s plenty of books on the topic besides fiction and they have been a source of fascination long before those books.
There’s a really interesting chapter in John Ashdown-Hill’s Last Days of Richard III which discusses the construction of Richard’s tomb. Henry gave the responsibility over to two men, Reynold Bray and Thomas Lovell, who were both named executors in Cecily’s will in the same year the construction began. He surmises they were probably doing a satisfactory job on the tomb for Cecily to have named them in her will (as she was concerned about her own tomb too at this point), and I agree. It’s also interesting the epitaph said he was “justly called Richard the Third”. Did Cecily really need to leave his name out of her will?
6:58 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
Olga – just to deal with your last point – the reason that Henry ordered a tomb for Richard and an epitaph which staid that Richard was a legal king was simply because Henry had claimed the crown by right of conquest over the de facto king at the time. If Richard had not been king, then how could Henry claim the crown by right of conquest.
If you look at the timing of the tomb’s construction, you will find it took place during the time Warbeck was causing Henry a few problems. So Henry was using the tomb and its epitaph as a way of reinforcing his own possession of the crown in the face of someone claiming to be the younger brother of the king Richard displaced. Because Henry had had the Titulus Regius repealed, he had automatically made Edward V the legitimate king, and his younger brother, his heir.
With regard to Warbeck, at no time was EoY asked to identify him. Richard of Shrewsbury, unlike his older brother Edward, was not sent away from Court, but grew up with his sisters. One would expect Elizabeth to be able to say with confidence, he was not who he claimed to be – but she was never asked. Perhaps this is evidence that Henry himself was unsure.
8:54 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
Yes he covered that theory in the book, which I enjoyed, it was very interesting. I hadn’t read about Richard’s tomb before then, it’s not mentioned in such detail in any other book I’ve read so far. But again I’m not sure that Cecily had to pretend Richard had never existed, perhaps she felt it politic but I don’t know that it was essential.
Perhaps Elizabeth already knew something of their fate. Impossible to tell of course.
9:47 am
June 3, 2013
Offline
Jasmine said
Olga – just to deal with your last point – the reason that Henry ordered a tomb for Richard and an epitaph which staid that Richard was a legal king was simply because Henry had claimed the crown by right of conquest over the de facto king at the time. If Richard had not been king, then how could Henry claim the crown by right of conquest.
If you look at the timing of the tomb’s construction, you will find it took place during the time Warbeck was causing Henry a few problems. So Henry was using the tomb and its epitaph as a way of reinforcing his own possession of the crown in the face of someone claiming to be the younger brother of the king Richard displaced. Because Henry had had the Titulus Regius repealed, he had automatically made Edward V the legitimate king, and his younger brother, his heir…
Jasmine – i think they had a legal phrase that dealt with the the legitimacy issue – ‘Xxxx.., King by deed but not by right’. it recognised the reality that someone who held the treasury, pushed legislation through parliament and wore a crown was a King whether they ought to be or not, while retaining the political/moral/legal position that they weren’t entitled to be King.
i’m unconvinced that the term ‘justly called’ on Richard III’s tomb indicates a legal statement/policy by Henry VII’s government: in repealling some of Richards’ legislation, Henry VII – both in law and in fact – acknowleged that Richard III had the right to call a parliament and make legislation, and by retaining some of his legislation they did the same. my personal view is that Henry VII – as had almost every other King who came to the crown in questionable circumstances – came to the view that Kings are special people, that they deserve respect and loyalty regardless of their policies. spectacularly self-serving of course, but not any great surprise.
Henry Tudors claim to the throne was not just by right of conquest – he claimed he was the rightful heir (i think perhaps ‘morally’, rather than getting into the somewhat unflatering minutae of the geneology…) to both Henry VI and Edward IV, and that he had ‘proved’ this claim in battle over RIII. he also claimed to have reaserted the ‘British’ claim to the throne after the Anglo-Saxon and Danish Kings, the Normans and then the Plantaganets by dint of his Tudor ancestry to the Welsh/Briton Kings. all of these claims are somewhere between wishful thinking and complete tosh, but politically they are crucial, and they form a very large part of the Tudor myth that the Tudors are the ‘coming together’ of the warring factions. undoubtedly there is a large element of saying different things to different audiences, but the Tudors are absolutely desperate not to be seen as ‘just’ Kings by right of conquest because, of course, if anyone can become King just by killing the current King, someone might try…
11:50 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Good one Bob. and thinking about the right on conquest statement. William the Conqueror did exactly the same as what H7 did. Battle of Hastings jobby, and I suppose you could kind of say that H4 did the same thing to R2, although I think that more down to populaity R2 was felt to be unfit for the job, and of course the same could be said of H6 and E4. H6 was deemed as being unfit to rule so E4 took the job on instead.
Yet another example of this is W2 (Rufus) I don’t know an awful lot about him so i may be mistaken. But I believe he was very unpopular with his people, and imposed heavy taxes or fines on people if they happened to be breathing in when he commanded to breathe out. So H1 was invited to take the throne instead.. H1 and Rufus went hunting but only H1 came back alive, and claimed the throne..
I suppose another example is King John.. it was claimed by many that Arthur, was the righful heir to England after R1 death, because Arthur was the son of John’s elder brother Geoffrey.. Arthur quite convienantly disappeared. It was said John killed him by kicking him to death in the castle at Falaise, again I’m not too sure about this, but anything is likely as Arthur did diappear in a hurry, and John did claim the throne.
As it was H7 actually dated his reign from the day before Bosworth, so he was claiming that he was the riightful king, and that R3 was the usurper whom H7 simply killed off as a rival not as a King. Of course we kow that wasn’t so but properganda was rife back then anyway. It was used as a weapon to plus and minus affect much as it is today.
Our monachy is a reall mixed bag of scandel and intrique isn’t it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
2:42 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Bob the Builder said
Henry Tudors claim to the throne was not just by right of conquest – he claimed he was the rightful heir (i think perhaps ‘morally’, rather than getting into the somewhat unflatering minutae of the geneology…) to both Henry VI and Edward IV, and that he had ‘proved’ this claim in battle over RIII. he also claimed to have reaserted the ‘British’ claim to the throne after the Anglo-Saxon and Danish Kings, the Normans and then the Plantaganets by dint of his Tudor ancestry to the Welsh/Briton Kings. all of these claims are somewhere between wishful thinking and complete tosh, but politically they are crucial, and they form a very large part of the Tudor myth that the Tudors are the ‘coming together’ of the warring factions. undoubtedly there is a large element of saying different things to different audiences, but the Tudors are absolutely desperate not to be seen as ‘just’ Kings by right of conquest because, of course, if anyone can become King just by killing the current King, someone might try…
H7 might have claimed to be the ‘rightful’ heir of Henry VI, although that claim is open to dispute, but he could not claim to be the heir of Edward IV. If one accepts that the princes were dead, then Edward IV’s heir was EoY.
As to his being Welsh, strangely, Richard III had more Welsh blood than Henry. After becoming king, H7 did nothing for the Welsh.
Henry also pre-dated his reign to the day before Bosworth so that the people who fought for their annointed king could be treated as traitors and their lands appropriated. That one act, I suggest, tells us a lot about Henry VII.
2:46 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Boleyn said
Yet another example of this is W2 (Rufus) I don’t know an awful lot about him so i may be mistaken. But I believe he was very unpopular with his people, and imposed heavy taxes or fines on people if they happened to be breathing in when he commanded to breathe out. So H1 was invited to take the throne instead.. H1 and Rufus went hunting but only H1 came back alive, and claimed the throne..
William Rufus went hunting in the New Forest and was killed by a hunting bolt shot by Sir Walter Tyrrell – as far as I know, Henry I had nothing to do with it. William’s heir was the next brother, Robert, Duke of Normandy. Henry I ignored his claim and imprisoned him and seized the crown.
7:43 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Jasmine said
Boleyn said
Yet another example of this is W2 (Rufus) I don’t know an awful lot about him so i may be mistaken. But I believe he was very unpopular with his people, and imposed heavy taxes or fines on people if they happened to be breathing in when he commanded to breathe out. So H1 was invited to take the throne instead.. H1 and Rufus went hunting but only H1 came back alive, and claimed the throne..
William Rufus went hunting in the New Forest and was killed by a hunting bolt shot by Sir Walter Tyrrell – as far as I know, Henry I had nothing to do with it. William’s heir was the next brother, Robert, Duke of Normandy. Henry I ignored his claim and imprisoned him and seized the crown.
Thank you Jasmine I wasn’t too sure as I said, but now that your’ve corrected me, again it says it all when H1 siezed the throne from his older brother after Rufus was killed. According to Wiki (I don’t always trust wiki as they do make mistakes) H1 was with the hunting party even if he didn’t fire the shot that killed Rufus, otherwise he would have to have been close by for him to be able to ride hell for heather to London to sieze the crown. In which case it looks likely that Rufus was bumped off. I’m not saying this really happened but it could constued as being all too a little convienant that H1 was able to seize the crown before his brother Robert had even heard that Rufus was dead. Robert was in Normandy after all even with the fastest horses both at this end and in France and the right tide from dover it could have taken a week for a messenger to reach Normandy with the news.. On average it would take about 3 or 4 days to reach France by ship depending of course on the weather. In August well it may have taken a little less, but even so it still would have taken the best part of a week, and just as much for Robert to get his bum into gear to get back here and claim the throne… Robert waited until 1101 before kicking off about it, so I’m thinking he wasn’t that disgruntled about it, otherwise he would have done something about it the minute he heard, that Rufus was dead. There wasn’t a battle of such between H1 and his brother, voices were raised and sabres were rattled at each other but Robert was happy enough plodding about Normandy and getting the citizens backs up. It was only when H1 got a little greedy that Robert god the hump with him as H1 invaded Robert’s terratories in 1105/6 leading to a battle at Tinchebury, which Robert lost that H1 imprisoned him. Firstly in Devizes castle for 20 years and then in Cardiff castle for the rest of his life. Where he died in 1134, and was buried in Gloucester Catherdral….
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
10:00 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Henry didn’t claim he was descended from Edward IV, only from Henry VI and the ancient kings, which is why his marriage to Elizabeth was crucial. People did consider that the princes were dead and she was the rightful heir if Edward IV (I think he in fact named her his heir before his sons were born). Technically with the descent from John of Gaunt Margaret B. had a better claim than her son, Edmund Tudor only had French royal blood.
None of it of course, matters, he right by right of conquest. He claimed it was God’s will that he had won and most people were agreeable enough, he had after all won with a smaller army and it was seen as a sign from God.
I also find it difficult to swallow that EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel plot which would essentially have harmed her own daughter and grandson. I’m not sure I haven’t read my books on her yet but it seems so unlikely. Weir has just theorized that Henry put her away to save money LOL. EOY did get her income however.
3:54 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
If my mind is working correctly (Doubtful) I believe H7 claimed he was decended from the Welsh King Cadwallader. Technically he was related to E4 but only by marriage, not by blood.
Actually Olga I am very puzzled by EW’s behaviour if anything she would have been the very person to be able to prove that the pretenders were not her sons. So why didn’t they just ask her and have done with it? Margeret of Burgandy is yet another odd charater to pn down too. She supported both pretenders and yet she had never met or had anything to do with the Princes, and was married and out of England long before they were even born. Why did she support them? like EW the only person they would hurt by their acceptance (loosely worded) of these pretenders would be Elizabeth. Perhaps it was EW trouble making over the pretenders which forced H7 to say enough was enough and railroad EW into Bermonsey convent out of the way.. It could be that EW was a wee bit jealous over the influence MB had over H7 and her own daughter, and wanted to get a slice of the action as well if that makes sence.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
5:02 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
Margaret of Burgundy was a Yorkist Princess – she was very much opposed to the Tudors and therefore it is not surprising she supported any rebellion against them which stood a chance of being successful.
Of course, another theory is that if Richard III sent the boys away from the Tower for safety, he could have sent them to his sister in Burgundy – there is a local legend around Gipping Hall, the home of Sir James Tyrrell, that the boys were sent there before being sent overseas and EW visited them there. This was before EW and her daughters came out of Sancturary – this would make sense then, if she knew her sons were alive and safe.
Henry VII’s supposed reason for stripping EW of all her property and sending her to Bermondsey was because she had become reconciled with Richard and allowed her daughters to come to Court. – that was several years later, though.
11:18 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
I’ve heard his reason was because she was involved in the Lambert Simnel conspiracy. I’ve just finished Arlene Okerlund’s book on EOY (she has also written one on EW) and she points out that EW took a lease on a house within Westminster Abbey several months before she went to Bermondsey, so she thinks that she was contemplating a religious retirement well beforehand. I’m inclined to agree from what I have been reading. I have heard that theory too Jasmine and I don’t think it makes any sense at all that Henry would punish her for reconciling with Richard years after it happened.
Bo, EW had died when Perkin Warbeck appeared, he popped up in 1490 abroad but didn’t land in England until 1495 I think. Simnel was pretending to be Edward of Warwick, who Henry had locked in the tower.
From what I have seen MB was a bit fussy and overzealous but I don’t think she tried to push EW out of the way. I know Baldwin speculates MB wanted EW gone from court but I don’t really agree at this point. EW was not locked away. She left the abbey to visit court and attend the births of her first three grandchildren, both her and Margaret attended the births and EW was present at christenings. I wouldn’t completely discount Weir’s theory that she was expensive to keep either, Henry had three women at court to provide her, and perhaps they agreed she would retire to add her lands to EOY’s dower so she had a better income. I also don’t see anyone as pious and charitable as MB trying to push a woman who had suffered so much out of the way to satisfy some sort of jealous streak. They were tied together for years and years, and MB had seen her suffer, I seriously dount she was not sympathetic towards her, especially not in the face of her own good fortune.
11:19 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
just removing this because I somehow managed to quote myself instead of fixing a spelling error in my last post 
12:05 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
Thank you Olga.
It’s possible that EW was contemplating religious retirement, so many Queen Dowagers did. It was a good life for them, I don’t think the conditions they lived under were as harsh as those who were fully proffessed nuns. Certainly she would have had to make a token payment towards embracing the religious life so she would have course renounced all her worldly goods, but she probably was allowed to keep a few comforts. As far as I know, she would have also been given a room of her own, and wouldn’t have to attend every service but she would be expected to attend at least one service a day.
Personally I think she did retire voluntaraly, she perhaps saw that there was really no place for her now at court or anywhere else for that matter. She belonged to the past if that makes sence. The future was secured now. H7 was King her daughter was Queen she had an heir and spare and a few daughters too. There was nothing she needed to do, her life in affect was over, better to spend the rest of her days quietly, so a convent would have made sence to her..
I have to agree I don’t believe for one minute that H7 forced her into a convent over her reconcilliation with Richard, so many years ago, that just doesn’t make sence…
However is it possible that part of the marriage proposals apart from of getting rid of the pretenders was to get rid of EW too.?
H7 knew there was a lot riding on this marriage idea, it was a big feather in his cap, and would put a sock in the mouths of those who said H7’s reign would be a flash in the pan.
I can quite understand why the known picture of H7 looks like a wizzend old man, the pressure of not only taking the throne, but keeping it must have been extremely stressful. I wonder are there any pictures of H7 as a young man?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
12:26 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Which marriage proposals Bo, do you mean Henry proposing EW to the King of Scots? I suspect as she was still a beautiful woman he was using her for an alliance, if ‘getting rid of her’ ensured someone else was responsible for her income he might have been happy about that lol. But he may have had to provide a dowry, I’m a bit hazy on that topic. The King of Scots died before the idea went much further. That may also be a reason she wanted to go to a convent, to escape being used as a political pawn for marriage.
Bermondsey had a suite for royal women so yes she would have had her own rooms and would have been comfortable.
Here’s a younger Henry
1 Guest(s)
