Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:47 am
June 5, 2010
Offline
Yes, it's that infamous subject again, but as there is already a thread about Warbeck and Simnel (were they who they claimed or were they imposters) in another part of the Forum, I wanted to hit on a couple of other matters that came to mind while I've been watching The Shadow of the Tower.
The episdoes on disc 3 deal with the Cornish rebellion of 1497 and the Perkin Warbeck attempt. I had no idea that the two were sort of interconnected (seems that when the original uprising failed, the leaders were executed, and the remainder sent home with doubled or tripled taxes, some may have taken up the cause of Warbeck in order to overthrow Henry VII).
As a side note: since my knowledge of this part of Henry's reign is limited, I can't be certain how historic the miniseries is when it comes to Simnel and Warbeck, except that the former — when his episode concluded — was permitted to live (and he was a child, the approximate age of the one he was supposed to be imitating, the Earl of Warwick). Warbeck, in what I'm guessing will be his final appearance (in the episode The Strange Shapes of Reality) is shown drifting deeper and deeper into a world of his own making as he wallows away in a dark cell in the Tower. A pretend world with him as Richard IV is far better than a reality in which all those that once proclaimed him have turned their backs. I do not know if he did go mad, but I get the impression that the “French boy” (as a few of his supporters call him in private) is driven into near insanity as he loses his real identity and takes on the “character” of Richard Duke of York. He's almost pathetic, the way he's used.
Okay, I don't honestly think Simnel was the Earl of Warwick and I don't believe Warbeck was Richard of York. But you had important people from the King of Scotland, to the King of France, to the Holy Roman Emperor believing in him/them. Now the Duchess of Burgundy — I can see that; she'd have loved to have overthrown Henry in the name of her family House, but so many others were either playing a great role in this play or they were quite deceived. (Among them — at least from the miniseries — were Ferdinand and Isabella, who even offered Warbeck support in the beginning, and then an allowance and a sort of gentle imprisonment in Spain when his cause started collapsing).
So here's my first question: if Warbeck and Simnel were just plain old commoners Warbeck and Simnel, two well-trained students, was the cause of the House of York so strong that you had many of the aristocracy and even royalty willing to put a phony on the throne…just to be rid of Henry Tudor? Now I realize these boys would have been ruled by others — at least in the beginning — but I guess it just has me wondering, considering the often arrogance and superiority (and absolute right given they believed by God) of royalty and the nobles at the time…was it honestly better to support a lie and a phony than see the truth for what it was? I hope that didn't come off too confusing (I worked all night LOL) — does what I'm asking make sense? I mean, if you didn't believe Henry Tudor had a right to the throne then work to undermine him, overthrow him — if necessary in battle — and then find “the real thing” to put on the throne (I'm sure they would have found a true heir floating about the countryside, well, other than the brain-addled Earl of Warwick). Even those plotting against Elizabeth wanted to replace her with Mary Stuart — and Mary could claim some right by blood. Mary wasn't some merchant's daughter they trained to be replacement for some lost relation to Henry VIII. Anyway, there's that.
Second — don't know how many of you have studied Warbeck's life, but if you have, has there been any indication that he was bisexual or homosexual? In the miniseries he has an (implied) relationship with the Earl of Kildare, the Viceroy of Ireland, who supports him in the beginning and then back-tracks. (I say implied as you see Kildare obviously lusting after this pretty boy…and then while others are sleep, the Earl carries Warbeck upstairs in a very romantic fashion). Later, when he is imprisoned (first it appears quite comfortably but then, following an escape attempt, in a dark windowless cell) he becomes attached to a servant named “John” who lost his eyesight during a battle to put Warbeck on the throne. Now I know Perkin was married to a cousin of James of Scotland — but that doesn't mean he was straight. So I wondered if the miniseries was taking creative liberties or is there some fact behind it?
Finally — the name of James Ormond (as it's spelled in the closed captions) is mentioned as being a supporter of Warbeck, but then it is announced that he died during a quarrel while taking up for Perkin. That name started ringing bells. By any chance, would this have been the Butler family of Ireland, who were related to our Anne?
Okay I've given you all enough to chew on 
Henry: Mistress Anne, will you teach the king of England how they dance in the French court?
Anne: There is nothing that France can teach England, your majesty.
King Henry VIII: Well said. Well said.
– Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)
9:58 am
July 30, 2011
Offline
I've never seen “The Shadow of the Tower”, but I have pretty strong views on Henry VII. It seems, sadly, that the only view we ever get of him, is through this veneer of embittered Ricardianism. For most, Henry VII is responsible for everything from the rise of Al Qaida, to the Black Death and everything in between. From what I know, Henry VII was actually a King who ended decades of dynastic squabbling, enabling his son to succeed him peacefully, and uneventfully (the first such Coronation in nigh on a century). He left the Country rich, and immensely powerful.
I can't speak for everyone else here, but I'd much rather have that, than some serial fantasist on the throne. Warbeck never really had supporters, as such. It was more that Henry VII had enemies. Rich, and powerful ones, who were going to ever more desperate lengths to unseat him. Warbeck was merely a symptom of their desperation, more than anything else.
10:41 pm
June 5, 2010
Offline
Hannah Again said:
I’ve never seen “The Shadow of the Tower”, but I have pretty strong views on Henry VII. It seems, sadly, that the only view we ever get of him, is through this veneer of embittered Ricardianism. For most, Henry VII is responsible for everything from the rise of Al Qaida, to the Black Death and everything in between. From what I know, Henry VII was actually a King who ended decades of dynastic squabbling, enabling his son to succeed him peacefully, and uneventfully (the first such Coronation in nigh on a century). He left the Country rich, and immensely powerful.
I can’t speak for everyone else here, but I’d much rather have that, than some serial fantasist on the throne. Warbeck never really had supporters, as such. It was more that Henry VII had enemies. Rich, and powerful ones, who were going to ever more desperate lengths to unseat him. Warbeck was merely a symptom of their desperation, more than anything else.
Hannah — I sort of got that impression myself, that the Yorkist supporters seemed as though they would put up any imposter just to be rid of Henry. You often see the desperation in their attempts when they go back and forth trying to decide just who Warbeck is going to be — will it be an illegitimate son of Richard III or a legitimate son of Edward IV? Or is he perhaps the illegitimate son of Duchess of Burgundy, the sister to Richard, Edward and Clarence. I'm sure that those that were pushing for Simnel or Warbeck figured that in the end, they would be the ones to rule behind the throne, but it just amazed me that a false York was better to them than a Lancastrian heir.
I have a longer thread on the series if you'll check the section on movies and TV shows, but one thing I did notice was that Henry VII was a lot like his granddaughter Elizabeth in that neither of them cared much for executions, especially those of royal blood or ones they felt had little or no choice in the matter. It's years before Henry had the Earl of Warwick beheaded (as he tells Margaret Beaufort, it's not the boy's fault he was born a Plantagenet); even Simnel manages to stay out of trouble and dies, I guess, of old age; he punishes the “misbehaving” Cornishmen by taxing them more — whereas his son Henry VIII more than likely would have had them all hung, drawn and quartered as rebels.
Frankly, I was just glad to see the patriarch get his own series — at last.
Henry: Mistress Anne, will you teach the king of England how they dance in the French court?
Anne: There is nothing that France can teach England, your majesty.
King Henry VIII: Well said. Well said.
– Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)
9:25 pm
January 30, 2013
Offline
I really like this part of history and made stories up often about Perkin and Edward Earl of Warwick making friends in the tower, Oh Poor Edward, a slow learner who lost his head at the hands of Henry 7th, basically got rid of so that Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain would send their daughter Catalina over to marry Prince Arthur. Of course Edward was implicated in the Perkin Warbeck treason but the poor young man was bascially learning disabled, later his sister Margaret pole looses her head at the hands of Henry 8th for her part in the Pilgrimage of grace. There’s a lot of scope for the imagination with the Imposters.
10:08 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
There is no real evidence that Edward of Warwick was retarded – however he had been locked in the Tower since 1485, with little outside contact. If Henry VII wanted to get rid of him, (and Henry was good at judicial murder of potential claimants), there was little he could do as the boy was close confined. However, the capture of Warbeck provided the perfect solution – allow them to meet, a conspiracy to escape transpires – kill two birds with one stone.
Any one who thinks that Warwick and Warbeck could meet without Henry’s VII’s say so, is barking up the wrong tree. There had to have been ‘official’ involvement. After all, one was a royal person and the other a ‘common’ pretender. They would not have been put next or near to each other unless there was another agenda.
