Was the War of the Roses really just a Tudor myth?

Posted on January 22, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

I’m loving Dan Jones’s new Channel 5 series on the Wars of the Roses. It’s so refreshing to see a TV show which is both engaging and well researched. He’s a good presenter and having read ‘The Hallow Crown’ some months ago, I can confirm that he’s also a very convincing historian and compelling writer.

But I do have one bone to pick with him. Although not laboured in the excellent two episodes I’ve seen so far, in both his book and other articles, Jones has been quick to label the Wars of the Roses as a ‘Tudor construction.’

Don’t get me wrong. He’s not saying that the battles didn’t happen or that the crown didn’t endlessly change hands. He’s trying to make the point that the framing of it as a dynastic struggle, York vs Lancaster, or red rose vs white, was whipped up by the Tudors in order to present themselves as the ultimate reconcilers of the conflict through the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

To an extent I agree with him. The early stages were about the Duke of York trying to replace the ministers of the Lancastrian King; he probably was genuinely loyal to the monarch himself at the start. But, I still struggle to endorse the theory that it has come down to us as a dynastic struggle solely because that’s the way the Tudors wanted to spin it. Here’s a few #QuickFireThoughts from me:

The Duke of York, the main antagonist in the conflict, was motivated in part by the fact that, because of his Royal blood, he felt he should be playing a greater role in government.
The main wielder of power (after the Queen) was the Duke of Somerset, a Beaufort descendant of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. He was appointed more because of his Lancastrian blood than any great ability.
York’s main beef was with Somerset. Therefore, even at the earliest stage, there was an element of York vs Lancaster. Dynastic loyalty meant something, even at the beginning.
York’s closest supporter, the Earl of Warwick, was a member of his family and the fiercest defenders of the status quo, Beauforts and Tudors, were close in blood to the King.

So to cut a long story short, I think dynastic loyalty and the question of power by right of blood were always facets in what contemporaries called ‘the cousins’ war.’ I get that Dan Jones knows a lot more than me, I’m just increasingly fed up with so much stuff getting written off as ‘Tudor propaganda’ when I’m not entirely sure there’s much evidence for it.

So geeks…what do you think? Did the Tudors re-write history? Did Dan Jones got a little carried away? Do I have a clue what I’m talking about? I want to know what YOU think!

Book review: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir

Posted on January 20, 2016January 22, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

In the summer of 2013 I, like the rest of the UK, was absorbed by the BBC’s White Queen. Like the rest of the UK, I fell in love with the brilliant acting, the dramatic story telling and the fact that for a precious few weeks, the things I loved were becoming main stream; people actually wanted to talk to me about the subjects I was usually told to shut up about! I even recall a fair few people at work gathering round as I drew a Plantagenet family tree on the white board!

Of course, those that made it to the end of the series (which presumably wasn’t quite so many given the BBC’s decision to axe it) were talking about one thing: who was responsible for the death of the White Queen’s sons, the legendary Princes in the Tower?

It was never something I had looked into but, based on the odd David Starkey documentary here and there, I had always thought that Richard III was the most likely candidate. But, after this documentary I realised there could be so many others; Margaret Beaufort, portrayed as such a fanatic throughout the series was most in the frame and even Anne Neville may have had blood on her hands. This was something I needed to research.

A friend recommended that I read Alison Weir’s ‘Richard III and the Princes in the Tower.’ I was so grateful he did. Because she set me straight immediately.

Not only is the book well researched, thoroughly readable and insightful, I would actually go as far to say that anyone reading it with an open mind, cannot walk away with the conclusion that anyone other than their infamous uncle, Richard III, was responsible for the death of the innocent Princes. I appreciate that’s a bold claim but, I challenge anyone (who has read it) to defy me!

The brilliance of Weir’s work is not in the unveiling of any new or profound revelation, but in its sheer simplicity. Many have said that too little is known of the late 1400s and that answers can never truly be reached. She disagrees. Instead of focusing on the absence of source material, she relentlessly peruses what is available to us today, orders it with logic and common sense and shows that the pattern of events and other contemporary comments point in one clear direction.

The book also provides a great window into the latter stages of the War of the Roses and brings to life a host of characters who each played their part in the dramatic events. Although this was actually written before the book ‘York vs Lancaster,’ I recommend reading the aforementioned first, in order to ensure you have the context front of mind.

In the opening of the book (first written in 1992), Weir remarks that when it comes to Richard III we are never likely to have more evidence at hand then we have today. Interestingly, we have of course since then made an epic discovery in the form of Richard’s remains. Every further nugget of information that has come to light since then, only backs up the author’s analysis.

No book is perfect. Every historian, however hard they try, brings some subconscious biases to the table. But having now read this book three times, and aspects of it far more, I can’t quite believe that there is even a single Ricardian left standing.

Richard III and the Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir was first published in 1992 with a revised edition published by Vintage in 2014. It is available for purchase from Amazon in ebook, paperpack and hardcover format

Is Kate a Princess?

Posted on January 18, 2016April 5, 2017 By Gareth - Editor

Image: Surtsicna – This file was derived from Duchess of Cambridge, 16 June 2012.JPG:, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Shockingly, my friends and family are not always keen for me to recite my fascinating knowledge of Royal history in their presence. Even more puzzling to me – and something that will no doubt surprise loyal readers – my loved ones have often found my attempts to educate them on the intricacies of Royal and aristocratic titles objectionable. Puzzling!

However, ever since the great Royal wedding of 2011, there’s one question which a number of those close to me have been keen to ask. Namely, why was Diana ‘made a Princess’ when Kate wasn’t?

I can certainly understand why people ask. After all, from 1981 until 1997, William’s mother was constantly referred to in the media as ‘Princess Diana.’ Yet when Kate got hitched the palace seemed to go out of their way to make it clear that it was not entirely appropriate to call her ‘Princess Catherine.’

A number of my friends have drawn their own conclusions as to why. “It’s because Diana was married to the immediate heir to the throne,” said one, or “Diana was Princess of Wales and Kate is just a Duchess” speculated another.

Both quite logical, but both incorrect. To get to the bottom of this, we need to understand two things.

The later Princess of Wales was NEVER ‘Princess Diana.’

This might come as a surprise to some; the media heavily referred to her as such, both during and after her marriage. But it is only Princesses by birth who use their Christian names in their title. Diana was indeed the Princess of Wales and even The Princess Charles but technically never Princess Diana.

Sounds quirky doesn’t it? But actually this isn’t unusual. I remember when my mother was invited to the Buckingham Palace garden party, her invite was addressed to “Mrs Gary Streeter.” But her name is not Gary. It is Janet. Similarly the wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquess does not use her Christian name in her title (remember good old Lady Colin Campbell…?).

But Kate is a Princess and during her marriage, so was Diana

Just because you can’t use your Christian name in your style (or more accurately, doing so wouldn’t be the most appropriate action in the eyes of the court) does not mean that you are not a Princess. Anyone married to a Prince is a Princess. This is as true for Camilla and Sophie as it is for Kate and was true for Diana and Sarah Ferguson during their marriages. It is equally the case for the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester and for Princess Michael of Kent.

So how can the great public tell which noble women are or are not Princesses? Easy. Three little letters: HRH (standing for Her Royal Highness). Since 1917 the style of Royal Highness has been synonymous with the rank of Prince or Princess in the UK (yes, yes, yes I know there may have been an exception with the Duke of Edinburgh but exceptions prove the rule and I will write about this on another occasion). Therefore The Duchess of Norfolk is not a Princess or member of the Royal family but HRH The Duchess of Gloucester is.

Make sense? Don’t worry if it’s a little confusing. No one ever sat down and made a list of rules that governed how Royal titles and styles fit together and operate. Customs have emerged over centuries and in reality the current system is a hybrid of ancient English and Scottish practice that merged with the Germanic approach in 1714 and has been evolving in response to circumstance ever since. But hey, let’s face it…that’s all part of the fun!

Okay geeks…over to you? Is this system all a little archaic? Should we just suck it up and call her ‘Princess Catherine’? Do you think William will modernise Royal styles when he eventually gets to the throne?

The top 10 questions I would love to ask historical figures

Posted on January 15, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Most of the blog so far has been pretty heavy. Don’t get me wrong, that’s kind of the point. I need an outlet for my intense musings on the big questions and love discussing such epic matters with others.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun as well. To that effect, I’ve compiled a list of 10 questions I would love to put to our Royal forebears but, sadly will never be able to.

Here we go:

Elizabeth I – “You were the virgin Queen – I get that. But what does that actually mean…?”

Richard III – “Come on now…own up. How close to the truth was Thomas More?”

Queen Anne – “If you knew you were going to be the last monarch to veto an act of Parliament, would you have vetoed a few more?”

Katherine Parr – “Was Seymour worth the wait?”

Mary I – “In hindsight, might it have been worth taking a chill pill?”

Henry VIII – “Catherine Howard. Adultery. How did you not see that one coming?”

Margaret Beaufort – “Did you really have a vision telling you to marry Edmund Tudor?”

Princess Beatrice – “What was the juiciest thing you cut out of Queen Victoria’s diary?”

Henry VI – “Do you think Edward was your boy?”

Richard II – “Seriously. Dude. What happened there?”

Okay geeks over to you…what questions would YOU like to put to the Royals of Britain’s past.

Book review: Elizabeth of York, the first Tudor Queen – by Alison Weir

Posted on January 13, 2016January 13, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

When Alison Weir’s biography of Elizabeth of York was published in late 2013, it was hailed as helping to rescue the memory of a ‘forgotten Queen.’

I never thought that was entirely fair. I had certainly been taught about Henry VIII’s mother before I reached secondary education and I struggle to imagine that my school had a particularly outlandish curriculum. But, it’s true to say that the image that comes down to us is deeply unsatisfying.

The almost dowdy mother. The unthinkingly loyal consort. The saintly persona. The woman devoid of sexuality and of sensuality. Could such a person have really produced the rumbustious Henry VIII, the chaotic Queen Margaret of Scotland and the daring Mary Tudor?

This is perhaps why some recent historians and fiction writers have gone too far in readdressing the balance. Here the picture doesn’t fit either. The White Princess. The fearsome loyalist to the House of York. The woman who dreams of lost brothers returning from across the sea. The courageous Queen who fights against the power of her miserly husband and authoritarian mother-in-law. Surely there’s a balance to be struck?

As ever, that is exactly what Weir achieves. By revisiting the contemporary sources, she presents a reconstruction of the Queen which is well-researched, realistic and entirely human. We start to get a glimpse – because perhaps it can only ever be a glimpse – as to what it might have actually been like to be in the presence of this fifteenth century matriarch.

To an extent, the book is counter-revisionist. It reasserts Elizabeth’s genuine closeness to Henry VII (which many have questioned) and good relationship with his mother Margaret Beaufort. It is clear that she was one of the key players that threw herself into making project Tudor a success. She may not, as some have suggested, have explosively fallen out with her own mother – but she knew that her focus was the future.

No reader will be left with the impression that Elizabeth of York was a silent figure in the background. The book is full of examples of where she used her influence, particularly for the good of others, and explores the impact she had on her own children to whom she was perhaps untypically close.

Weir also lets us have a bit of fun. We explore intriguing theories that suggest the young Princess may have cosied up to uncle Richard III more than we might think decent. But she also reminds us exactly which theories we do and do not have evidence to support. While I’m not entirely sure I believe in the genuineness of Elizabeth’s lost letter to the Duke of Norfolk – where she pleads for marriage to her uncle Richard – my huge respect for Weir, who does think it worthy of consideration, means I am going to have to think again.

Perhaps most striking is the author’s discovery that Elizabeth was present at the Tower of London at the time Sir James Tyrell – the man who had supposedly confessed to the murder of her brothers, the Princes in the Tower – was executed. Could it be that she was brought there to hear his confession?

“Elizabeth of York: The first Tudor Queen” is not my favourite Alison Weir offering – I prefer the less one-person focused books such as ‘York Vs Lancaster’ – but it is toward the top of the list. Quite simply, it is a must read for any fan or the era, or indeed anyone who enjoys getting up close and personal to a remarkable figure of history who might otherwise be forever misunderstood.

Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen, by Alison Weir was published by Vintage in 2013. At the time this post was published the book was available on Amazon for £4.99 (Kindle), £15.99 (hardback) and £9.48 (paperback).

Did Henry VIII really believe Anne Boleyn was guilty as charged?

Posted on January 11, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

I’ve always been keen to meet other super-cool Royal history geeks. That’s one of the reasons I started this blog. I’m pleased to say that my desires are already being achieved. Within two days of go-live, I found myself in an interesting Twitter conversation with ‏@HistoryGal_ and @charlotteshist on whether Henry VIII believed that Anne Boleyn was guilty of the crimes – adultery, incest and treason – for which she was ultimately put to death.

It’s a subject I want to explore in much greater depth. Indeed, I intend to write an extensive series on Anne’s ‘guilt’ when time allows. But for now, I wanted to take the moment to put down some #QuickFireThoughts. I write largely in ignorance but, perhaps this will provoke conversations that will in turn educate me.

For what it’s worth, I think in his heart of hearts, Henry knew Anne was innocent. Here’s why:

I do not currently subscribe to the theory that a) Anne was actually guilty as charged or that, b) her downfall was primarily a sabotage initiated by Cromwell. I believe that Henry was actually the main orchestrator of it, even if only tacitly.
Henry wanted rid of Anne. True it had only been a few years since he had risked everything to marry her, but we all know that highs can descend to lows very quickly. Not only was she massively getting on his wick but, she had of course failed to bear him a son which had been one of the main attractions to him seeking a second marriage.
The execution of Anne Boleyn was a political possibility. Unlike Catherine of Aragon, she was not protected by a mighty Emperor beyond the seas. All he needed was a valid legal pretence.
Such an act was in keeping with Henry’s character. He had convinced himself that he was sinning against God by being married to Catherine, something that plainly hadn’t bothered him for the early part of his marriage. He was a man who was very easily able to persuade himself of his own lies. That’s how he could justify some of his heinous actions!

Like I say, far more research needs to be done, and I would very much like to hear other people’s thoughts…

Will Charlotte ever be Princess Royal?

Posted on January 6, 2016January 8, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

The birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge brought joy to the nation last year. But the changes to the laws of succession raise fascinating questions as to the Royal titles that she might bear during her life.

Before I started Royal History Geeks I used to pen a blog called ‘UK Royal Titles.’ Given the relative obscurity of the subject matter, it was fairly well read. (It also proved, in case there was any doubt, that as a human being, I occupy the pinnacle of coolness).

Perhaps because of my expertise in such matters (LOL), a few people have asked me about what title our precious little Princess Charlotte of Cambridge will be entitled to as she progresses throughout her life. The answer to this is slightly trickier than it might seem.

Certain title evolutions are easy to predict. Short of some major change in approach she will always retain the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Princess. Upon her grandfather’s accession she will officially by styled HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Cornwall and, in the likely event of William’s creation as Prince of Wales, HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales. When William finally reaches the throne she would lose the territorial designation and gain the definite article, becoming HRH The Princess Charlotte. Should she ever marry, some documents will style her with her husband’s status following on from her title e.g. The Princess Charlotte, Mrs John Smith or The Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Norfolk.

But the real question I get asked is ‘will Charlotte ever be made Princess Royal?’ Because this is a title that can only be bestowed (by convention) on the oldest daughter of a sovereign, commentators have correctly noted that Charlotte is the most likely candidate to receive it; but we need to be clear – that doesn’t make it a done deal. There are in fact, three factors that could come between Charlotte and the title:

The longevity of Princess Anne – As the eldest daughter of Queen Elizabeth II, Anne was granted the title in 1987. However, despite the fact that (if all goes as it should) she will one day be the sister and then Aunt of the King, she keeps the title with her for life. When the Queen ascended in 1952 her Aunt Mary was still Princess Royal. She died in 1965 but the Queen left it over 20 years before dusting off the honour in favour of her daughter. Anne could live well into William’s reign. Should he decide that a respectful gap should be left between the death of one Princess Royal and the creation of a new one (which is perhaps what influenced the Queen’s decision) than the title could end up skipping Charlotte altogether.

William just might not decide to give it to her – It isn’t obvious what the reason for this would be, but – like most Royal honours – it is given only at the discretion of the sovereign. Her father may simply choose never to give Charlotte the title.

Charlotte could, instead, be made a Duchess – This is something I’ve been thinking about ever since the succession laws were changed to give men and women an equal shot at ascension. There is still a great deal of male-bias in the dishing out of Royal titles and perhaps William – or Charles before him – will seek to modernise. Upon marriage, it is conventional for the sons of monarchs to be given Dukedoms – a title that will shape the eventual style of their descendants. If William decides that his daughter, who will rank above any future sons of his in the succession, also deserves a Dukedom (and become, for example, ‘Duchess of Sussex’), than it is quite possible that the title of ‘Princess Royal’ could fall from favour all together. Certainly it is safe to assume that eldest daughters of Kings and Queens who are also the eldest child will be Princess of Wales. Perhaps ‘Princess Royal’ and even ‘Prince Royal’ could become the standard honour, when available, for the sovereign’s second child.

Anyhow, this is all speculation. At the moment we cannot know. But the great things is – unlike in so many of the cases this blog explores – one day, we should actually find out!

Okay geeks…over to you. How would YOU like to see these Royal titles evolve in the future?

Book review: David Starkey – Elizabeth: Apprenticeship

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Everyone knows the epic stories of Elizabeth I. The lioness who secured the greatest English military victory since Agincourt; the woman who struggled to put her plotting cousin to death; the iconic matriarch who would achieve cult status in her own lifetime but leave behind no child to secure her legacy.

But little did I know how it was probably the earliest years of her life that were for her personally, by far the most dramatic. Thanks to this excellent biography by David Starkey, my eyes were opened.

The story – for indeed it reads with the ease of a story book without any compromising of detail – begins with Elizabeth’s birth and a sense of disappointment. She was supposed to be a boy – no one had use for a princess. And throughout the book there is a sense that for the first 25 years of her life she is a person who never quite fits in and is something of an inconvenience for everyone: the royal bastard with questionable status; the step-daughter who endangers her guardian’s marriage; the heir-presumptive who is stubbornly the wrong religion.

David Starkey cleverly illustrates how these early struggles shape the character that would one day emerge as the great Gloriana. A calculated strategist who knew how to adapt and survive and a pragmatist that was never wedded to philosophy or ideology.

From the fall-out of the Seymour affair to plots made against her sister in Elizabeth’s name, Starkey paints the picture of danger that Elizabeth lived through and creates a raw sense of just how many bullets she had to dodge. Despite actually knowing how the story ends, such is the power of storytelling that there are moments when you anxiously wonder whether the auburn-haired Princess is ever going to make it to the throne.

Elizabeth’s early relationships are also fascinating – her mixed intimacy with her sibling, her fierce loyalty to the servants that raised her, her early encounter with sexuality. The author brings each of these to life with colour and zest. Finally the book concludes with Elizabeth’s ascension – something that even then seems less like a great victory and more like the next phase of insecurity.

This is not the only book to devote itself to Elizabeth’s early life; but it is probably the most detailed. It is therefore a must read not just to fans of the Virgin Queen, but to anyone who seeks insight into this phase of the Tudor period. Above all else is a shrewd analysis of the psychology behind the early experiences that shape the character of a woman who is generally judged by history to have been one of that era’s greatest rulers.

Elizabeth: Apprenticeship, by Dr David Starkey was published by Vintage in 2001. At time of writing, it was available for purchase from Amazon in hardcover (£20.00) and paperback (£13.10)

Richard III part 7: Conclusion

Posted on January 4, 2016January 8, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

In the past six posts I have attempted to demonstrate why I believe the circumstantial evidence and other reliable sources point firmly to the blame of Richard III who usurped his throne and killed his nephews. Now I will sum up my conclusions and look forward to the conversation that will follow. Continue reading →

Richard III part 6: Two issues that made me think twice…

Posted on January 4, 2016January 6, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Early in my research, I started to form the view that Richard III was responsible for the death of his nephews. However, during my journey I stumbled across a couple of road blocks that gave me more than a little pause for thought. Continue reading →