Three things the ‘White Queen’ got wrong

Posted on February 21, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Fierce debate rages amongst super-cool Royal history geeks as to the merits of high-profile historical fiction. On the one hand, it sparks interest within the general population; on the flip side, it encourages severe inaccuracies to flow through the popular consciousness.

Generally, I’m in the ‘pro’ camp. If interest is sparked, there is a greater opportunity for misconceptions to be corrected. Besides, I really like reading and watching it all.

So when I heard that the ‘White Queen’ would enjoy a sequel in America – although not in Britain – I thought this was good news. The BBC series in 2013 sparked interest in the Wars of the Roses and the matriarchs of the Tudor dynasty more than anything I’ve ever known.

But…but, but, but, but, but…the inaccuracies were of epic proportions, to a much greater extent than the Philippa Gregory books on which they were based. It’s so important that this is realised.

Let me start by trying to tidy up a few bits. Primarily I want to say what I think was wrong with the portrayals of the three main heroines, Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort and Anne Neville:

Elizabeth Woodville – Beautiful, heroic and tragic. All of these were true, but unlike in the book, her negative qualities just did not come across. True, she was vengeful toward those who hurt her family (though later, unconvincingly, forgave brother-in-law George), but where was the ambition, the vindictiveness, the ruthlessness and the spite? The entire court loathed Elizabeth and her kin. They must have had some kind of reason and their savagely ambitious personalities were a part of this. In one sense Elizabeth is no hero at all, but very much a medieval woman on the make. This was just not clear enough.

Margaret Beaufort – I’m sorry, but no. Yes, Margaret had blood and marital connections to Lancaster (and no doubt preferred Henry VI to Edward IV), but she was no blind fanatic to the cause of the Red Rose. Yes, she had dramatic loyalty to her son, but never in his tender years did she expect him to be King. It is well documented that she was a pious woman, but she was no crazed fundamentalist and let’s be clear – nor was she a sinister child killer. The Margaret that I have researched was a cautious pragmatist that would one day take a huge gamble that ultimately paid off. I’m also not sure why they decided to ruin her marriage to Henry Stafford, the relationship which was probably the happiest of her life.

If people are interested in a more balanced picture of Margaret Beaufort’s life and character, check out our content from Margaret Beaufort week.

Anne Neville – It wasn’t so much that they got Anne Neville’s character wrong; the problem was that they actually gave her one. Anne Neville, through the manipulations of her father and two fateful marriages to key players in the political scene, would have seen a lot. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that she herself ever inputted much. I really don’t think she helped to mastermind Lancaster’s military strategy in 1470; neither do I think she pressured her husband to do away with her nephews.

If the book is anything to go by, the new series of ‘The White Princess’ is also going to require some correcting. Never fear though geeks…that is a post for another time!

What did we make to Dan Jones on Margaret Beaufort?

Posted on February 2, 2016February 2, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Well we’ve come to the end of Margaret Beaufort week, and let’s be clear – it rocked beyond all expectations.

This week of tribute to the Tudor matriarch was triggered in anticipation of the final episode of Dan Jones’s ‘Britain’s Bloody Crown’ – which carried a promised focus on the formidable mother of Henry VII. We wanted to join in with the fun.

And of course, at the beginning of the week I promised I would chip in my two cents worth and review the episode. Margaret has been subject to some pretty dodgy portrayals in recent years, and as Alison Weir hasn’t got time to devote a book to her until 2021 at the earliest, I regularly panic that today’s society will never have the chance to accurately glimpse the Countess’s character.

So I’m over the moon to report that Dan Jones passed the test with flying colours and I recommend that everyone checks out the Channel 5 series which is (at the time of writing) available to view online.

What did I like about it? Well, I’ll tell ya:

It portrayed Margaret as a woman of tremendous strength without making her out to be a savage deviant blamed for crimes that she could never have committed.
He didn’t over do the ‘Margaret was the heir to the throne’ narrative that historical fiction writers love but isn’t grounded in an awful lot.
She was portrayed as a pragmatist rather than a fanatic. Yes her preferred loyalty in the War of the Roses was to Henry VI and Lancaster, but she would play the game with whoever she needed to.

While Margaret’s Lancastrian credentials tend to be overdone in other portrayals, if I was to be critical of one thing it would be that this was dialed down too much in the programme. It seemed to suggest that her connection to Henry VI was that she had been married to his half-brother. She was of course his cousin in her own right and a descendant of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Not exactly a major player in the ruling dynasty, but certainly a second division member of the house of Lancaster. But of course, TV as a medium doesn’t always lend itself to getting these subtler messages across.

Anyway, I’m sure Margaret Beaufort will continue to be revisited on this site. I’ve certainly had a blast with this spotlight on the great lady – I hope you guys have found it almost as enjoyable as me.

Was Margaret Beaufort the ‘mother-in-law’ from Hell?

Posted on January 31, 2016February 14, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Mother-in-laws. Who’d have ‘em – am I right? (Actually mine’s very nice, so yes I would).

They’re the butt of the joke of countless comedians – and that’s hardly a modern phenomenon. Perhaps it’s no wonder then, that as we trawl through the records of history, we assume that it’s always been the case.

Nowhere does this assumption seem to let us down more than when we talk of the relationship between Elizabeth of York and her legendary mother-in-law, Margaret Beaufort. In fact countless blog post on the internet and many history books, tell of infamous conflict between the two Tudor matriarchs and accounts of bullying and dominance by the elder to the younger.

However, there’s little evidence to support it. Most of it, I understand, comes from the report of a foreign ambassador who noted that Margaret dominated her daughter-in-law but, others have argued it is ridiculous to judge their entire relationship based on one comment from an outsider. Alison Weir also suggests that this particular incident may have been the result of Margaret feeling over-protective of Elizabeth, believing her to be pregnant.

Besides which, there are several indications that the two women got on well.

When Elizabeth’s daughter and Margaret’s name sake, Margaret Tudor, was pledged in marriage to the much older King of Spain, both women were worried that the teenage girl would be ‘harmed’ by her husband who ‘would not wait.’ Clearly Elizabeth was motivated by maternal concern and Margaret by her own bitter experience of the medieval marriage market. The records show that grandmother and mother teamed up to save the young Princess and thanks to their combined efforts Henry VII listened.
Similarly, there is evidence that when Elizabeth’s younger sister, Cecily of York, fell from the King’s favour following an unauthorised second marriage, it was Margaret who interceded for her. Whether this was out of direct affection for Cecily or in partnership with Elizabeth is not certain but, it is hardly an act of a woman who despised her Yorkist in-laws.
They spend an awful lot of time in each other’s company. This of course, may have been unavoidable but, it seems unlikely that two powerful woman who hated each other couldn’t have worked harder to ensure a greater distance.

Other arguments peruse that Margaret only walked one step behind Elizabeth, that Henry’s mother had Elizabeth’s banished, yet none of them are as illuminating as people might like. When researching this topic I came across an interview with author Amy Licence, who I think puts it better than I ever could:

“If Elizabeth did find her [Margaret] at all “overbearing”- and this is a modern reaction- she may well have accepted that, as it was balanced by the assistance Margaret was able to offer. Having an experienced older woman at her side, particularly when she was pregnant or in Henry’s absence, may well have been reassuring. As for being “close,” again, this is subjective and perhaps, a bit of a misnomer; in terms of the late medieval impulse for survival and the need to forge alliances, Elizabeth and Margaret found a sort of equilibrium that allowed them to be allies. I think their mutual interest bound them together.”

The personal feelings of the two women are unknown to us and, as stated above, that is not the paradigm which would have shaped their thinking. Ultimately both had made the decision to throw all their resources, not to mention their respective claims to the throne, fully behind project Tudor. They were both wise enough to know that any other considerations had to be left at the chamber door.

What do you think geeks? Have I missed any evidence? Am I too flattering to the characters of both women? Was Margaret actually the mother-in-law from Hell? I want to know what YOU think!

Margaret Beaufort’s claim to the throne part 3: The better arguments

Posted on January 25, 2016January 26, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

As we have shown in the previous post, most of the arguments that suggest Margaret was looked upon as a potential heir to the throne are not satisfactory. Now it is time to examine the two stronger theories.

In part 2, I examined three of the most common reasons given for Margaret having a claim to England’s throne; but I also showed why they sadly don’t amount to much.

But there are two stronger – although I think ultimately unsatisfactory – reasons that are also given.

Parliament had acknowledged her claim in 1450

Maybe. When she was the ward of the unpopular Duke of Suffolk, Parliament had accused him of trying to marry her to his son ‘pretending and believing her to be the heir to the throne.’

Essentially they had major beef with Suffolk, the King’s unpopular adviser and wanted him out. They needed an excuse. Margaret had been his ward for years and he had either married her or planned to marry her to his son. Those that had it in for Suffolk concocted a story that he had ganged up with the French to try and do away with the King, and get his son to claim the throne by right of marriage to Margaret.

It does add weight to the claim that she was considered next in line, but…but, but, but: we have to remember that neither was Suffolk saying he thought she actually was (and indeed, he denied he thought she was) and nor did Parliament suggest that she actually was. They were accusing Suffolk of pretending she was.

Nonetheless in order to Parliament’s framing of Suffolk to have been in any way credible, there must have been a certain sense that Margaret was not an outlandish candidate for succession. It’s also very possible that anyone who was not keen on the idea of the Duke of York being next in line, may have considered Margaret a more viable option.

Her son had to flee to exile in 1470 – surely that means he was considered a rival to the Yorks?

This is a strong argument. Why on earth did the future Henry VII have to flee the country when the Yorks were restored in 1470 if he was no threat? Some must have thought him a claimant and that claim was transmitted from his mother.

However at this point, Lancaster had little choice. In the 1450s, York was generally considered Henry VI’s heir: but this was hardly an option now. And, after the battle of Tewksbury the house of Lancaster (including the Beauforts) had been eliminated in the male line. Henry Richmond was ‘the closest Lancaster had to Royalty.’ Therefore at this point it does seem that opinions had shifted and Margaret’s Beaufort claim now had validity. But we must be clear. This was placed firmly on her son. Nobody envisaged her making a bid for power herself.

So where does all this leave us? Let’s hop on over to the conclusion to find out.

Margaret Beaufort’s claim to the throne Part 2: Some arguments that don’t stack up

Posted on January 25, 2016January 26, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Margaret Beaufort is the idol of many Royal history geeks. But are the constant claims that she was once seen as a potential Queen of England really justifiable?

As I have said in the intro, I think it’s unlikely that anyone ever saw Margaret Beaufort as a potential Queen of England. But there are four reasons historians sometimes give – and another one I have factored in – as to why I could be wrong. We’re going to explore the first three, which I am confident don’t stack up, in this post before moving on to the two I have a little more time for in the next.

Hold on tight, here we go:

ARGUMENT 1: The reason Henry VI married her so young to his brother was to provide Lancaster with an heir and even to give his brother the chance of succeeding him (by right of marriage). Therefore, she must have had a good claim.

Historians tell us that arranging the marriage of Edmund Tudor (his maternal half-brother who had no claim to the throne) to the semi-royal Margaret Beaufort was one of the few acts of Henry VI’s reign that was entirely determined by him rather than his wife or an advisor. If this is true, it seems unlikely that he had the succession in mind. He certainly did nothing to dispel the assumption that the Duke of York was next in line. If this was his plan, then it was a demonstration of strategic thinking that he failed to exhibit at any other stage of his ill-fated career.

Instead it seems far more likely – and in keeping with his character – that he was keen to provide his brother with a wealth and security which had previously alluded him. Margaret – whatever else she was or wasn’t – was one of the richest heiresses in England and the King wanting to put these resources the way of his brother seems much more in keeping with the naïve but kindly character of the Henry, who had poured affection and blessing on his siblings whenever he was able.

ARGUMENT 2: Edmund Tudor risked sexual relations with the young Margaret because he knew an heir was desperately needed

I’m afraid this argument doesn’t stack up. True Margaret fell pregnant at 12 – something which was shocking even by the standards of the day and possibly a risk to Tudor’s reputation. But – however much we might want to excuse him of it – this can’t be because he was desperate to provide an heir and stability for England. By this point the King and Queen had been able to beget an heir themselves. A spare might be handy, but disgraceful urgency was hardly needed.

The reasons that he, Edmund Richmond, rushed to impregnate his child bride were far less noble. Margaret was rich. If he fathered a child by her – regardless of what happened to the mother – he would gain a life interest in her estates. It was a brutal act of avaricious. Perhaps it’s not hard to see where Henry VII inherited his love of money…

ARGUMENT 3: Henry VII based his claim through his mother, so it must have been credible

I think there’s something in this argument, but we have to be careful. Richard III had become unpopular. There wasn’t many people left to challenge him. Because the line of Henry IV and the male-line Beauforts had been eliminated at the Battle of Tewksbury, Henry of Richmond was the ‘closest thing Lancaster had to Royalty.’ In and of itself it wasn’t much of a claim, but with a pledge to marry Elizabeth of York, people started to flock to him. Might, primarily, made right.

When examined closely, none of the above really point to Margaret having much of a claim to the throne. But join us in part 3 for a couple of slightly stronger arguments.

Well geeks…over to you. Have I misjudged these arguments? Was Margaret given in marriage because of her Royal blood? Have I devalued Henry VII’s claim? Or am I spot on…?

Intro: Did Margaret Beaufort have a claim to the throne?

Posted on January 25, 2016January 26, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

The courage and determination of Lady Margaret Beaufort has inspired countless Royal history geeks throughout the generations. But was she really, as so many writers have suggested, ever considered a contender for the crown?

For reasons I’ve never quite been able to fathom, Lady Margaret Beaufort is my Royal history heroine. A lioness of the House of Tudor who never wore a crown herself but paved the way for her heirs to do so. She successfully seated her dynasty on the throne of England and no force in history has been able to knock it off.

To some, her brutal determination derived from the fact that she, a descendant of the house of Lancaster was the true heir to England. It was her duty to see that her claim was realised, even if in the form of her son.

And this was certainly part of the Tudor narrative. To bolster his security on the throne, her son would surround himself with images of the Beaufort Portcullis to remind everyone that the blood of Edward III – however distantly – trickled through his veins. But how much was this a retrospective realisation by Henry VII’s court? Had anyone prior to 1485 really thought that Margaret of Richmond had any real claim to the crown of England.

I love Margaret Beaufort. But at time of writing I don’t think that she was ever really considered a potential Queen of England by anybody. In her childhood I just don’t believe anyone thought it credible. When Lancaster was all but depleted people looked straight to her son – and even then only with the thinnest of hopes. Henry VII’s claim was in truth based on conquest and marriage.

Examining this further certainly requires a mini-series. First we will look at the reasons usually given for Margaret’s claim and see why they don’t stack up. Then we will explore the best arguments in her favour before summing up in a conclusion.

Enjoy! I did.

Introducing Margaret Beaufort week

Posted on January 25, 2016January 30, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

There are a few things on TV really worth watching. Dan Jones’ ‘Britain’s Bloody Crown’ (which should probably be called ‘England’s Bloody Crown’) is one of them.

Not only is it a well-researched yet entertaining docu-drama (which can be something of a rarity), last week he even managed to achieve the near-impossible and present a moderate, reasoned and non-partisan picture of Richard III which still made it clear that he almost certainly killed his nephews, the Princes in the Tower.

But it was the trail for this week’s episode that really got my ears pricked. This Thursday, Jones is to devote an entire episode to the legendary Margaret Beaufort, mother of the Tudors and one of my historic heroines.

In excited anticipation of this, I have decided to declare this week MARGARET BEAUFORT week on Royalhistorygeeks.org. During the week I will flood the site with content of Henry VII’s illustrious mother, inviting comment, dialogue and discussion as I do so.

First, I will kick off with a mini-series on whether the young Margaret really had a valid claim to the throne as many historians and writers have suggested. Then I will devote a post to explaining why, despite the bizarre suggestions of some Ricardians, she, the Countess of Richmond could not possibly have killed the Princes in the Tower. After that I will tackle another myth, that Margaret and her daughter-in-law Elizabeth of York did not get along. I also intend to post a review of Elizabeth Norton’s excellent biography of ‘The Mother of the Tudor Dynasty’.

Finally, I will eagerly watch the episode on Thursday night and post my critique following it. This week’s gonna be a blast guys. Join me for the ride!

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

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).