Royal History Geeks caught up with Dr Owen Emmerson, residents historian and castle supervisor at Hever Castle.

The magnificent Hever Castle was the home of Anne Boleyn.  We spoke to Owen about the huge role it has played in history and its importance in the lives of legendary figures.

We also talked about Hever’s vast collection of portraiture and explored the elusive question of what Anne Boleyn may have actually looked like.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• YouTube

Lady Margaret Beaufort was the mother of Henry VII.  She played a vital role in establishing the Tudor dynasty on the throne of England.  In recent years, she has been much maligned in popular fiction.

I am joined by two authors and experts to discuss the real Margaret Beaufort.  How accurate are the depictions we see in fiction?  What were her real qualities?  What is her legacy?

Nicola Tallis is the author of ‘Uncrowned Queen’, a recent full-length biography on Margaret.  Buy Nicola’s wonderful book. 

Nathen Amin is the founder of the Henry Tudor Society and author of ‘The House of Beaufort.’  Check out his amazing biography of Margaret’s family.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• YouTube

Ever get that feeling that people are making fun of your appearance behind your back?  If so, spare a thought for poor Anne of Cleves.  She’s been trying to shake off that feeling for almost 500 years.

Anne and Henry VIII’s non-love story is well known to most Royal History Geeks.  After the death of his beloved Jane Seymour, Henry allowed his ministers to open international negotiations for a new bride.  Each minister had their own political and religious agenda.  Cromwell eventually triumphed by convincing Henry of the virtues of an alliance with the almost-protestant province of Cleves.  The beauty of its princess was a major draw.  Hans Holbein, the great artist of the Tudor court, was dispatched to Cleves to paint Anne’s portrait.  The result did not disappoint.  Henry fell instantly in love.

But his delusions were quickly shattered.

Upon meeting his new bride, Henry expressed dismay.  “I like her not,” he is supposed to have proclaimed.  While it was too late to postpone the nuptials, he quickly informed his doctor that the union remained unconsummated.  He complained that Anne had been unable to arouse him and that her body was undesirable.  Even her personal hygiene, Henry suggested, left much to be desired.  He never actually used the term ‘Flanders mare’ to describe her.   But it’s easy to see why it stuck. 

Anne’s side of the story remains a mystery.  It’s possible that she was no great beauty.  Most people aren’t.  But there are several reasons to think that she was far from ugly.  Here’s just a few of them.

1. When Henry met her, he kissed her

Upon arriving in England, Anne believed she had several days to prepare herself for meeting the King.  But an infatuated Henry couldn’t wait.  Accompanied by five of his councillors, he went to Anne disguised as a messenger, bearing a gift from the King.

The cultivated Katherine of Aragon or the sophisticated Anne Boleyn would have recognised straight away that this was a courtly game.  The messenger was clearly her knight in disguise and her heart should recognise him at once.  Sadly, no one had prepared Anne of Cleves for the courtly culture of England.  When the ‘messenger’ grabbed and kissed her, she was reportedly ‘abashed’.  She proceeded to treat him as a servant and largely ignored him.

This is the moment it all went wrong for Henry and Anne.  She had demonstrated her cultural ignorance.  He had been publicly humiliated.  What is less often remarked upon, is Henry’s initial reaction to Anne.  He had fallen in love with her portrait and was said to be disappointed with the real thing.  Yet, his first action upon meeting her was to grab her and kiss her.  Was he just swept up in the moment?  Or, when he first set eyes on the Princess, did he conclude that she was eminently grabbable and kissable?

2. Anne seemed to think she was more attractive than Katherine Parr

While Anne was surely happy to escape certain aspects of her marriage, there are signs that she felt slighted when Henry did not take her back after the fall of Katheryn Howard.  When it was announced that the King was to marry Lady Latimer (better known to us as ‘Katherine Parr’) Anne was heard to remark that she was a good deal more attractive than the Queen to be.

Obviously, the fact Anne thought positively about her appearance doesn’t mean that others agreed.  We can all delude ourselves.  But it should be noted that the imperial ambassador Chapuys, who reported these remarks, was quite capable of adding his own opinions to his observations.  If he had felt that Anne was deluded, he might well have mentioned it.

3. Holbein was never punished for the portrait of Anne

As we know, Henry fell in love with a portrait.  Given his reaction to Anne once they met, it is often assumed the painting must have been deliberately distorted.   Yet, Hans Holbein, the artist behind the miniature that captivated Henry’s heart, remained in favour.  He stayed on the King’s payroll and went on to paint another portrait of Henry. 

Holbein may have embellished a little.   That was to be expected.  Alison Weir has also noted that, when compared to some of Anne’s other portraits, it’s clear that Holbein chose to paint Anne at her most flattering angle.  But there’s a difference between a flattering picture and a fake one. 

*

Ultimately Henry and Anne lacked one crucial ingredient: chemistry.  That concept which is so hard to define yet so essential for the blossoming of romance.  Though he would never have used the word, it was an important concept to the King.  He had built up such an impression of Anne in his head.  He had fallen in love with a woman that didn’t exist.  She had failed her first courtly challenge.  They were doomed from the start.

In later years, a friendship emerged.  They ate together and talked.  Henry seems to have enjoyed her company.  She may have felt the same.  Perhaps if the circumstances had been different and Henry had been allowed to fall for her freely as he had all the other loves of his life, history would have taken a different turn.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• YouTube

Shortly after becoming King in 1483, the 12-year-old Edward V was lodged in the Tower of London to await his coronation.  His uncle and Lord Protector, the Duke of Gloucester soon arranged for the young King’s brother, Richard, Duke of York, to join them.  

But the day of the coronation never came.  Instead, it was announced that the boys were illegitimate – the result of a bigamous marriage – and that their Uncle would reluctantly reign as Richard III.  In the weeks that followed the boys were seen playing in the grounds or looking out of windows.  But such sightings soon stopped.  By the end of the year, they were widely presumed to be dead.

To the minds of many historians, the circumstantial evidence weighs heavily toward Richard’s guilt.  He had the motive, means and opportunity.  The Princes were in his custody.  But if Richard is the most likely candidate, he is hardly the only one.  A host of others have been accused of the crime over the past five centuries.  Some who have studied the subject, don’t believe the boys died at all.  And there is no hard evidence that they did.

No one wants to believe that an uncle could order the death of his nephews.  Any alternative theories are going to be attractive.  But when we start to scrutinise those on offer, each can, sadly, be found wanting.

Let’s take a quick look at them.

1. The Princes in the Tower were never killed

I would love this to be true.  Even 500 years later, the thought of what might have happened to those boys is chilling.  Could they have escaped a brutal end?  Might they have exchanged sovereignty for survival?

Sadly, I think it’s unlikely.  The theories range from Richard stashing the Princes somewhere else to a secret deal between Elizabeth Wydeville and her brother-in-law.   Secret identities and alternative careers as construction workers in Colchester are all offered as possibilities.

Others still, argue that someone sympathetic to the Princes managed to smuggle one or both from the Tower to safety.  Many would identify the imposter Perkin Warbeck as Richard, Duke of York, believing that the younger boy had somehow escaped his uncle’s custody.  Could the man sent to do the deed have taken mercy on him?

The belief that Richard had killed the Princes cost him dear.  Some could accept him as King but never tolerate child murder.  An unlikely coalition formed against him.  The remnants of Lancaster and supporters of his late brother, united against Richard’s reign.  Ultimately, they would take his life and his crown at Bosworth Field.  Had Richard been able to produce the Princes, this shaky alliance would have fractured immediately.

So why didn’t he?  That the boys were dead, and could not therefore be produced, is not the only explanation.  But it is, sadly, the most likely one.

One day, we may be allowed to DNA test the bones that were discovered in the Tower in 1674.  Should they be identified as those of the Princes, we will at least be sure that they died in the tower in the 1480s.

At the moment, we can’t draw too many conclusions from what we know of the skeletons.  But I will say this: the discovery of two skeletons, of children roughly the same age as the Princes in 1483, discovered exactly where Thomas More claimed they were buried, hardly detracts from the argument that the boys met their end that year.

2. The Duke of Buckingham did the deed to frame Richard, or to further his own claim to the throne

To my mind, this is the best alternative theory.  It’s certainly peculiar that Buckingham had been Richard’s staunchest supporter until he – somewhat suddenly – decided to spearhead a rebellion.  It may have been him that spread the rumours that the Princes were dead.  But could he have killed them? 

Some say that given his closeness to Richard, he was the only person that could have gained access.  I have some sympathy with that.  But even in this scenario, the King would have found out pretty sharpish.  Surely when he finally got his hands on the Duke, he would have publicly accused him.   It would have been the perfect solution for Richard.  His rivals would have been eliminated.  He would have been free from blame.  He would emerge as both legitimate King and grieving Uncle.

3. Seeing an opportunity for her son, Margaret Beaufort had the Princes done away with in 1483

This theory is popular on social media but not entertained by most historians.  I’ve blogged about why I think it has little weight elsewhere. 

Fundamentally, however much the Countess of Richmond was ambitious for her son, she wouldn’t have had access to the Princes in the Tower.  They were guarded by Richard’s men and she had nothing to bribe them with which was more attractive than the rewards offered by service to the King.

4. Henry VII, after his victory at Bosworth, had the Princes murdered

The first Tudor King has regularly been named as an alternative suspect.  But there are problems with this.  Firstly – and I refer readers to arguments earlier in the article – it relies on the Princes being alive until 1485, something which as I have demonstrated, seems unlikely. 

And what about Henry’s reaction to the pretender Perkin Warbeck?  Was he convinced that this man wasn’t truly Richard, Duke of York?  Some historians believe there was doubt in his mind.   A murderer would know the boys were dead.  Henry may not have enjoyed that confidence.

5. The boys died of natural causes

Edward V was being visited by a physician while in the Tower (before Richard removed his attendants).  Forensic investigations of the skeletons have shown some problems with the elder child’s jaw.  I’ve never known anyone die of jaw ache, although it could have been a symptom of something more serious.

But even if the elder boy had died, isn’t it a bit too convenient to think the younger had followed suit?  Had this gift been handed to Richard, surely he would have made use of it.

*

In a court of law, it would be unfair to convict someone by process of elimination.  The fact that these scenarios are unlikely to have played out, doesn’t make Richard guilty.

DNA testing of the bones may be able to confirm in the boys died in the tower.  But even that won’t tell us who killed them.  The truth is, we will never know for sure.

But as we begin to scrutinise all the alternative theories, we start to see their limits.  While recognising that we cannot be 100% certain, the finger of suspicion inevitable points again toward the man who took both Prince’s into custody, placed them in a high-security prison and, despite damaging rumours of their murder, never produced the boys to counter them. 

That man is Richard III.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• YouTube

Let’s be honest: lockdown sucks!  But it does mean there’s more time for reading.  Over the next couple of weeks, I will review 10 books which all Royal History Geeks should add to their reading list

I have no memory of the famous assassination of Louis ‘Dickie’ Mountbatten.  It took place three years before my birth and was never something mentioned at school.  Yet, growing up in a coastal city with strong naval presence, his name was one I knew well.  The pub at the end of my road was even named after him.

Perhaps it was for these reasons that I decided, aged about 15, that he was my favourite minor royal of the 20^th Century.  Yes, you’re right.  I was a super-cool teenager.

Discovering my interest, some friends of my parents procured me a book about the late Earl when they passed a charity shop.  It was a kind gesture.  But the book was second hand and dusty with yellow peeling pages.  More worryingly the contents were dry and – most unwelcoming to a teenager – almost entirely reverential.

Such a book could simply never do justice to the scandalous Earl Mountbatten of Burma.  It certainly failed to capture the spirit of Edwina, his equally sensational Countess.  And, with thanks to a dial up modem and the early days of the internet, I soon found out just how much my dusty manuscript had been missing.

‘The Mountbattens’ by Andrew Lownie is an altogether more vibrant, more honest and more satisfying account.  A collective biography of the couple, it’s 388 pages explore their personal and public adventures in glorious – and occasionally graphic – detail.

The book guides us through the lives of both protagonists in parallel up until the point they meet and marry.  For many Royal History Geeks, the early adventures of Dickie – or His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenburg, as he was known for the first 17 years of his life – will more immediately pique interest.  It was he that had the royal connections and it was he that was closer to the famous events of that era that many of us will recognise.

As the narrative progresses however, Edwina and her story more than hold their own.  Not one to take a back seat, the wealthy heiress never risks becoming a supporting character.  The pages that explore her relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, are among the most tantalising in the book. 

The Mountbattens were at the centre of major events ranging from world wars to royal weddings.  But their role in delivering the independence of India will be the one that history remembers.  And their actions in this role, the ones that historians will judge.  Current analysis tends to be kind to the couple.  The author seems to agree.

Despite the high drama of their combined career, the book’s most intriguing pages are those that touch on the personal.  I had always known that the Mountbatten’s ‘enjoyed’ an open marriage.  But I’d failed to realise was that this was initially to accommodate Edwina’s desires and interests.  Dickie, Lownie tell us, was hurt by his wife’s distance and adultery.  It would, however, be an arrangement that the Earl would more than grow in to.

Whatever the ups and downs of their relationship, their parting was a painful one.  Lownie describes Edwina’s quiet death and Dickie’s grief with perfect poignance.  In contracts, Dickie’s assassination in 1979 is detailed with the drama it deserves. 

The rumoured bisexuality of Louis Mountbatten is explored at length.  The author seems convinced that evidence for homosexual behaviour exists and his presentation of said evidence is certainly compelling.  While this is hardly likely to ruffle many feathers with the modern reader, darker accusations of under-age sexual encounters exist.  The author does not dismiss them.

Throughout the book, the slow transformation of Prince Louis of Battenburg and Miss Edwina Ashley to the Earl and Countless Mountbatten of Burma is told with a pacey, compelling tone and accessible language.  It is perfectly suited to those who already know much about the controversial couple and to Royal History Geeks that have never come across them before.

The Mountbattens are still figures of living memories.  It is probably too early to measure their impact and assess their legacy.  But as this biography shows, their marriage, lives and career contain all the necessary ingredients to establish the couple as figures of interest for future generations.  Let’s hope that as tomorrow’s historians take up this mantle, they do so with the acute observations, careful analysis and skilful articulation of this biography.   

The Mountbattens: Their Lives & Loves by Andrew Lownie is available from Amazon.

However, please consider supporting your local book seller.  If you are based in the UK, search for your local book seller at the Book Seller Associations website.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube

People often claim that Richard’s reputation was distorted by his Tudor successors. But by examining the source material from Richard’s own time, we can be relatively clear on the events of 1483. We can make a reasonable assessment as to what happened to the Princes in the Tower.

In this video I make a couple of slip ups. I say ‘Richard II’ when I mean ‘Richard III.’ I refer to a source as the third ‘edition’ of the Croyland Chronicle rather than the third ‘continuation.’ Oh dear. It’s a good thing I’m pretty.

• WordPress
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube