A short story about Lady Margaret Beaufort and Henry VI

Posted on January 10, 2021January 10, 2021 By Gareth - Editor

Roses, thorns and friendships

1452
I knew I had to stop. Those tingling sensations of vanity were not becoming of a Christian girl. But by Saint George, they felt good.

I looked down again at my flowing scarlet gown. With my open sleeves and gold trimmings I felt as radiant as the sun. I had always known I was from a very great dynasty. For the first time, I felt as majestic as the mythical Yale in our family crest.

“Stop it!” I told myself quietly. Like Our Lady, good little girls were to be pious and penitent. But I didn’t want to “stop it”, whatever I told myself. Pride might be a sin, but it was better than that other feeling. That dark, creeping feeling which I couldn’t put into words. It had grown like a weed since we first stepped foot in Westminster, causing lumps to form in my throat and a knot to twist in my belly. If vanity were the only anecdote to that feeling, perhaps the Virgin might understand.

“Now remember Margaret,” mother said, “I will not be with you when you meet the King.” As she spoke she gently lifted my hair, and sprinkled it neatly around my shoulders. Mother revelled in setting my hair. She could never display her own. Wearing your hair loose is the preserve of Queens and virgins.

“Your uncle Somerset will present you. When he does, you will sink into a deep curtsey. The king will come before you and lift you up. Stand there as he talks to you and answer all his questions with the utmost reverence.”

For a minute, mother looked concerned.

“Actually Margaret, there’s a chance the king won’t lift you out of your curtsey. If he doesn’t, just stay there for as long as you can and then gently fall to your knees. In this dress, no one will notice.”

I looked up at mother. No doubt this gentle woman could see the nerves etched on my face.

“Look, you don’t need to worry. The customs at court are not that different to what we do at home when we have important visitors. I like to think you are a well brought up little girl.” She held my face in her hands and gave me a warm, loving smile. “I am confident you will do us proud.”

I trusted mother with my life. And she was right; though I was not quite 10 years old, the customs of court were within my grasp. I was good with grownups and I had already met dukes, bishops, mayors and all kinds of important men. That wasn’t what I was worried about. I wasn’t worried at all.

I was petrified.

No one knew for sure why the King wanted to see me. I was pledged in marriage to his half-brother, Edmund Tudor, a man I had never met. For mother, this was explanation enough. “He’s just curious to set eyes on his new sister-in-law” she had said, almost a little too cheerily. But I knew otherwise.

The King was angry with me.

Before my betrothal to Edmund, I was troth-plight to a boy named John de La Pole. We had met only once but I was under the power of his father, the Duke of Suffolk, who had been my guardian since I was a baby. Father had died when I was an infant and the King, his cousin, had entrusted my welfare to Suffolk. But the Duke was an evil man.

According to Parliament, Suffolk had done something terrible. Criminal! Evil! Mother had no idea that I knew. She probably thought I didn’t even know what ‘Parliament’ was but I’d heard the servants talking. Their words had lingered in my memory ever since.

“Take this linen up to Lady Margaret’s chamber.”

I knew I wasn’t allowed in the laundry room. Or the kitchens. Or the cellar. But I loved seeing how the servants worked, hearing their earthy language and I was small enough to hide in every nook and cranny of our home, Bletsoe Castle. Mother had always said my destiny was be a great lady, running my own house one day. Surely I needed to see how one actually worked?

“Don’t you mean, Queen Margaret,” said the maid who was now in possession of my linen sheets. She fell into a mock curtsey with a girly sneer. Katherine, the older woman who had instructed her, scowled.

“Don’t look at me like that,” the maid defended. “I’m only saying what they’re saying in Parliament. That Duke of Suffolk was going to kill the king and say Lady Margaret was the next in line. She would be Queen. And his son, the King.”

Blessed saints! The Queen. What did she mean, I was next in line? Why would my guardian want to kill the king?

“Now you listen to me,” Katherine was quiet, but her tone as fierce as a beast. “For as long as you want to work in this castle, you mind your tongue. If I catch you talking about anyone in the family like that again, I’ll have a good mind to cut it off for safe keeping.”

The maid blustered a bit. She looked on the verge of mounting a defence.

“I’m serious!” The older lady continued. “You want the Lady Margaret arrested? Beheaded for treason? You go around repeating stories and the next thing we know, people will think they started at this castle and they’ll see truth where there’s none. Is that what you want? Our precious little girl on the receiving end of the King’s anger. The little Lady Somerset dead? And it all on your conscience!”

The younger maid was sobbing. But emotion would grant her no reprieve.

“Linen! Chamber! Now!”

I scurried away as soon as the coast was clear and told no one what I’d heard. But when mother told me that the King had summoned us to court, I knew what it meant. It was time for me to get my comeuppance.

“Your grace,” my uncle said with a bow after I entered the King’s chamber. Mother was outside. Apart from my uncle and two ushers, I was alone with the king. I had imagined the king’s court to be swarming like a beehive. There were countless guards on the outside of the chamber. I have a wild imagination, Mother often upbraids me for it, but I couldn’t let go of the ridiculous notion that the King was like a prisoner.

“May I present my niece, Lady Margaret of Somerset.”

I moved as mother had instructed. I took a few steps so I was lined up to the King’s throne and dropped into a deep curtsey.

For a minute or two nothing happened. With my small legs, I couldn’t hold my curtsey much longer. As mother suggested, I fell to a kneel. My poor, rich garment was unblemished no more.

I looked up. Was I meant to look up? I had to see what was going on. Now that I was closer I could see the king clearer. He looked dazed, in some kind of stupor. I had imagined he would wear a crown but on his head was a velvet cap.

“My Lady Margaret of Somerset,” my uncle repeated. He raised his voice and lurched slightly in the king’s direction.

The king looked up slowly. He glanced my way, thought for a minute and smiled. There was a gentleness to his face and kindness in his eyes. Steadily he lifted himself from the throne. He came softly toward me as if he were floating. And then –

Blessed mother! He kneeled. The king kneeled and was crouched down just in front of me. His eyes were wide like a puppy. Now that they were closer, I could see the features on his long oval face. I knew he was a full-grown man, but his face was like a little boy’s.

“Lady Somerset,” he said as he took my hand. His eyes were calm and his touch was gentle. I was used to men like my uncle pulling me and pushing me but the king made me feel like he had all the time in the world.

“We are to be friends. You do want to be my friend don’t you?”

“Oh yes. Yes my lord. Very much.” I panicked. Should I have called him ‘your grace’? Why was he asking this? Were my fears confirmed? Was I here to prove my loyalty and answer for my inadvertent betrayal?

“Oh good,” said the king as he sighed with relief. “I need friends my lady.” He looked sad. For a few moments he said nothing.

“You are my friend so you will marry my brother… I love my brother… then we can all be friends together. We can protect each other and…“ He stopped suddenly. He turned over my hand in his as if to inspect my palm. He reached for my other hand and did the same.

“Lady Somerset, you have brought me no parchment.”

Fear stuck me like a lightning bolt. Here I was, kneeling before the King of England and I had come unprepared. Parchment? I had never thought to bring parchment. Why would I need it? But then what did I know of the court? How could mother have sent me in like this? Why was I not fully prepared?

“I’m sorry y-y-your grace,” I quivered. If he had shouted at me I could have born it. I am used to loud, shouty brothers but gentle disappointment was different. If I had failed him, my heart would break. I was using all my strength to fight back tears. Within seconds, I lost the battle.

“No, no, no my lady,” the king said gently. He lifted a finger to my cheeks and wiped away my tears. Then he cupped my hands in his, “I do not want the parchment but people usually bring it to me. They say if I sign it, it will make them happy. I want to make people happy.”

He paused again. This time for a minute or two.

“However, when I do, my friends get cross with me. William was my friend. He used to get angry with me for signing all the parchment. He said that when I signed it, people would be able to take my money and my land. That they would get jobs which were other people’s jobs. When he was with me, people wouldn’t bring me the parchment. Except sometimes…sometimes William brought me parchment too.

“William said that my real friends wouldn’t bring me parchment.” He grasped my cupped hands tightly, but not roughly. “You must be my real friend.”

I felt relief flood through my body. It was like someone had lit a candle in my chest. For the first time in days, the knot in my belly started to loosen. The king wasn’t trying to punish me. He wanted to be my friend.

“William was my friend for a long time,” the king continued. Tears started to well in his kind eyes. “He used to look after me. But then he had to go away and someone killed him. I did forgive him – the man that killed him. It was very hard but I prayed and the virgin helped me forgive him.”

My heart was breaking as I saw the sadness in this gentle man’s eyes. William must be Suffolk, my old father-in-law. Could he have been so wicked to betray a man that loved him thus?

“Now Edmund is my friend…Edmund is your uncle. He looks after me now….and the Queen. The Queen is my wife. She is beautiful and she helps me.

“And you will be my friend too. I can call you Margaret. Will you call me Henry?”

“Oh yes your gra – Henry.” I was almost laughing with joy. The King was not a strict, brutal ruler. He was a kind, pious, gentle man. And he wanted to be my friend.

“Those of us who are friends have to stick together. Edmund says some people don’t want to be my friend. The Queen says Edmund is right.”

I knew my uncle would be right, he always was. But what a strange notion. The king was clearly a kind man. Why wouldn’t anyone want to be his friend?

“I have a cousin called Richard,” he lowered his voice slightly. “He is the Duke of York. I like him but Edmund says he doesn’t like me.” He cupped his hand over her ear and whispered. “He wants me to die. He wants to be king.”

I let out an audible gasp. I felt the heat of anger like I’d never felt it before. How could anyone try and kill the King? He was God’s own anointed ruler! A lovely, kind man.

“Edmund says we must work together. He says you will help. He says that you and my brother – he’s called Edmund too – will go and live in Wales and help keep it safe for me. Will you Margaret? Will you be my friend and help me?”

I had never felt more sure of anything.

“Oh yes Henry,” I said at once. “I will always be your friend. I will always help you.” I meant every word. This Duke of York must be a brutal man. A villain. A beast. And if I had anything to do with it, he would never prosper.

Uncle Somerset walked toward us and placed his hand on the king’s shoulder. They must be great friends to enjoy such intimacy.

“Alas my liege, it is time for Margaret to return to her mother. The Duchess awaits her.”

The king looked dazed again. For a moment he looked up at my Uncle before turning his gaze back to me.

“Margaret, before you go, I need to tell you a secret.”

“Of course Henry.” I was a good secret keeper.

“I am scared. When I die, I might go to hell.”

This couldn’t be true. Henry was the most pious man I had ever met, much more than my brothers or my uncle. But fear flowed from his eyes, so I listened with fervour.

“I think God wanted me to be a monk. But I am a king instead. He might be angry with me. I try to be pious. – to hear mass as often as I can. I try and help the church, and in truth,” he again cupped my ear and whispered to me, “I still live like a monk.”

I didn’t know why the last part was a secret. Or what it meant. How could he live like a monk? Monks spent all day in prayer or in study. Henry had to rule. Never the less, my heart went out to him. I had so recently feared punishment for something I had no control over. This great and kind man was tormented by the same fear.

“I will pray for you every day,” I said with fervour. “I believe you to be a good and holy man. You will be upright in God’s eyes.”

The King paused for a moment. He seemed to be pondering something.

“Margaret most of my friends are older than me. When I die, you might be the only one left.”

I didn’t understand.

“I need you to pray for me then. Hold masses. Make sure my soul is protected. Will you do that for me Margaret? You might be the only one.”

“Oh yes Henry. I will pray for your soul with all the devotion of my own. I will lead a blameless life so that God, the virgin and all the saints will hear my prayers. Me and my husband will say mass and pay for more to be held. We will do everything for you. I promise Henry. I promise.”

Within seconds my uncle was leading me out. I had not even been in the king’s presence for half an hour, yet my life had changed forever. My world and my heart had doubled in size.

Only minutes before I was a little girl. My concerns had been for a simple gown and my fears, just of earthly punishment. Now I was a woman with a cause. I was a friend of the King. I must protect him from his enemies and when he finally departed the mortal coil, I would do everything in my power for his soul. This kind, gentle man was a saint, a hero, a champion, and the world needed to know it.

On that day, I found my purpose. I was prepared to devote my life to it.

The Princes in the Tower: 7 arguments that suggest it was Richard wot done it

Posted on June 25, 2020June 26, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

The fate of the Princes in the Tower will probably never be definitively answered

Richard III and the fate of the princes in the tower. It’s a debate that is unlikely to be resolved to satisfaction.

Hard evidence does not exist. We don’t even know for a fact that Edward V and his brother Richard were murdered – let alone at whose hand they met their fate.

But it isn’t true that we know nothing. And what we do have – circumstantial thought it may be – strongly suggests the blame must be laid at Richard’s door.

Here are just seven reasons why.

1. You don’t need to rely on Tudor sources to conclude that Richard’s probably guilty

“Richard’s reputation has been blackened by Tudor propaganda.” It’s a statement we often hear in this debate and is a relatively superficial analysis. It prevents each source being assessed for its individual merit. But it ain’t an argument I’m gonna win with one article.

As luck would have it, I don’t need to. The evidence that points to Richard’s guilt can be found in accounts contemporaneous to his reign. Thanks to the writings of Dominic Mancini and the 3^rd continuation of the Croyland Chronicle we have a relatively robust understanding of the chain of events in 1483.

Mancini was an Italian visiting London. He had access to a source close to the Princes and was aware of what information was being put about the capital. We would be unwise to take every word he writes as fact. But the chain of events can be verified by other sources, even though none could have read Mancini’s work. His account lingered in a French library until it was discovered in 1934.

Croyland was almost certainly a state official, though not part of Richard’s inner-circle. Technically it was written in the first few months of Henry VII’s reign. However, it was written too early to be ‘infected’ by ‘Tudor propaganda’. Crucially, it contains information that Henry VII would not have wanted preserved. To dismiss it as a ‘Tudor spin’ would be absurd.

2. Richard killed the Princes most loyal supporters before declaring himself King

Richard’s army of modern-day supporters often argue that Richard’s claim to the crown – based on the supposed illegitimacy of the princes – was widely accepted by the ‘three estates’ of the realm. But surely the fact that Richard had just killed everyone that opposed him and had armies stationed outside London had something to do with that?

Without following due legal process, Richard had William Hastings, a close supporter of Edward IV murdered. He killed – without trial – the Princes’ uncle, Earl Rivers and their half-brother Richard Grey. The message was clear. Resistance to Richard would be met with fatal force.

Richard declared his nephews illegitimate. But did people really believe him?

3. The illegitimacy of the Princes was not accepted

Ricardians also argue that Richard had no motive to have the Princes killed. He had declared them illegitimate and thus they were no threat to him. But Croyland is clear that plots were forming to free them. Clearly, the story hadn’t stuck. Besides, Richard had made them illegitimate by Act of Parliament. Parliament could simply reverse that decision.

4. Richard had the Princes in a high-security prison

Mancini tells us that “all the attendants who had waited upon the King [Edward V] were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner departments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether.”

While the Tower of London was a royal residence and not just a prison, the boys were kept to a designated area. After a certain point they were not permitted to roam

5. Richard dismissed all the Princes’ attendants and had them guarded by loyal men

Croyland tells us that the Princes were put in the custody of ‘certain persons appointed to that purpose.’ They would have been men Richard trusted greatly.

Occasionally people speculate that these men were bribed by another. But what could they have offered? What could possibly outweigh the benefits to be had from service to the King? And surely these men knew that if they let something happen to the Princes on anyone’s orders but Richard’s they would answer for it with their heads.

6. Richard never accused anyone else of killing the Princes

Richard had the boys in a high security prison. Could anyone – even Buckingham – really have gained access? If they had, Richard would have known about it straight away. Would he really have kept quiet? After all, it would have been a stroke of luck. He could make it clear the boys were dead and pin the murder on someone else. It’s telling that he never did.

7. Richard did not ‘produce’ the boys when doing so would have saved his reign

Some argue that the Princes were never killed at all. I would love to believe that, but it seems unlikely.

In 1485, Richard III faced a great threat from a strange and unlikely coalition. The remnants of Lancaster teamed up with the keenest supporters of Edward IV to topple Richard. If Richard had been able to prove that the boys were still alive, it would have split his opposition down the middle. It might even have united all Yorkist support under him.

But he didn’t. Because they were almost certainly dead.

The Tower of London was a royal residence, not just a prison. But Richard had the boys confined to inner apartments where they could not be seen

Everything I’ve said here is circumstantial. It’s not categorical proof and I accept that. Maybe it wouldn’t stand up in court. But we’re not lawyers. This isn’t a trial. As Alison Weir says, historians don’t convict beyond all reasonable doubt. They look at the evidence we have and conclude what is most likely to have happened.

So much passion surrounds this debate and it is largely counter-productive. I have no partisan bias against Richard. If new evidence comes to light I would do my best to review it with an open mind.

What puzzles me is that multitudes of Royal History Geeks feel the need to explain away the chain of events that I have outlined above. That Richard ordered the death of the Princes is not the only interpretation of the events of 1483. But surely it is the most likely? I worry that a pre-conceived idea of Richard’s character prevents people from accepting evidence for what it is. This is a dangerous way of doing history. We know so little about the hearts and minds of the people we study.

Henry VII is a king I really admire. I believe he made important shifts in the structures of government which helped pave the way for Parliamentary democracy (which is not to suggest that Henry was in any way a democrat himself). I also think that there is evidence to suggest his character was considerably less blood thirsty than kings that came before or after him.

But I must accept that overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggests that he framed and judicially murdered Edward, Earl of Warwick. The young man had spent much of his life in prison and was probably what we would today consider a vulnerable adult. Whatever Henry’s dynastic reasons for his actions, this was a terrible crime.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t take away from Henry’s achievements as king. Nor does Edward IV’s murder of the old, virtuous and mentally unstable Henry VI diminish his legacy. He showed great skill in managing the nobility and restored order to England. It does make them both three-dimensional characters that need to be studied and analysed. Admired and respected, but never worshipped and revered.

By taking the same approach with Richard, we have a chance to truly redeem his reputation. To rescue him from both his status as unreconstructed monster and revered cult figure. He can finally emerge as the bearer of the broken humanity we all share and the wielder of skills and qualities that deserve to be remembered.

While we’re talking about the Tower of London, we must remember that our wonderful Royal palaces and historical landmarks have taken a real hit during the lockdown. Let’s make sure we get visiting as soon as we’re allowed, to show them our support. Keep an eye on the Historic Royal Palaces website as I’m sure they’ll let us know when doors are open again.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

6 things to remember when debating York vs Lancaster

Posted on June 6, 2020June 6, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

Being a Royal History Geek has its challenges. Our animated interest in the affairs of yesteryear can raise more than the occasional eyebrow among our friends and family. The Wars of the Roses, however, is one topic that people not quite as super-cool as us know a little bit about. Or at least, they think they do.

It’s not uncommon for the debate around who had the better claim to the throne – York or Lancaster – to come up in the mainstream media, at school or university and even down the pub.

So, next time you find yourself debating the age-old question, here’s six facts it’s worth remembering.

1. The Lancastrians were the senior heirs male of Edward III

Through John of Gaunt, Lancastrians were the heirs-male to Edward III

Richard II had the undisputed right to succeed Edward III in 1377. But once you get rid of him, the Lancastrian kings were the senior heirs male to Edward III. That means their line passed father to son to grandson, great-grandson etc in much the same way that the surname tends to. If you believed people in the 14^th and 15^th century preferred male-only succession, Lancaster are the clear winners

2. York were the senior heirs general of Edward III

Through Lionel of Antwerp, the Yorks were the heirs-general to Edward III

The house of York descended from Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp. But the line passed through daughters twice before getting to Richard, Duke of York. If you believed that 14^th/15^th century folk were open to women inheriting the crown – or transmit their claim to their sons – then York come out on top.

3. Edward I may have permitted succession through the female line

Edward I may have gathered his family to read out the line of succession

Although details are a bit sketchy, it looks as if Edward I (1272-1307) was open to female succession. He seems to have told his family that the crown should pass first to his sons and their descendants, thereafter to his daughters and their descendants. This is good news for the Yorkist claim.

4. Edward III entailed succession through the male only line

Edward III imitated the trend of landowners and entailed the crown in the male line

In about 1377, Edward III left a document suggesting that descent should only be in the male-line. This is a coup for the Lancastrians. It specifically names the Duke of Lancaster and his son before the Mortimers (ancestors of the Yorks). But even more importantly, it ties into a wider trend. In the late 1300s, landowners were trying to entail their estates to male-heir only. Edward III’s decision to do the same with the crown may have been indicative of attitudes at the time.

5. Richard II may have nominated Mortimer as his heir

Richard II created confusion around who is heir was

According to the Eulogium Historium, Richard II recognised Mortimer as his heir in the parliament of 1385 or 1386. Mortimer was the grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III. If true, this is good news for Yorkists. Richard, Duke of York, was Mortimer’s grandson. But historians debate whether it really happened. The official record doesn’t mention it.

6. No one cared about any of this in 1460 or 1461

28,000 men lost their lives at the battle of Towton

No one really cared whether the Duke of York or Henry VI had the best hereditary claim from Edward III. Not even Richard himself really. Lancaster were the established dynasty. Henry VI was an anointed King and the son of a great man, Henry V. The nobility was reluctant to remove Henry, despite his disastrous reign.

It was ultimately the gentry that deserted Lancaster and backed Edward IV at the battle of Towton in 1461. None of them did so because of the ’superiority’ of the Yorkist claim. They, even more than the nobility, needed stability to return to England. They knew that Henry VI was effectively out the picture. Their choice was a full-blooded Plantagenet like Edward of York or a French woman who had gained a reputation for savagery.

28,000 men lost their life at Towton. Not a single one did so to defend constitutional purity.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Lockdown must-reads #6: The Hollow Crown by Dan Jones

Posted on May 6, 2020May 6, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

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.

For many years ‘The Wars of the Roses’ were confined to a paragraph or two in the introduction to Tudor history books. We, the readers, had to endure just a few lines about random battles, murderous uncles and cooky Plantagenet cousins. If we did, we knew we’d be treated to tales of religious reform, six wives and female succession.

But we didn’t know what we were missing. Under the skilful craftmanship of Dan Jones, this series of bloody conflicts finally take their place in the spotlight.

The 370-page publication spans a 45-year time period and touches on the reigns on five kings. But despite the breadth of the topic, Jones paints a vivid and detailed picture of the breakdown of England’s political system and the lust for power that followed it.

The book begins with the marriage of Henry VI’s parents. By beginning the narrative here rather than an earlier point in history, Jones is implicitly nailing his colours to the mast. Committed to the Tudor perspective that the conflicts have their origins in the downfall of Richard II? You’re going to disappointed. Sympathetic to the Whig notion that Edward III doomed his descendants to disaster? Look away now. Like recent scholarship, Jones roots the cause of conflict squarely in the ineffectual kingship of the last Lancastrian ruler.

As Henry grows, his inability to perform even the most basic facet of Kingship becomes increasingly obvious. For the best part of two decades the political establishments attempts to create a mechanism for governing England without a functioning monarch. But in the run up to 1450 it all came crumbling down

The 1450s is a decade of battles, high politics and low humanity. With vivid storytelling the author brings them to life. Characters like Margaret of Anjou, Richard of York and a succession of Somerset Dukes become real to us. Jones correctly notes that it is not until York puts his hand on the throne and claims the crown in 1460, that the Wars of the Roses can truly be called a dynastic conflict.

The book bounces through the early years of Yorkist rule under Edward IV. Like most accounts of the era, it focuses on his unpopular marriage to Elizabeth Wydeville, which in turn leads to a rebellion by Warwick and the second phases of the wars. The rest of Edward’s reign is centred on the fallout with his brother, Clarence. Eventually we follow the dramatic events of Edwards’s death, the brief succession of his son and Gloucester’s usurpation of the throne as Richard III. The author does well not to dwell on the fate of the princes in the tower. As Alison Weir has demonstrated, that topic requires a book of its own. (But let’s be honest, we all now Richard did it.)

In events familiar to Royal History Geeks, Henry VII ultimately wins the crown at Bosworth field. He holds the throne for almost 25 years and is succeeded by his son. But it is years before he is free from the threats of pretenders.

Like its predecessor, ‘The Plantagenets’, the book is ambitious in its scale. As a result, it cannot focus on any of either Edward IV or Henry VII’s reign in detail. But it does provide a cohesive overview that is essential for anyone looking to study either king in greater depth.

The book is lively and well crafted. Some of the sentences are almost poetic. It’s clear from the first few pages that Jones has grown as a writer since 2012’s ‘The Plantagenets’. (This may sound a little patronising. Let me be clear: I would give my right arm to be able to write a book as good as the Plantagenets.)

But perhaps the greatest achievement of this book is the way it makes ‘recent’ and innovative scholarship accessible. In the last three decades, historians such as John Watts and Christine Carpenter have boldly attempted to reconstruct the Kingship of Henry VI. They drive home its fundamental inadequacy from its inception. Jones’s work is the first attempt I have come across to draw on this scholarship and present it in the popular genre.

Since the discovery of Richard III’s remains, interest in the Wars of the Roses has reached fever pitch. Source material is scant and scholarship is complicated. But through well-written and beautifully crafted accounts like this, the public can access the latest thinking, correct misconceptions that arise from fiction and get a grip on one of England’s most intriguing sagas. Dan Jones sets the standard. If only more would rise to it.

The Hollow Crown – The Wars of the Roses and the Rise of the Tudors, 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.

Lockdown must-reads #1: The House of Beaufort by Nathen Amin

Posted on April 28, 2020April 28, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

It’s the book I’d always wanted to write. But I’m glad I didn’t. Charting the choppy course of the Beaufort dynasty over three generations is an ambitious undertaking.

In 1370 they didn’t exist. By the 1400s they were dominant political players. In 1471, they were eliminated. I could never have done their unparalleled story justice. Thankfully, Nathen Amin does.

The book begins by exploring the Beaufort’s shaky origins as the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III, and his scandalous mistress, Katherine Swynford. It examines their rise to prominence under Richard II following their parents’ marriage and their own legitimisation.

We then travel through the 1400s. We see how they helped establish and protect the reign of their half-brother Henry IV and the Lancastrian dynasty. We learn about their role at the heart of Henry V’s government.

As the book draws to a close, we see how the family dominated the conflict we now call the ‘Wars of the Roses’. Their devotion to the house of Lancaster never falters – a devotion they pay for with their total elimination of their house in the male line.

The accessible and fluid writing style makes it easy to bounce through the 285-page epic. As we do, we’re again struck by how closely the history of the Beauforts mirrors the history of 15^th century England. At least one of them was at the centre of every major event. They were the authors of victories. They were culpable for failures.

But this book is more than just a run-through of familiar events. Through focused research, intelligent guesswork and a hint of empathy the author explore the human dynamics and dilemmas that our subjects were doubtlessly faced with. John Beaufort’s conflict between his loyalty to Richard II and his devotion to his half-brother Henry IV, is an early example.

The author is bold in his attempt to rescue some of the Beauforts from a distorted reputation. He successfully sets Cardinal Beaufort’s decision to put Joan of Arc to death in its proper political context. He questions the oft-quoted notion that the younger John Beaufort died at his own hand.

Some of the Beauforts are well known to history. You simply can’t discuss Lancastrian kingship without discussing the Cardinal. Both Johns are remembered as the immediate ancestors of the Tudors. But this book sheds new light on the other two children to spring from Gaunt and Swynford’s union. Thomas is established as a war hero who became perfectly apt at playing the political game. Joan takes her place as a matriarch of the north.

There’s only one thing I would change about this book. It should be a trilogy. Each generation of the Beauforts deserve a book of their own. But I’m a fanatic. Publishers ultimately make the decision about what will sell. There probably isn’t a market for three books on the dynasty.

The hard-back edition comes with a clean and striking cover. Bearing the Beaufort arms, it looks grand on the bookshelf. There’s also some lovely photography at the book’s centre. The quality of the paper is a little on the low side. But the reader will be instantly absorbed by the page’s content. They’re unlikely to care what it’s printed on.

For too long the Beauforts have been reduced to a footnote in the Tudor’s origin story. In truth, they were the power breakers of Lancastrian kingship and the shapers of a century. It’s time they stepped forward and took their rightful place in the annuls of history. ‘The House of Beaufort’ plays a ground-breaking role in ensuring that they do.

The, House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown, 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.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

WATCH: York vs Lancaster – who had the better claim to the throne?

Posted on April 26, 2020April 26, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

During a series of bloody battles, the Royal houses of Lancaster and York fought for the throne of England. The conflicts are known to us as the Wars of the Roses.

Both houses descended from Edward III. But who had the best claim to the throne?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

The staggering wealth of Margaret Beaufort

Posted on March 22, 2020April 24, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

The young Margaret of Somerset became the greatest heiresses of her era; but her phenomenal wealth made her a pawn to politics.

I’m hardly the first Royal History Geek to be fascinated by Margaret Beaufort. The matriarch’s struggles, hardships and triumphs are the things that epics are made of.

A widowed mother at 13. A fifth column in the final days of the Yorkist regime. Against all the odds, her valiant efforts put her descendants on the throne. They’ve remained there ever since.

But even before the Wars of the Roses broke out, Margaret was a figure of note to contemporaries. Thanks to the early tragedy of her father’s death, the young Margaret inherited the bulk of the Beaufort fortune.

But just how wealthy was the young Margaret of Somerset? Did her wealth place her among the upper reaches of England’s nobility? Had she been a man, would her fortune have made her a major military player in the dynastic wars that dominated her life?

As so often with Margaret Beaufort questions, we must turn to the academic study by Michael K Jones and Malcolm G Underwood. In these pages, the young heiresses’ lands are explored in detail. Thanks largely to the fortune of her late grandmother, who was co-heiress to the earldom of Kent, by 1450 it was clear that Margaret wielded a fortune of approximately £1000 a year.

On its own, this doesn’t tell us much. Such a figure would be no great income today. How far did a grand go in the 1450s?

WATCH: my video discussing the wealth of Margaret Beaufort

To get some sense of an answer we must wind the clock back to seven years before Margaret’s birth. Ahead of a new tax to fund the war with France, all landowners were assessed and their annual income calculated. The findings have come down to us.

If Margaret were alive in 1436 and in possession of her fortune, she would have ranked among the top 20 landowners. Given that there were about 60 titled families at any one time, this placed Margaret in the upper-third of noble society. Those with lands to the value of £25 a year were deemed wealthy enough to tax. Margaret’s income was 40 times that sum.

However, we need to be very, very careful about this. Seven years is a long time. Income from land was subject to the stewardship of the landlord and, at least to some extent, market forces.

Furthermore, it’s clear from other evidence that the rich then – like the rich today – had gone to some length to disguise the extent of their wealth.

As an indication however, it remains illuminating. Chris Given-Wilson, the great late-medieval historian, estimates that an earl would typically enjoy £1000-1500 a year. This is clearly the category that Margaret was in. Nonetheless, money was not always so logically linked to title. Some earls – such as Devon, Westmoreland and Suffolk – seemed to have less. Some could claim considerably more. There were also a handful of wealthy barons who enjoyed fortunes greater than some earls.

Margaret, however, did not have an income worthy of a major power broker. If we take numbers from the 1436 list, add together the various titles and estates that were consolidated in the late 1430s and 1440s, we get a sense as to who the major players were at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses.

The Duke of Buckingham enjoyed almost £3000 a year, the Duke of York £3500 and the mighty Earl of Warwick £4,400. As stated earlier, these figures should be taken as conservative. Studies on the Duke of Buckingham for example, suggest his income was double this sum – at least in some years.

At the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, the Earl of Warwick was probably the richest noble in the land

Margaret’s wealth was both extraordinary and unremarkable. What made it so significant was her sex. It was unusual – thought not unique, even in her own time – for a woman to be in sole possession of such a staggering sum. And that staggering sum, of course, was up for grabs by a future husband.

Under the common law of primogeniture, women would only inherit a parent’s fortune if they were devoid of a brother. The eldest son would typically inherit the lot. But when there was more than one daughter (and no son) the girls had to share it out equally.

Great landowners hated the idea of daughters inheriting. This was not out of pure misogyny. They loathed the thought of their estates being divvied up among daughters and used to bolster the ambitions of the lesser Lords their girls would marry. As a result, many deployed legal devises – such as entails – to block female inheritance.

For whatever reason, the Beauforts never deployed such a devise. As her father’s sole surviving legitimate child, Margaret’s status as a major heiress was established within the first two years of her life.

Money was important to Margaret. When her son seized the throne, she would be granted plenty more of it. But this early fortune would lead to trauma. Before she was seven years old, she was abandoned to the machinations of the medieval marriage market. Her money, along with her trickle of royal blood, made her a pawn of politics from her earliest years.

Thank goodness that the matriarch of the Tudors was a born survivor.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Friends, rivals, enemies? The relationship between Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville

Posted on May 14, 2017April 24, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

With the ‘White Princess’ currently broadcasting in America it’s important to take a more balanced look at the relationship between the so called ‘Red Queen’ and ‘White Queen.’

Being UK based I haven’t actually seen the ‘White Princess’ so I’m basing any comments on the book and what American friends have reported.

Sorry about the length and quality. Am working on my skills!

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Was Margaret Beaufort’s final marriage ever more than a business arrangement?

Posted on April 3, 2017 By Gareth - Editor

This is the last video on Margaret Beaufort’s marriages – but NOT the last video in the Margaret Beaufort min-series.

Let me know what you think…

How did Margaret Beaufort feel about her marriage to Henry Stafford?

Posted on April 3, 2017 By Gareth - Editor

We’re continuing to ask questions about Margaret’s marriages – this time to Henry Stafford.

Is it me, or do I look particularly cute in this vid 😉