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.

Book review: Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty

Posted on January 30, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

Margaret Beaufort is a character that features heavily in the story of others. Henry VI, Richard III, Elizabeth of York and of course, her treasured son, Henry VII. But tracking down a book devoted solely to her is no easy task.

The 1992 offering by Jones and Underwood is generally seen as the definitive guide. I’ve read it and its excellent – but pretty academic and heavy going. If you’ve got a full time job, and not so well versed in academic reading, it takes a while to wade through.

Therefore it’s not much of an exaggeration to say that when Elizabeth Norton published her account of ‘Margaret Beaufort, the mother of the Tudors’ it caused something of a revolution amongst fans of the medieval matriarch.

Readable, well researched and accessible, the book gives the most appealing reconstruction of the Countess of Richmond and Derby. While it lacks the high story telling of an Alison Weir or David Starkey offering, it is easy to follow and accessibly referenced. The inclusion of letters written by Margaret herself in the appendix is an unexpected treat that gives readers a first-hand glance into the mind of the woman herself.

Understandably, there is a heavy focus on Margaret’s later life, when she was in a position of prominence that generated a wealth of surviving historic records. But the picture of her early years is painted as well as possible.

The front cove tells us that this is the ‘true story of the Red Queen’ – a nod to how popular fiction has slightly distorted Margaret’s reputation in recent years. Perhaps because of this, the biography does not massively dwell on the empathetic and speculation. But it does gives readers the intellectual framework to safely speculate.

If you are a fan of Margaret, the Wars of the Roses or the Tudor era, then this is worth getting your hands on. Despite the book being quite long, and me being a slow reader with a full time job, I finished it in days.

Margaret Beaufort, Mother of the Tudor Dynasty, by Elizabeth Norton, was published by Amberley Publishing Plc in 2010. At time of writing it was available for purchase on Amazon for £52.17 (hardcover) and £9.98 paperback)

Why Margaret Beaufort could NOT have killed the Princes in the Tower

Posted on January 28, 2016January 28, 2016 By Gareth - Editor

I’ve always known that a handful of people judge Margaret Beaufort guilty of the death of the Princes in the Tower. But until I published my series on Richard III – and incurred the wrath of the Ricardians – I had no idea just how widespread the theory was.

Absolutely no contemporary source links Margaret to the crime. An obscure 17th century biographer attempting to redeem Richard III links the deaths to a ‘certain Countess’ (presumably of Richmond) but offers nothing by way of evidence. I can’t shake the feeling that this view is currently so popular because of the ‘White Queen’ TV series in 2013.

It is, I believe, credible to suggest that Margaret had a motive. With the sons of Edward IV out the way, nothing would stand in the way of her son making an alliance with Elizabeth of York, uniting their claim to the throne and over throwing the tyrannical Richard. But a motive is not proof. It isn’t even close.

At the heart of this debate, in my opinion, is a correct understanding of how closely guarded the Princes were. Mancini tells us that Richard dismissed the boys’ servants and drew them closer into the tower. Only Richard’s loyalist men had access to them in the context of a high security prison.

How could Margaret possibly have gained access to the Princes, even if she had wanted to? The usual arguments go like this:

She was a wealthy woman who could have bribed the guards – She was a woman of some means. But what on earth could she have given Richard’s most trusted men that would trigger abandonment of their master. Killing princes, even ones deem illegitimate, is a pretty risking business – one you would answer for with your head. I just can’t believe that you would do it under the orders of anyone but the ruler of the day.

Her husband, Lord Stanley was a mover and shaker at court – Yes he was. But it does not equate that he would have access to the Princes. He was powerful; but he was not part of Richard’s inner circle.

I’m worried about the way some people are thinking about the Wars of the Roses at the moment. I consider myself a feminist and I agree that for too long, historians neglected the powerful impact that women have made throughout the ages. But we do no favours to anyone when we try and make the facts match our values. Women were not the key players in the 15th century. Perhaps they should have been. But they weren’t.

When engaging with people on this debate, I keep hearing people argue Margaret’s guilt with lines such as ‘she was a powerful woman in a man’s world.’ Perhaps she was; but it’s disturbing that people are almost suggesting that the murder of two young boys is somehow a display of power that we feminists should be proud of.

There’s much we don’t know about Lady Margaret Beaufort. But what we do know suggests she was a kind, generous, pious, if a little austere figure. Child murder was not something that was likely to appeal to her and even if it had, she could not have had the means.

Only one man had access to the Princes – only one man can reasonably be assumed to have murdered them.

What do you think geeks? Am I underestimating Margaret’s ambition? Have I been naive to the means or access she might have had? 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.

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!

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!