The White Princess - General Discussion

[iMonrey]

This show feels much more fictionalized than The White Queen did, even considering all the "witchcraft" that was being thrown around in the previous series. Overall if feels less historically accurate because they need to amp up the drama. I don't think there was nearly as much inter-personal conflict among the main players in real life.

I don't get why Margaret Beaufort would want/allow Jasper to marry the dowager Queen's sister, no matter how significant her fortune. She was trying to have the dowager Queen executed literally three minutes ago and now she's OK with Jasper marrying a Woodville? And why is Elizabeth's sister a Woodville? Wasn't Woodville her married name?

[nodorothyparker]

Woodville was the family name.  Gray was Elizabeth's married name, having been the widow of Sir John Grey.  They are playing pretty loose with historical facts with some of this.

Rules of property being what they were, without very specific protections in place Catherine Woodville's fortune would become Jasper's legal property to do with as he wished after their marriage.  Catherine was a fairly wealthy widow at the time.

[shockermolar]

On 5/3/2017 at 11:35 AM, KBrownie said:

I get that Henry is one of the main focal points of this particular show, but him going around all indignant and shocked that people want him dead and are trying to kill him is laughable considering he knows what went down for him to be able to ascend to the throne.  Or am I supposed to think that he has no idea about the princes in the tower?  

I think that something that doesn't make the translation from history to novel to television show is the concept of divine right, and the depth to which Henry would likely have believed he had an unassailable right to the throne based on genealogy and the explicit way he was raised to have that belief.  It really can't be overloooked. 

[brilliantbreakfast]

On 4/22/2017 at 3:08 PM, CindyBee said:

I'd love to see a series on Catherine/Arthur/Henry's triangle as I find Catherine's story to be very compelling.   

Or they could follow Margaret Tudor to Scotland and do her story, since she's who the present day queen is a descendant of.  Blanking on the name of that particular book by Gregory but did read it and sorta enjoyed it.

I don't recall any TV/movie treatment of this other than the very early episodes of the 1970s BBC production of "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", which also has the distinction of casting Annette Crosbie, a redhead, as a more accurate Catherine of Aragon, instead of the stereotypical dark haired/brown eyed renditions we've seen ever sense (the worst example of which being Irene Papas in "Anne of the Thousand Days").

Jodie Comer looks like she could be the lookalike daughter of a friend of mine, so that makes her performance simultaneously weird and fascinating to me.

What I hate about the evolution of the Elizabeth/Henry relationship is that it is a rehash of the "woman falling in love with her rapist" meme that goes back at least to the infamous General Hospital Luke and Laura Rape Fracas of 1979.  Especially today, when politicians are excusing sexual assault, I'm not sure you want to go there.

I'm finding Essie Davis to be really mannered, not nuts about her performance.  But at least I'm not noticing zippers as much on costumes now.

I liked Michelle Fairley in "Game of Thrones" but here she is just so "wicked stepmother" that she seems to have walked in from another show.  Amanda Hale was a much better Margaret Beaufort; she got the whole "hysterical religious nutball" thing down, whereas Michelle Fairley is playing Margaret as just a scold with a creepy relationship with her son.

It blew my mind to realize that poor little "Maggie" is THAT Margaret Pole, famous from various and sundry treatments of the Henry VIII story.

All told, I like this series better than "The White Queen."  The anachronisms are less noticeable (bigger budget?) and I think the acting is better (aside from Janet McTeer, whose peerless presence perhaps made the acting in the first series seem worse by comparison than it was).  I read somewhere Max Irons described as a "walking smirk" and will never see him as anything else ever again.

[iMonrey]

After doing some reading, it appears that Margaret of York (Duchess of Burgundy) never even saw the pretender Lambert Simnel, and that the entire ruse was orchestrated by John de la Pole. There also doesn't seem to be much evidence the dowager Queen Elizabeth (Lizzie's mother) had anything to do with the Battle of Stoke Field or that she had any influence.

Spoiler

Also, the trade embargo Henry VII imposed on Burgundy did not occur until after he learned of the Duchess's support/housing of Perkin Warbeck, the other pretender after the Battle of Stoke Field.

So it doesn't appear that Jasper Tudor ever had any reason to visit her or try to reach out to her in any way. 

It makes you wonder just how boring/interesting the show would be if they just stuck to historical fact.

Edited May 9, 2017 by SilverStormm
Spoiler tag added.

[KBrownie]

22 hours ago, shockermolar said:

I think that something that doesn't make the translation from history to novel to television show is the concept of divine right, and the depth to which Henry would likely have believed he had an unassailable right to the throne based on genealogy and the explicit way he was raised to have that belief.  It really can't be overloooked. 

Absolutely.  But why is his belief any more legitimate and understandable than anyone else who was in the same position? (Just a rhetorical question, I'm not calling anyone out or anything)  I.e. Elizabeth's son Richard.  Why is Elizabeth wrong in her pursuits for her son, but most just shrug their shoulders at Margaret Buford?  It may be totally pointless and irrational, but she's fighting for her son's unassailable right to the throne.  And why not fight?  It worked out pretty well for Margaret Buford in the end.  I don't know, I just find myself rooting for Elizabeth.  Lizzie has been a disappointment for me.  She showed such fight in the pilot, but since then all she's done is spend most of her time running from person to person, accomplishing nothing.  And every episode seems to end with her cuddling and apologizing to Henry for something.  I feel lied to lol.  The promo for the show made it seem like Lizzie was going to be such a badass, but her situation really prevents that from being true.  And it's totally understandable that she can't go around fighting the good fight.  I'm more interested in the Duchess of Burgundy and Elizabeth based on their freedom to make some actual moves.  However ill-advised they may be.

This show is sort of dragging for me.  I mean, history has already spoiled what happens.  

Spoiler

Henry isn't going to lose his throne.  So, each week's obstacle is just wash, rinse, repeat.  At least with The White Queen, you knew they were going to win some and lose some.  I'll stick it out, but I'm not really interested in watching the Tudors win every time.

And this is not really related to anything, but I don't care if Elizabeth isn't concerned with Lizzie and Cecily anymore.  Cecily sold her out almost immediately by sidling up to Margaret Beaufort for her own self-interests, and I think she figures Lizzie and her son have no choice but to tow the Tudor line at this point.  They have the protection of the Tudors, but she's the only one fighting for her son at the moment.  As far as Elizabeth is concerned, he's alone in the world.  Lizzie and Cecily have the protection of the king.  It's a tough spot for sure.

Edited May 9, 2017 by SilverStormm
Spoiler tag added.

[CindyBee]

21 hours ago, iMonrey said:

After doing some reading, it appears that Margaret of York (Duchess of Burgundy) never even saw the pretender Lambert Simnel, and that the entire ruse was orchestrated by John de la Pole. There also doesn't seem to be much evidence the dowager Queen Elizabeth (Lizzie's mother) had anything to do with the Battle of Stoke Field or that she had any influence.

Spoiler

Also, the trade embargo Henry VII imposed on Burgundy did not occur until after he learned of the Duchess's support/housing of Perkin Warbeck, the other pretender after the Battle of Stoke Field.

So it doesn't appear that Jasper Tudor ever had any reason to visit her or try to reach out to her in any way. 

It makes you wonder just how boring/interesting the show would be if they just stuck to historical fact.

Since this is suppose to be told from the women's point of view, no surprise for me that they switched the roles of Margaret of Burgundy and her nephew, John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln, who was the true instigator of the attempted coup with Lambert Simnel.   I think de la Pole has been on The White Princess for 2 minutes, totally different from the 1970s BBC show "Shadow of the Tower" where he's one of the main characters.   FWIW, "Shadow of the Tower" is on Youtube, if you want to see what a historical TV program is like from 40 years ago.

[KBrownie]

3 hours ago, CindyBee said:

Cecily really didn't have much of an option--either go into an abbey or work with her godmother and find a husband to protect her within the Tudor Court.  She was lucky that her husband was loyal to his nephew and was willing to overlook her being a York.    I know some have found the character to be annoying but I think that's not based on history--by all accounts Cecily was a good, loving sister.  We saw a bit of that at the end when she says her goodbyes to Lizzie before heading off to her own home, away from court.

But she couldn't even say goodbye to her sister without one last dig.  "Oh, I'll think I'll be happier than you, but I DO want you to be happy."  Or whatever she said.  

Everyone's gotta do what they gotta do to survive.

[MrsE]

Lincoln also doesn't fit the "Henry butchered all the Yorkists" myth;  after Bosworth not only was he not offed, he was given a seat on Henry's council. In fact Henry so often pardoned those who sided against him that his advisors grew increasingly concerned and exasperated with him.

I don't see the need to conflate the Simnel/Warbeck threats.  Simnel was so obviously just a pawn, and Henry's treatment of him after Stoke so pointed that it merits attention in itself.  

The Shadow of The Tower will doubtless appear stagey and dated to modern sensibilities but I loved it. James Maxwell as Henry was outstandingly good.

Edited May 9, 2017 by MrsE

[BooBear]

3 hours ago, KBrownie said:

Why is Elizabeth wrong in her pursuits for her son, but most just shrug their shoulders at Margaret Buford?  It may be totally pointless and irrational, but she's fighting for her son's unassailable right to the throne.  And why not fight?  It worked out pretty well for Margaret Buford in the end.  I don't know, I just find myself rooting for Elizabeth.  

I mean in a vacuum I can see it but.. the difference is that Margaret had no other children.  Elizabeth has her daughter as the queen. Her grandson will be hurt by her son taking over.  And her current younger daughters have been subjected to living in a prison / abby for rest of their childhood because of the unending quest for her son to rule, instead of her daughter. Not to mention that her moves are inconsistent with having Lizzy marry Henry in the first place.  And the idea of bringing peace with the marriage. Talk about selling someone out. Elizabeth made Lizzy marry Henry, have lots of premarital sex with him (a stranger), get pregnant and have a baby, encouraging her at every point.  For absolutely nothing. Elizabeth is on a quest to have Richard as King with almost no recognition of what Lizzy did on her direction and the cost to Lizzy should Henry be killed / lose the crown. 

Quote

What I hate about the evolution of the Elizabeth/Henry relationship is that it is a rehash of the "woman falling in love with her rapist" meme that goes back at least to the infamous General Hospital Luke and Laura Rape Fracas of 1979.  Especially today, when politicians are excusing sexual assault, I'm not sure you want to go there.

But to be fair the show did everything it could not to make it that way. They were both strangers forced to have sex with someone they didn't want to. Perhaps this is the same thing but I don't love the "fall in love with a guy you hate at first" trope. They set this up early by having the Richard affair which seemed to set up a reason for them to hate each other.  How ironic that in the White Queen Elizabeth threatened to kill herself rather than be raped by the King but her daughter has to spread um for a total stranger... oh well.... Lizzy will just have to deal. 

[MrsE]

Well Gregory would have you believe she's already spread for her own uncle, so perhaps she's not so fussy.

The whole RIII liaison and the rape is preposterous - unless of course you want to think very badly indeed of both RIII and HVII equally.

[MrsE]

On 4/22/2017 at 9:41 PM, Moxie Cat said:

Count me in on a miniseries about Margaret, queen of Scotland, who was responsible for both the Stuart and Hanover/Windsor lines. I would love to see more about her. While I'm interested in Arthur, beyond him it gets into "Tudors" territory too quickly for me. Burnt out on Henry VIII at this point.

There are a couple of very moving letters sent by Margaret to her father from Scotland in which she tells him how much she misses him and that if she could she'd be with him.  The prayer book HVII gave her when she left for Scotland bears a lovely inscription from him.  Clearly they were very fond of one another.

[nodorothyparker]

I've never gotten the sense that either series wanted us to find Margaret Beauford a terribly sympathetic heroine.  She's been portrayed as a fairly extremely single-minded religious zealot in both.

I'm also not terribly bothered by the Lizzie falls in love with Henry storyline.  Despite some of Gregory's best efforts, you can only get around so much established historical fact.  Henry and Lizzie did come from warring sides of a very long and protracted civil war and like most highborns of the time, theirs was a strictly arranged political union that needed an heir to cement that union regardless of how they might have felt about it or each other.  It is historical fact that they married and Arthur was born fairly early in their acquaintance, and most writers that I've ever read can at least agree that they gave appearance of coming to love each other.  So for all the series' faults, I'm seeing it as a look at what the reality of living in one of those arranged political marriages might have been.  It's not exactly the fairy tale princess marries her prince and gets the happy ending kind of story but one of two people making the best of it and finding some sort of happiness anyway despite that never having been part of the bargain.

[Kata01]

12 hours ago, BooBear said:

But to be fair the show did everything it could not to make it that way. They were both strangers forced to have sex with someone they didn't want to. Perhaps this is the same thing but I don't love the "fall in love with a guy you hate at first" trope. They set this up early by having the Richard affair which seemed to set up a reason for them to hate each other.  How ironic that in the White Queen Elizabeth threatened to kill herself rather than be raped by the King but her daughter has to spread um for a total stranger... oh well.... Lizzy will just have to deal. 

I agree with you. Everyone around them was pushing for the marriage and considered them betrothed. Even Lizzie herself, personal feelings aside, seemed resigned to the marriage itself. When they first meet, Henry is clearly physically smitten by her beauty and can barely take his eyes away from her. Even so, he is the only one flat out declaring that he will not marry her. He is being told by those around him that he doesn't have a choice in the matter. 

By the time we get to "that" scene, he feels as powerless as she does. I believe him that he didn't consider it rape. When she says the word, he backs off from her completely and seems extremely uncomfortable. I truly believe at that point had she walked out of the room, he would not have stopped her. 

After viewing this past episode, 4 episodes in and the series half over, I'm left wondering why that scene was even shown. Thus far, there has been no nudity and no other sexual situations beyond teasing. It took the end of 4 episodes to get them to their first kiss. Other than "that" scene, it's been pretty chaste. 

[Kata01]

Each episode I'm almost waiting for Margaret Beauford to shout in true Spartacus (Starz) fashion - "Kill them! Kill them all!!" 

[MrsE]

Henry declaring that he won't marry her is absurd.  He'd promised to marry her in 1483, swore a solemn oath on Christmas day in Rennes cathedral.  I don't understand trying to depict him as reluctant.  And certainly Elizabeth, who had twice been engaged before this to foreigners she'd never met, could have had no expectation of marrying for anything but political expedience.  That they developed a relationship of mutual affection and support seems widely accepted;  

Spoiler

certainly Henry's collapse and shift in character after her death does not seem to me to betoken indifference.

The scene is there because it's in Gregory's book, although it's been watered down to make Henry seem less repulsive - and making Henry repulsive is the aim of Gregory's application of one of her favourite devices.  It's ironic that Starz has decided to go with a burgeoning romantic attachment when everything Gregory writes about Henry is very much to his disadvantage.  Then again, she can't maintain consistent characterisation from one book to the next, so perhaps she won't notice.

Edited May 9, 2017 by SilverStormm
Spoiler tag added.

[Kata01]

1 hour ago, MrsE said:

The scene is there because it's in Gregory's book, although it's been watered down to make Henry seem less repulsive - and making Henry repulsive is the aim of Gregory's application of one of her favourite devices.  It's ironic that Starz has decided to go with a burgeoning romantic attachment when everything Gregory writes about Henry is very much to his disadvantage.  Then again, she can't maintain consistent characterisation from one book to the next, so perhaps she won't notice.

To clarify, I know the scene, watered down as it is, is from the book. I question the production decision to present it fully through as they did and murky as it was (where many still view it as a rape scene and are watching the series with a bad taste in their mouth because of it) when the series is clearly not sexualized thus far and being sold by production/cast as a love story. 

[MrsE]

Because it's lose/lose.  Leave it out altogether and there's no shock horror and "Poor Lizzie!" factor.  Put it in as written and Henry is irredeemable and whatever affection develops between them is, as it is in the book, not  remotely credible.  So instead it just has to be just a bit rapey with Henry seeing it as an unfortunate necessity urged on him by his horrible mother. Gregory queered this pitch for them good and proper.

[Meredith Quill]

Mod Note:

I've had to spoiler tag a few remarks in various posts.

As previously directed: please remember to spoiler tag any 'future historical events' that have yet to be depicted in the show. It may be history but not everyone will know the details of what happened in this story, let's not spoil it for them.

Thanks.

[rove4]

4 hours ago, Kata01 said:

To clarify, I know the scene, watered down as it is, is from the book. I question the production decision to present it fully through as they did and murky as it was (where many still view it as a rape scene and are watching the series with a bad taste in their mouth because of it) when the series is clearly not sexualized thus far and being sold by production/cast as a love story. 

We have a group of neighborhood ladies who gather to watch this on Sunday nights, ranging in ages from mid-thirties to 50.  None of us viewed that scene as rape. I'm not discounting how anyone else perceived it but we pretty much saw two people neither of whom wanted to have sex with the other. Which made us wonder why they didn't just pretend to have sex and, after a few months of Lizzie failing to get pregnant, call the marriage agreement null and void thus freeing both parties.  I suppose the answer is that both Henry and Lizzie knew what was at stake and so both reluctantly agreed to "get it over with".

[Kata01]

33 minutes ago, rove4 said:

We have a group of neighborhood ladies who gather to watch this on Sunday nights, ranging in ages from mid-thirties to 50.  None of us viewed that scene as rape. I'm not discounting how anyone else perceived it but we pretty much saw two people neither of whom wanted to have sex with the other. Which made us wonder why they didn't just pretend to have sex and, after a few months of Lizzie failing to get pregnant, call the marriage agreement null and void thus freeing both parties.  I suppose the answer is that both Henry and Lizzie knew what was at stake and so both reluctantly agreed to "get it over with".

I agree with you and your group...also not discounting anyone who saw it as rape.

I read in interviews after the episode where Emma Frost pins the blame on Margaret - his mother made him do it. That actually makes no sense to me whatsoever. In the first place, the marriage was Margaret and Elizabeth's brainchild from the start. Unbeknownst to Henry, she has Lizzie brought to the palace. After the privy council meeting, she tells Henry the marriage is the "will of God". She was supportive of the match. It makes more sense to me that Margaret was manipulating Henry into doing the "will of Margaret", knowing full well that once Lizzie was carrying his heir, any resistance Henry carried toward the marriage would be gone, which it was. Henry was delighted/thrilled with the news of the pregnancy and agreed to a hasty wedding (in between hugs, giggles, and congratulatory slaps on the back). 

[MrsE]

It makes no sense to have Henry try to get out of the marriage, none whatsoever.  He's sworn an oath to marry her.  This is why playing fast and loose with facts leads to all sorts of difficulties.  He'd spent two years effectively betrothed to the woman;  have him regret his decision, certainly, but to depict this as all the mother's and the in-law's fault is daft, and it turns Henry into a fool, and that he most certainly was not.  He worked damned hard to learn the business of kingship, he didn't pick it up from his mother.

Sorry about the earlier spoiler;  I'd supposed that this whole thing went only as far as the end of Gregory's book, so what I posted won't be shown in the series.

[BooBear]

19 hours ago, rove4 said:

We have a group of neighborhood ladies who gather to watch this on Sunday nights, ranging in ages from mid-thirties to 50.  None of us viewed that scene as rape. I'm not discounting how anyone else perceived it but we pretty much saw two people neither of whom wanted to have sex with the other. Which made us wonder why they didn't just pretend to have sex and, after a few months of Lizzie failing to get pregnant, call the marriage agreement null and void thus freeing both parties.  I suppose the answer is that both Henry and Lizzie knew what was at stake and so both reluctantly agreed to "get it over with".

Well, would Lizzy be able to get another husband / not be shamed by having premarital sex with Henry for months - unmarried? And if they got married could Henry get rid of her if she couldn't have a baby? I thought that was the reason he insisted on making sure she could have a child before marriage. I also feel like Henry was pressured to get her Pregnant quickly because that would be a major boon to his claim. So though it seemed a little jarring in the scene... once he realized he had to do it... he figured no point in putting it off. 

I also don't think it was rape (on the show). But still a hard thing for any one. But essentially all women kind of had to have this in getting married at all. 

Quote

She's been portrayed as a fairly extremely single-minded religious zealot in both.

Ahh, I kind of liked her in the White Queen. I think that was the actress. She kind of lost in sympathetic ways. Like when she got caught plotting against the King and her husband got her fortune and she got put under house arrest. Kind of felt for her. I would be laughing at this MB. I really feel like in the White Queen she and Elizabeth had a bit of a friendship going even though they were fighting against each other. She also wore normal clothing

[nodorothyparker]

Henry's public vow to marry Lizzie to promise a united throne aside, he couldn't have risked Lizzie being free to marry anyone else.  Unless he planned to lock her and all her sisters in the Tower as well, France or one of the Yorkist houses or someone would have snatched her up and made a claim through her and any heirs they might have with her.  That's what the scenes of the Tudors scurrying to marry off Cecily and Maggie were about.  Margaret Beauford likely didn't give a shit about finding good husbands who would make either girl happy, it was about finding husbands who the Tudors could realistically trust to be loyal and/or were low enough born that they would be unlikely to make competing claims for any sons they might have with their wives that would be taken seriously by York loyalists.

As far as failing to produce an heir, there were I believe a few select cases of wives agreeing to be set aside to enter convents.  Centuries before, Eleanor of Aquitaine accepted an annulment from the king of France on the grounds of consanguinity when the real issue was that she'd never produced a son, only to immediately turn around and have several sons with Plantagenet dynasty founder Henry II.  Any more on that subject can be taken up with the family's next generation.

[rove4]

This all makes me much less inclined to read any of PG's books.  I'll be looking for books that hew a little closer to history.

[Haleth]

Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II had 11 children and married them off all over Europe.  The lack of French babies wasn't her fault!

[nodorothyparker]

Nope but she only had a couple of daughters with Louis whatever and at the time that was thought to be the wife's fault.  So they found grounds to annul and started over with other people.  Most accounts I've read suggested they didn't like each other very much, which probably didn't help.

[BooBear]

And just one more comment on the episode. What was that monstrosity they gave Maggie (pole)  to wear at her wedding? I mean really?

[MrsE]

I've just seen this earlier in the thread:

 

Quote

 I understand that it is a fact that the real Henry insisted that the real Lizzy prove she could have a child before he married her. 

Do you mean a fact in the context of this series or an historically established fact?  If the latter, from where does this understanding come?

[BooBear]

29 minutes ago, MrsE said:

I've just seen this earlier in the thread: Do you mean a fact in the context of this series or an historically established fact?  If the latter, from where does this understanding come?

Not sure where I read it. But since I don't read history pretty sure it is questionable. 

[MrsE]

Highly questionable I should say!  There's no real evidence to suggest that they slept together before they were married.

[Haleth]

Or that she slept with her uncle.  As the eldest child of Edward IV her virginity was too valuable.  Even if a publicly announced betrothal was sometimes considered as binding as a marriage, for Lizzie to show up pregnant before the ceremony AND the dispensation from the Pope there could be ugly questions about the paternity of the child later on.

[MrsE]

I don't know why anyone believes that she slept with RIchard, especially as those that do tend to be the same people who see him as a romantic hero.  Sleeping with a woman he can't marry  - and who he declared he had no intention of marrying - and leaving her unmarriageable is not at all romantic, never mind the incest.  Gregory has him deflowering her the night before a battle in which he could end up dead and unable to give her even the protection he might afford a mistress.  It's all nonsense.

[NYCNJbear06]

I think the notion that Lizzie conceived before they were married is based on the historical fact that she gave birth to Arthur 8 months after the wedding.  It could have been explained that Arthur arrived early and for "PR" purposes he was deemed a "honeymoon" baby and divine confirmation of the Tudor York Union. 

I've read all of the Gregory books and you have to keep in mind they are fictional interpretations although based (loosely) on historical facts.  I have started to read more historical based accounts and an excellent one on Lizzie is by Alison Weir - Elizabeth of York: a Tudor Queen and her World.  It is an interesting read  that basically discounts Gregory's take on Henry, Lizzie and Margaret's relationship.  In her account based on letters, financial records etc. Henry truly loved and respected Lizzie

Spoiler

and mourned her death deeply

, Margaret and Lizzie got along fine (not like they were bff's or anything) but their relationship wasn't nearly as antagonistic as portrayed and Lizzie had and exuded more power as queen than depicted.  

Other randomness 

I always smile when I see Emma Frost's name in the credits (for the WQ and WP) because being the comic book geek Emma Frost is an X-Man villain who's name is the White Queen.   Gives me a chuckle each time.  

I also like the subtlety in the opening credit where they show the crown, throne, queen chess piece as starting out white but slowly becoming red with little flecks of white fading away becoming more red symbolizing Lizzie's abandoning her York-ness and becoming more and more Tudor.    

[MrsE]

I know that the "eight month baby" is the source of speculation that Henry and Elizabeth jumped the gun, and it's not impossible, but I think it's more likely that Arthur was early.  Even if they did preempt the actual wedding (and final dispensation) there's nothing at all to suggest either coercion or any kind of "road testing" to ensure that Elizabeth was fertile.  The betrothal was a fact and getting out of it and moving on to one of Elizabeth's sisters (how many would he have tried out I wonder?) would just not have washed. Henry would have seriously, if not fatally, undermined his position.

Alison Weir's book is good, if a little lacking in substance;  that's not really her fault, as there's not that much to go on in terms of, for example, letters from Elizabeth.  Certainly records bear out the generally accepted affection and respect the two had one for the other, and they also debunk the idea that Henry was niggardly and that his court was a miserable, joyless place.

[iMonrey]

I think premature births were fairly commonplace in the era before modern medicine and healthy diets. 

[RedheadZombie]

But considering full term babies are actually ten months, not the common misperception of nine, Arhur would have been two months premature.  The likelihood of an infant surviving that degree of prematurity in the Middle Ages is next to nil. 

[NeenerNeener]

I've come to think of Gregory as writing "alternate universe" historical fiction because of the farce that was The Other Boleyn Girl. I've been watching both of these War of the Roses series with Google open on my laptop so I can look up other, hopefully more accurate, takes on the period.

I've been trying to pin down why it feels like Fairley's version of bat-crap crazy seems different from Amanda Hale's version of bat-crap crazy to me. Maybe because I remember Hale's Beaufort as pretty much constantly nuts in every scene, while Fairley's version seems more situational evil.

Edited May 14, 2017 by NeenerNeener

[nodorothyparker]

I find it's generally a good idea to have ready access to Google when reading Gregory.  She changes so many things, even ridiculously small insignificant things, for seemingly no other reason than because somebody wrote a letter to someone once that supports whatever theory she's dreamed up.  I know these stories pretty well and I still find myself checking a lot just to make sure what I'm remembering is historical fact as opposed to what she's selling.

White Queen Margaret Beauford strikes me as a sad demented creature, what with the relentlessly unloving mother and child who barely knows her who she has so little access to.  She's crazy but she's mostly reined in by her successive husbands and doesn't really have the power to do much more than rave about God's will until late in the game.  White Princess Margaret Beauford feels more grimly evil from the outset because she does have power to truly hurt people and often seems to want to just because it's her right.  Her immediate answer to everything is almost always "off with their heads."  The fact that she's now a mother obsessing over a grown man vs. a mother obsessing over a young child also doesn't help. 

[BooBear]

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

White Queen Margaret Beauford strikes me as a sad demented creature, what with the relentlessly unloving mother and child who barely knows her who she has so little access to.  She's crazy but she's mostly reined in by her successive husbands and doesn't really have the power to do much more than rave about God's will until late in the game.  

I just found White Queen Margaret to be SUCH a mess. She lost a lot and always seemed to be just holding on. While she could order the deaths of two children she also seems to feel bad about it. Like she was very unsure what she was doing. Like god was what she held on to - to give her motivation. Here is like she is so sure of herself. That assurance makes me dislike her. God here is something she uses to judge others with and to excuse her bad behavior. 

So have seen the next episode and I doubt anyone will like her after the large spoiler at the end. But I have to admit I found this one boring and, frankly, though there is a large time jump it did seem like we were doing the last episode over again. I think the White Queen had the benefit of being three books while this is just one story that itself seems to re-loop.  I will remark that the actor that is playing Henry imho seemed more confident and calm this episode and so good job on that because I was tired of the paranoid one. 

[nodorothyparker]

Yeah, this is where the show takes a flying leap off of the deep end for me.  They've got Margaret Beauford skulking around like Maleficent of the old Disney cartoon rather than the kinder gentler updated version being EVIL for the sake of being evil and now murdering Jasper Tudor with a pillow to cover her tracks?  Even Gregory doesn't take her historical license that far.

I did really feel for Maggie this episode.  Being a York has brought her almost nothing but tragedy on top of tragedy and now they've sent her to determine whether "the boy" is for real when she already knows what answer is the only one they want to hear.  Oh, and did we mention that we'll be keeping your only child safe here in the palace just like we're keeping your brother safe?  I'll agree that Henry seemed better this episode but with the threat of invasion looming and Jasper Tudor dead, it looks like he'll be heading back in paranoia and isolation territory again.

[Kata01]

After watching the latest episode, I can nutshell it with the simple catchphrase "I can tell you, but then I have to kill you." 

On to the other mother from hell (on this show anyway), it seems clear the 3 Tudor youngsters have no relationship with their maternal grandmother. Which is probably for the best as I can picture her exclaiming to their sweet, angelic little faces in her cold, dispassionate way "Vengeance is coming. Yes, your parents, everyone you love, your own lives even will be destroyed; but MY RICHARD is coming to take his rightful place on the throne, you PRETENDER children."

The pains in which the TWP takes in decimating MB & EW is comical to me...over the top.

[MrsE]

Quote

 She changes so many things, even ridiculously small insignificant things, 

In The White Princess she gives Henry brown eyes and red hair;  he had blue eyes and fair/brown hair;  she makes him small - he was above average height;  she writes him as having no style - when he arrived in England he cut an elegant figure in European clothes;  she makes him needlessly rude - with no basis at all.  And that's just the first time Elizabeth sees him.  

[Haleth]

Really, show?  I mean, really?  Beside the ridiculous idea that a woman who went to Mass 5x a day would murder a man, one as slight as Michelle Fairley could hold off a large man?  Um, no.  That's just silly. 

[RedheadZombie]

I cannot get over the complete lack of originality these royals had in naming their children.  You would think there were only four names in the world - Margaret, Elizabeth, Edward, and Richard. 

Lizzie alone had a Margaret for sister, cousin, daughter, mother-in-law, grand-daughter, and two aunts. 

Cecily had an Elizabeth mother, sister, daughter, two nieces, and aunt. 

It's incredibly confusing when studying this time in history, and it had to be confusing at the time as well.  

[Glade]

The names do blur into each other way too much.  If MB doesn't die in a horrible way next episode, I'm going to be pissed (but yes, I do think plenty of murderous religious fanatics went to mass in between killing people, and it's not far-fetched that she could kill a sick/injured elderly man regardless of his physical size.)  I thought it was sad that they couldn't even give young Arthur and Henry VIII the red hair that they historically had; but I guess their brunette Henry the VIII could one day grow up to look like Jonathan Rhys Myers. 

It's always good to watch some narcissistic mothers ruining parties with their grandchildren or fucking up their kids lives for no good reason on mother's day; it's very relatable!   It was a good point that York great grandmother made, though; if it was the real Richard, wouldn't you want him to have a happy, peaceful life in exile?  MB certainly should have wanted that for her son, a lot of people would have lived who died in those wars, not just the two princes (or prince and servantboy) that she murdered. I found it hard to get past the fact that Richard's actor was one of the leads from netflix's The OA series, where he had an explosive temper.

[Pogojoco]

Re. the names: it's not particularly original, I agree, but Royals, like other people, name their kids in tribute to other relatives all the time. Like, Richard III and "My Richard" are named after Richard, Duke of York- their father and grandfather, respectively. 

It's boring and likely confusing, but maybe because if you were married off to some duke in France at 13, it didn't matter so much that your cousin, brother and father back in England all had the same name as your son. They probably all referred to each other by their title. 

The thing that this show isn't really appreciating, is what the Henry/Elizabeth marriage symbolized:

This is from Richard III, the play: (Richmond is Henry Tudor)

We will unite the white rose and the red.

Smile Heaven upon this fair conjunction

That long hath frowned upon their enmity!—

What traitor hears me, and says not Amen?

England hath long been mad and scarred herself;

The brother blindly shed the brother’s blood,

The father rashly slaughtered his own son,

The son, compell’d, been butcher to the sire:

All this divided York and Lancaster,

Divided in their dire division.

O now let Richmond and Elizabeth,

The true successors of each royal House,

By God’s fair ordinance conjoin together!

And let their heirs—God, if Thy will be so—

Enrich the time to come with smooth-faced peace,

With smiling plenty, and fair prosperous days!

The bold pretty much sums it up. By marrying these two together, both sides win because the offspring, who are equally of both sides, get the throne. Both mothers would've seen it that way. 

Also, Margaret killing Jasper Tudor is hilarious. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by Pogojoco

[goldensglitter]

Seriously folks, Margaret Beaufort suffocating Jasper?  A bit contrived I say.  Lets see a 100 lb woman overtaking a 200 lb seasoned soldier......I don't think so.  

[MrsE]

Quote

Quote

It's always good to watch some narcissistic mothers ruining parties with their grandchildren or fucking up their kids lives for no good reason on mother's day; it's very relatable!   It was a good point that York great grandmother made, though; if it was the real Richard, wouldn't you want him to have a happy, peaceful life in exile?  MB certainly should have wanted that for her son, a lot of people would have lived who died in those wars, not just the two princes (or prince and servantboy) that she murdered. I found it hard to get past the fact that Richard's actor was one of the leads from netflix's The OA series, where he had an explosive temper.

 

The problem was of course that Henry had no means of subsistence;  his property had been confiscated.  And there were also several attempts to get him back to England by fair means or foul (on one occasion he disguised himself as a servant to dodge EIV's men, on another he either genuinely fell ill or feigned illness long enough for his ducal protector to prevent the planned sailing to England.  I'm sure he'd have preferred to have been left alone!  It's always fascinated me that  a man noted for his caution threw it to the winds in 1483 and 1485 in a sort of do or die venture.

[Haleth]

It was God's will.  At least that's what Margaret B believed and never stopped telling him that.  She never would have preferred he live peacefully in exile.