Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
blackwing

The White Princess

Recommended Posts

No, they weren't betrothed as children.  She was betrothed to the Dauphin who then backed out of the arrangement.  Edward IV tried to lure Henry back from Brittany with the promise of marriage to one of his daughters, but Henry wasn't having any of it.  Sensible chap.

I'm not sure how much Elizabeth grew up around CPR;  he spent a lot of his time in the north.  Certainly though Elizabeth saw at first hand what her mother went through at his hands;  I don't believe for a moment that she entertained any romantic feelings for him but she might well have been afraid of him.  Certainly she knew that her brothers disappeared on his watch, suffered the bastardisation of herself and her siblings, and knew he'd murdered her uncle and half brother. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Lizzie and Cecily were betrothed to various houses in Europe but I don't think Henry VII was ever considered until CP Richard was killed.  As long as he had an heir and a spare Edward IV wanted Lizzie to marry the French dauphin and Cecily was to marry into the Stewarts in Scotland, but the fragility of his reign prevented either from happening. 

Any congeniality Lizzie showed toward CP Richard was most likely because she feared for her imprisoned brothers. 

Edited by Haleth

Share this post


Link to post
On June 6, 2017 at 5:54 PM, absolutelyido said:

I thought that there should have been a similar declaration by Lizzie.

Me too. I thought all along that that was where the show would end, with two people who actually grew to care, trust, depend, and even love each other despite the dreadful way the marriage started. I think Henry did love Lizzie, and was moved by her efforts on the battlefield in particular. But I wish in the last episode we would have gotten confirmation that Lizzie really loved Henry too. But her decision to wholeheartedly support Henry/the Tudors seemed to only lie in her love for her children. And that's a shame, because I actually started to like Henry by the end.

Question: this "my lady the King's mother" and calling your own mom "lady mother" as the York girls did....was this really a historically accurate turn of phrase? Did they say it in White Queen? To my knowledge, I have not heard it in any other period show. (Frankly, it started to get damn annoying.)

Edited by Moxie Cat

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, MrsE said:

Certainly she knew that her brothers disappeared on his watch, suffered the bastardisation of herself and her siblings, and knew he'd murdered her uncle and half brother. 

See this is what annoys me the most about Gregory's fanfiction of the great love of Car Park Richard and Lizzie----he brutally murdered her uncle and half brother, way before the princes in the towers were no more.  So we are suppose to believe that Lizzie just brushes that aside and becomes his lover?!?     That's just nonsense to me and Gregory should be called out for messing around with history so much, just to spice up her books.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

Question: this "my lady the King's mother" and calling your own mom "lady mother" as the York girls did....was this really a historically accurate turn of phrase? Did they say it in White Queen? To my knowledge, I have not heard it in any other period show. (Frankly, it started to get damn annoying.)

There's evidence that mothers of noble birth were indeed addressed as lady mother and it seems common enough in most books about the period.  My Lady the King's Mother was a title Margaret Beauford specifically created for herself, probably since she couldn't claim status as a dowager queen.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

My Lady the King's Mother was a title Margaret Beauford specifically created for herself, probably since she couldn't claim status as a dowager queen.

Ah! Thanks! That's such good info (and makes sense). I wish that would have been included in the show.

Share this post


Link to post

Finally caught up and watched last episode, it was definitely better than the last one.  Overall, I guess the series was okay, but I definitely liked The White Queen better.  I haven't done a lot of research on what is factual or not, but in the show, Henry just came across as a whiner and less appealing than Edward IV.  Plus the actor had a way of lifting his head and looking down his nose, it's petty but it bugged me.  

They really sure did sell Perkin was really the real Richard up to the very end.

I also can't help but think of poor George's kids.  They really had no shot at anything, especially Teddy.  Maggie did well for herself at times, but I can't imagine the stress she was under at all times.  

Also wonder how things would have played out if both Richard and George were alive when Edward died.  Or if Prince Arthur didn't die so young.  So many if's....

Thank god for this thread, I think I learned more by reading this thread than the show itself.  I often found myself googling the characters, etc. so see if things really went down as in the show.  Kind of a bummer.  But still entertaining.  Felt like they ended it though just when it got good!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

In the end, the show didn't seem to know what it wanted to be about. It started off as a continuation of The White Queen, focusing on the Dowager Queen Elizabeth's determination to see her younger son on the throne. Margaret Beaufort was the main villain of the piece, trying to convince Henry to execute the dowager queen at every turn. And then the dowager queen eventually died and suddenly the show turned into a story about Perkin Warbeck. In any event, the show was seldom about its titular character. I don't know if the book was more cohesive but the series was all over the map and never seemed to land on a specific direction.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

The book contrived to be simultaneously lurid and dull.  Nothing. Happens.  I mean really, endless iterations of "the boy", of "I don't know", of Henry being by turns an idiot, a boor, delusional, terrified mean spirited, and spiteful.  Gregory loathes the Tudors but had the problem that evidence points to Elizabeth being at the very least content with her husband, so Gregory throws in a truly bizarre few pages of her falling in love with  him (complete with toe curlingly bad sex scene);  but then she has to fall out of love with him again and sigh resignedly in her superior Yorkly way.

She ends the book before the death of Arthur, an event that unequivocally demonstrates the couple's concern and support for one another, because how would she spin that?

So this show had a problem;  the book would make terrible television and Henry would be completely unsympathetic.  They chose instead to go with a romance, but there's no drama in that. 

Edited by MrsE · Reason: Hmmm ... apostrophes.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

In the end, the show didn't seem to know what it wanted to be about. It started off as a continuation of The White Queen, focusing on the Dowager Queen Elizabeth's determination to see her younger son on the throne. Margaret Beaufort was the main villain of the piece, trying to convince Henry to execute the dowager queen at every turn. And then the dowager queen eventually died and suddenly the show turned into a story about Perkin Warbeck. In any event, the show was seldom about its titular character. I don't know if the book was more cohesive but the series was all over the map and never seemed to land on a specific direction.

Very much this-that was an excellent way to put it. 

I would've liked the show to actually follow Elizabeth of York, up until her death, we could've seen her welcome Catherine of Aragon as Arthur's bride etc.

OR Margaret Pole's life- it was fascinating, and she is a White Princess as well. 

Edited by Scarlett45

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, KLJ said:

Also wonder how things would have played out if both Richard and George were alive when Edward died.  Or if Prince Arthur didn't die so young.  So many if's....

I keep coming back to: if things had gone differently, we wouldn't have had Elizabeth, or the Church of England, or the defeat of the Spanish Armada, or the Stuart/Hanover line (of course, arguably). Of course, most of H8's wives would probably have had better lives.

Maggie wasn't technically a White Princess, since her father was never king. But I would have been interested in some follow up on Cecily. We never saw her after the time jump, did we?

28 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I would've liked the show to actually follow Elizabeth of York, up until her death, we could've seen her welcome Catherine of Aragon as Arthur's bride etc.

Yeah, I thought given the length of time that the White Queen used, this show WOULD go that far - also given the less than good chance of another sequel series. I personally think the Perkin storyline went on too long.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Cecily was married 3 times, the last to a commoner (knight) without consent of the King. She was no longer welcome at court after that. But.. she married for love.  I'm pretty sure she outlived Lizzie by a good amount.

Edited by Haleth

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, MrsE said:

So this show had a problem;  the book would make terrible television and Henry would be completely unsympathetic.  They chose instead to go with a romance, but there's no drama in that. 

I really wish they had started with the actual history and wrote the story from there. I have not read the book, but from what I understand from reading here and elsewhere the most ridiculous parts of the story were from Gregory's book (e.g. Lizzie being in love with CP Richard, Henry forcing himself on Lizzie, the curse). I don't necessarily expect complete historical accuracy in a fictionalized show like this, but the story would have been so much better without the ludicrous Gregory stuff. I thought Showtime's The Tudors was excellent and it had a number of historical inaccuracies as I recall. (If I remember correctly, I believe Henry VIII's sisters Margaret and Mary were basically combined into one character).

Edited by absolutelyido
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Haleth said:

Cecily was married 3 times, the last to a commoner (knight) without consent of the King. She was no longer welcome at court after that. But.. she married for love.  I'm pretty sure she outlived Lizzie by a good amount.

And Margaret Beaufort supported her on the issue of her third marriage, providing rooms for her at one of her houses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MrsE said:

And Margaret Beaufort supported her on the issue of her third marriage, providing rooms for her at one of her houses.

Anyone lurking from production, here's your next series or at least movie of the week, Cecily's love match with a commoner after Lady Margaret's brother John Welles dies and she was left all alone (her little daughters had died too)--the story has everything:  a princess and a gallant knight that marries the princess of his dreams (ok, I made that part up) but the knight had to have felt something for Cecily as he was risking his neck by defying ole Henry.  Can even have Lady Margaret making a cameo from time to time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The time jump was to the detriment of the story. Production thought the 7 years would have been too boring - one pregnancy after another. As a viewer, I highly disagree. Highly. We left them promising to be happy and we next see them 7 years later and we are told that the union is indeed happy. (This all after experiencing what can only be called a slow burn in the development of that relationship.) The pivotal forging of how they got from Point A to Point Z happened off-camera. Huge mistake. Especially when the 2nd part of the season's focus was the Perkin storyline and the high stakes for Lizzie - one side was going to die. I think much of the viewing audience was left confused as to the state of Henry/Lizzie's relationship. Did he fully trust her? Did she love him? Were her loyalties still divided? etc etc etc. I think production missed the boat on that one - a lot of things were not made clear and were left in a "read between the lines" way. The showrunner should not have to Twittersplain an episode - frankly, that is lazy storytelling. 

I do believe Lizzie, though she did not utter those 3 magic words "I love you" (I thought, mistakenly too, that she would say them in the finale. It seemed the show was teasing that from the Time Jump on...welp, guess not), did love Henry as deeply as he loved her. She and Henry find common ground/understanding on a personal, emotional level from the point of that "We are their creatures" conversation. As the relationship with her mother fractures, she begins turning more and more to Henry for emotional support. Other than the blip in Episode 7 & the whole Gordon debacle, Henry indeed shows himself to be a very loving and caring husband. For instance the tender scene where he encourages Lizzie to visit her dying mother is from husband to wife, not as the king. 

I think that deep love was the underlying force behind Lizzie's hurt, desperation, confusion, anger in Ep7 - between Perkin, the Gordon debacle, Henry's giving in to his paranoia; she felt her family life threatened - the love, the security, the support...Henry was as much an emotional ballast for her as she was to him by that point. 

I never got a sense in the finale that it was ever truly a choice for her. There was no way she was ever going to risk the lives of Henry or her boys. The entire time she was maneuvering a way for them not to kill Perkin. Which brings me to...

The curse- what a garbled mishmash that was. That darned curse shape-shifted to include anything or everything to fit the writer's moment. The curse was on the killer of the princes in the Tower - one of whom was not Richard Richard Richard. On this show MB gave the order, yet somehow Henry, her son escapes the curse? The curse shape-shifted over Henry and damned the grandsons. Annnnnddddd, this curse then extended to whoever killed Richard Richard Richard for all of eternity until the end of time, since he was not (on this show) killed with his brother in the Tower. The curse shape-shifted yet again to encompass anyone who has even looked at Richard Richard Richard cock-eyed, which would be half the Tudor Court. I mean, so so so ridiculous. Which brings me to...

That last conversation between Maggie and Lizzie - for all the words said to Lizzie, she may as well been speaking for herself. Maggie has no idea what is in store for her own life - one could suggest perhaps a "curse" fell on her as well (on this show). 

Edited by Kata01
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Not only did the curse skip Henry it actually skipped his firstborn, who was not Arthur, but Roland de Velville, who was his son by a Breton woman, and who enjoyed a long and prosperous career in Henry's service.  


I've seen discussions about the vicissitudes of the Tudor dynasty framed in all seriousness in terms of the curse, viz, it must have existed because Henry VIII only left one male heir who died young (ignoring the fact that Richard III's son also died very young), and neither Mary or Elizabeth had children.  Seriously, this seems now to be part of historical discourse.  The wretched Gregory woman has a great deal to answer for.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 7:46 PM, absnow54 said:

I think there's a book for Catherine of Aragon in the series, but I don't know what time period it covers, but if it starts with her marriage to Arthur, they could finish off Lizzie's story. I'd rather they go back to the seven year time gap and do a proper enemies to lovers romance between Henry and Lizzie, but that will never happen. 

Yes there is - Constant Princess. IIRC it starts with Catalina arriving to England, and ends with the trial that ruled her marriage to HVIII illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/6/2017 at 0:34 PM, iMonrey said:

I'm reasonably certain that even if I had not seen my sibling in 10+ years I would still be able to positively identify them. Perhaps this speaks to the utter lack of interaction between Lizzie and her brothers when they were children, but I still find if incredible that she wouldn't know for certain one way or another upon meeting with and speaking to Perkin Warbeck. There are just certain pieces of knowledge siblings share regardless of how close they were growing up. "Remember that time mom and dad were arguing about such and such? Remember when I put itching powder in your bed?" Stuff nobody else could know about.

William the Conqueror also "usurped" the throne and he's arguably the most famous king of England. Like William I, Henry VII won by right of conquest, which is just as legit as right of succession. I, too, find it hard to believe he would have felt deep down he'd "usurped" the throne. Both he and his mother seemed to think it was his divine birthright to be king.

One nice little detail I appreciated was the hat Henry was wearing in the final episode - a replica of the hat he wore in the best known portrait of him.

I think Henry VII was a usurper; he had no claim based on inheritance and even if he did there were other more senior (and legitimate) heirs ahead of him. He remained a usurper even though he successfully defeated other challengers. That said, William the Conqueror was a usurper, as were Henry I, Henry IV, Edward IV, and Richard III-- all displaced sitting or more senior heirs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The question is more about whether or not Henry VII himself thought of himself as a usurper. I'm fairly certain he did not, which is why the characterization did not ring true. He also had a lot of support for his claim to the throne - by the time he took it, he was the last of the Lancastrian claimants. And the whole line of succession had been in dispute since the death of Richard II which is why we had the War of the Roses in the first place, so I don't think anyone was the indisputable "rightful" heir to the throne at the time Henry VII was able to claim it. You're right to point out it was a different story with Henry I and also with Stephen - but the question was a lot more muddled by the time of the Battle of Bosworth Field. After the Tudor victory there were no doubt some disgruntled naysayers who felt Teddy or some other York heir had more right to the throne but I doubt very much Henry VII thought so.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Watched a program over the weekend where thru records they make a provable claim (historical records) that Edward VI (Lizzie's daddy) was actually illegitimate.  Church records show that Ed's daddy was not even in the country during the time he was conceived making it more plausible that he was the result of Cecily's affair with an archer.   With Edward not being the legal heir by birthright they explained that Maggie (Margaret Pole) and her children were the true heirs and they tracked down the living heir who lives in Australia.  Interesting stuff.  If that were true there would have been no Henry VIII (England may still be Catholic), no ELizabeth I, no Victoria, no current royal family.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/5/2017 at 6:02 PM, Constantinople said:

I'm guess I'm alone in being the only fan of Maggie.

 

On 6/5/2017 at 9:04 PM, Moxie Cat said:

Nope, I liked Maggie too, and I thought the actress was good. It's not hard to see why she began to back Richard - a different York heir on the throne would have been the only key to getting Teddy out. I really felt for her, and the actress did a great job with her final scene.

I liked her too! But I thought that was what the show did well; show the different views of Maggie and Lizzie as they grew apart and grew up.

 

I will always be laughing at "Car Park Richard." I was driving home and thought about it, immediately started giggling.

 

Maggies life was interesting to me as well. If I get the gist right, her grandfather was a York supporter, then a Lancaster supporter, which would be the same for her mother. Her father was a straight up York. Also I guess her feelings towards Elizabeth Woodville would be complicated because, Elizabeth and her mother didnt get along. Not sure if she would have known that, as she might have been to young when her mother died. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed the original White Queen series right up until the last episode when Lizzie is boning her uncle.  The uncle who caused a lot of hardship, suffering and death to most of her family, and had her declared illegitimate.   I watched the White Princess despite my eyes still rolling.

And again, the end made my head spin.  I think that the main problem is the original authors insistence on treating every single conspiracy theory about the War of the Roses and it's aftermath as the real truth, most especially trying to make a hero out of CP Richard, and taking Perkin at face value.  This is especially so given that the protagonist of the White Queen is the mother of the princes who disappeared in the tower.  And the protagonist of the White Princess is their sister.  I actually think that a dramatization of the actual history as we know it, without the conspiracy theories would have been drama enough. 

Henry VII married the daughter of a family he made war against and apparently somehow ended up with a happy marriage.  That all seems like a longshot and yet it seems to be what happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Cujoy said:

I really enjoyed the original White Queen series right up until the last episode when Lizzie is boning her uncle.  The uncle who caused a lot of hardship, suffering and death to most of her family, and had her declared illegitimate.   I watched the White Princess despite my eyes still rolling.

Did Lizzie really do it with her uncle, or was that a story concocted by his enemies? So much of what is believed about Richard comes through the filter of Tudor loyalists, not the least of whom being William Shakespeare.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, watcher1006 said:

Did Lizzie really do it with her uncle, or was that a story concocted by his enemies? So much of what is believed about Richard comes through the filter of Tudor loyalists, not the least of whom being William Shakespeare.

Yes, I read one of those alternate theory books, admittedly many years ago, regarding Richard III's culpability.  I understand, of course that the Tudor's got to write the history books.  But Richard III did usurp his nephew, and did lock him in the tower along with his brother.   I think once that happened, the Yorks were doomed.    People can theorize however they wish, but it is still just a conspiracy theory.  

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. In spite of the best efforts of the Richard III Society it is a very tall order to exonerate the man of everything he has been accused of. There is no doubt that he had Edward V declared illegitimate using a specious argument in order to clear his own path to the throne. With good reason most historians think that Princes Edward and Richard were murdered on his orders, although there are other suspects. On the other hand while he was definitely interested in his niece Elizabeth (and wife Anne Neville had conveniently died) he was certainly aware of the outcry such an incestuous relationship would create and publicly announced he would not marry her.

Henry Tudor had the longstanding intention of marrying Elizabeth, dating back to his exile in France, assuming he could seize the throne. Regarding the couple’s enmity it is hard to say. Henry Tudor himself had a tenuous connection to the Lancastrian line that Edward IV defeated. He just happened to be the only threat left after Henry VI was murdered. He didn’t fight in the bloodiest battles between the York and Lancaster factions. It doesn’t seem so improbable to me that Elizabeth could actually have loved him as a husband.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2017 at 9:59 PM, RedheadZombie said:

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.  

I know I'm dredging up a post over a year old, but I just watched both these series this past week.

I'll go you one better on the names...Lizzie actually had two brothers named Richard.  Richard Grey from her mother's first marriage (I assume named after E. Woodville's father) and Prince Richard (named after EIV's father and brother).  It's just crazy - she only had the two sons with Edward so it's not like she had already used up all the names, even if you add in Thomas and Richard Grey,  her two sons by John Grey.  Her mother had at least six sons and managed to give them all different names (only one of whom was Richard). 

When I read about this I asked my younger son if he would mind if I got remarried and had another son and named him the same name as his, and he looked at me like I was insane!  

I can't say I enjoyed either series - this period in history fascinates me so I've read quite a bit and the series were just so stupid and revisionist (but that's Phillipa Gregory for you).  The White Queen was much better than The White Princess.  But they were both pretty to look at.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Nessie said:

I know I'm dredging up a post over a year old, but I just watched both these series this past week.

I'll go you one better on the names...Lizzie actually had two brothers named Richard.  Richard Grey from her mother's first marriage (I assume named after E. Woodville's father) and Prince Richard (named after EIV's father and brother).  It's just crazy - she only had the two sons with Edward so it's not like she had already used up all the names, even if you add in Thomas and Richard Grey,  her two sons by John Grey.  Her mother had at least six sons and managed to give them all different names (only one of whom was Richard). 

When I read about this I asked my younger son if he would mind if I got remarried and had another son and named him the same name as his, and he looked at me like I was insane!  

I can't say I enjoyed either series - this period in history fascinates me so I've read quite a bit and the series were just so stupid and revisionist (but that's Phillipa Gregory for you).  The White Queen was much better than The White Princess.  But they were both pretty to look at.

I recently read The White Princess - not really a fan since Gregory makes stuff up out of whole cloth and insists it's the truth.  One such example, she said Richard had to be having an affair with niece Lizzie because he once publicly denied the rumor.  

The book actually made me cry and a little depressed.  In some ways it was better than the who - for instance, Lizzie did not have her brother killed, orchestrate Teddy's death, nor a few other quibbles.  On the other hand, at least the show had some sort of a happy ending.  In the book, Henry definitely had an affair with Lizzie's SIL, fell deeply in love with her, and publicly humiliated Lizzie.  He was also even weaker than the show version.  At the end, Teddy and Richard have just been put to death, and Henry was whining and crying on Lizzie's shoulder.  

Another irritating device of the author is using real history to make characters look like prophets.  Lizzie named her doomed child Elizabeth, and absolutely insisted there would be a redheaded Elizabeth who would be queen in her own right.  She would also be the best monarch England had ever known.  

I did learn that Cecily got preferential attention, in part, because she was Margaret B's step-daughter.  And it would then make sense that Cecily looked like an immediate traitor who turned on her own mother.  While book Cecily was selfish and whiny, she also loved Lizzie and would often sleep with her at night.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎17‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 8:12 AM, bunnyblue said:

Lizzie and Henry...where do I even begin?? Seriously, rape?! Ugh. And then he doesn't touch her on their wedding night? Is that supposed to make him chivalrous or sympathetic or romantic?? Way to ruin Henry VII before we even get to know him, Phillipa Gregory. Besides the rape, the other thing that annoyed the hell out of me was the whole 'Lizzie must prove she's fertile before Henry marries her'. It seemed like it was well known throughout the court that Henry and Lizzie were having premarital sex and therefore people will know that Arthur was conceived out of wedlock. 

At that time husbands often didn't sleep with their wives who were prregnant, because it was believed that is would be harmful to the baby. Or, like Henry, when the marriage was solved for dynastic or economical reasons, when the baby was on the way, why bother?

Children can be born prematurely, so nobody would know for sure. And at the time one could marry quite simply by making promises alone, there was no need to have a priest or even wittnesses, although it was of course better in case the other party didn't keep his/her word.     

On ‎22‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 7:01 PM, WatchrTina said:

I saw the first ep of the The White Princess without ever having seen The White Queen and I spent the whole episode confused about who this "Richard" was that Lizzie was in love with and had slept with.  I could not imagine how it could be King Richard III.  So I went online looking for clarification and of course there is nothing historical to back up that plot twist.  

There were rumours that Richard III wanted to marry Elizabeth and Shakespeare made much of it in his play. But irl Richard vowed publicly that he had no such intention. That seems indeed a strange idea because he had declared his nephews and nieces bastads and taken the throne. By marrying Elizabeth, he had made sure that her brothers were dead and that Elizabeth was no bastard but the true heiress. In any case, if he ever had a plan to marry her, he wouldn't have slept her before marriage. 

On ‎17‎.‎4‎.‎2017 at 8:12 AM, bunnyblue said:

Especially Margaret Beaufort. But I love Michelle Fairley so I will overlook the aging up of her character. 

It bothers me. Margaret was about 13 when she bore Henry, her only son. Elizabeth Woodiville looks much younger although she had two sons before she married Edward IV.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎30‎.‎7‎.‎2018 at 5:14 AM, Nessie said:

I'll go you one better on the names...Lizzie actually had two brothers named Richard.  Richard Grey from her mother's first marriage (I assume named after E. Woodville's father) and Prince Richard (named after EIV's father and brother).  It's just crazy - she only had the two sons with Edward so it's not like she had already used up all the names, even if you add in Thomas and Richard Grey,  her two sons by John Grey.  Her mother had at least six sons and managed to give them all different names (only one of whom was Richard). 

When I read about this I asked my younger son if he would mind if I got remarried and had another son and named him the same name as his, and he looked at me like I was insane!

That was the custom at the time. I know a case where a woman who had three sons with the same first name in her three marriages. 

In any case, Elizabeth probably had no say in the matter, excpept when she bore the Prince of Wales when Edward IV was a fugitive in Burgundy and she herself was in a sanctuary. Otherwise the King probably chose the names, and Richard was the name of his father's name as well as that of his favorite brother.  

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 2:34 AM, stinkogingko said:

I think Henry VII was a usurper; he had no claim based on inheritance and even if he did there were other more senior (and legitimate) heirs ahead of him. He remained a usurper even though he successfully defeated other challengers. That said, William the Conqueror was a usurper, as were Henry I, Henry IV, Edward IV, and Richard III-- all displaced sitting or more senior heirs.

 

On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 9:03 PM, iMonrey said:

The question is more about whether or not Henry VII himself thought of himself as a usurper. I'm fairly certain he did not, which is why the characterization did not ring true. He also had a lot of support for his claim to the throne - by the time he took it, he was the last of the Lancastrian claimants. And the whole line of succession had been in dispute since the death of Richard II which is why we had the War of the Roses in the first place, so I don't think anyone was the indisputable "rightful" heir to the throne at the time Henry VII was able to claim it. You're right to point out it was a different story with Henry I and also with Stephen - but the question was a lot more muddled by the time of the Battle of Bosworth Field. After the Tudor victory there were no doubt some disgruntled naysayers who felt Teddy or some other York heir had more right to the throne but I doubt very much Henry VII thought so.

Henry Tudor's right to the throne was shaky (his father was nobody who had children with Henry V's widow and perhaps married her and his mother was a descendant of John of Gaunt's son by his mistress; their children were legitimized after they married) and was based mostly on conquest. And because Richard III was betrayed, he had reason to be afraid that the same fare would fell on him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎20‎.‎6‎.‎2018 at 4:44 PM, Cujoy said:

Yes, I read one of those alternate theory books, admittedly many years ago, regarding Richard III's culpability.  I understand, of course that the Tudor's got to write the history books.  But Richard III did usurp his nephew, and did lock him in the tower along with his brother.   I think once that happened, the Yorks were doomed.    People can theorize however they wish, but it is still just a conspiracy theory.  

I agree that Richard III was most likely who murdered the princes. All usurpers have done that. But he wasn't "doomed" because of it but because he couldn't keep some magnates on his side in Bosworth (they didn't desert him for the alleged murders but because for more mundane reasons).

Were the Yorks doomed? For some reason they were bent to fight with each other: Warwick and Clarence against Edward IV and after he died and left a minor as his heir, Richard of Gloucester against Elizabeth Woodiville and her relatives. It was rather Richard's decision to kill Edward V's maternal relatives that was decisive - after that he could expect nothing but the enmity from the king once he was of age. It was perhaps to prevent that he decided to take the crown.   

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 12:58 AM, bunnyblue said:

Honestly, I don't know how all of these people aren't exhausted after decades of war and death; especially Elizabeth Woodville. She's lost husbands, parents, siblings, sons, been imprisoned/sought sanctuary countless times, and yet she continues plotting against the Tudors. I feel bad for her 3 youngest daughters who are shuffled from one tiny room to another with little freedom because their mother refuses to stop scheming. Margaret Plantagenet had the right idea when she said she just wanted to take Teddy and go live quietly in a small house away from it all.

Well, Margaret behaves like a modern woman to whom the private life is the most important. Instead, aristocratic and royal women at the time were raised to think that the most important thing was to have power and fortune to one's family.

As for Elizabeth Woodiville, of course sons were more important to her than daughters for if her son won the crown, he would have power whereas her daughter as a only Queen Consort couldn't have any real power. 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎9‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 2:59 AM, BooBear said:

They were both strangers forced to have sex with someone they didn't want to. 

In royal and aristocratic marriages sex was for making legitimate heirs. If men wanted pleasure, they had a mistress.  

On ‎9‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 4:47 PM, MrsE said:

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;  

  Hide contents

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

 

 

On ‎10‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 1:06 AM, MrsE said:

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.

 

On ‎10‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 6:12 PM, BooBear said:

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. 

 

On ‎10‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 6:43 PM, nodorothyparker said:

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.  

Yes, Henry had to marry Elizabeth: he had vowed to do it and she was Edward IV's eldest daughter and if her brothers were dead, the Yorkist heiress. But that she was pregnant when she married was of course no guarantee that she would bear a living child - that was a funny idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎2‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 2:09 AM, BooBear said:

My question is what is Burgundy? It isn't France and it isn't England. In terms of the rant that the Duchess gave about  Henry had lost nothing.. 

English merchants have lost quite a lot as Netherlands that was a part of Burgundy was an important trading partner. 

And just as France was Scotland's old ally against its old enemy England, Burgundy was England's traditional ally against France.

Share this post


Link to post

In The White Queen Elizabeth Woodiville sends some page boy to Tower instead of her younger son Richard, the duke of York. But this trhich would have never suucceeded as, unlike Edward the Prince of Wales, Richard had lived at court, so lots of people in London knew him, not to speak of his uncle, Richard duke of Gloucerter.

As for the scene in Burgundy, Maggie's husband is quite right in saying that whatever true stories and details the pretender tells, he can have learned them from somebody. It would it another matter if Maggie and his cousin Richard had shared together some intimate experiences that nobody else could not possible know.

I feel really sad for Cecily Neville, the duchess of York: first her husband Richard the duke of York and her second son Edmund the earl of Rutland were killed, then her third son George the duke of Clarence was excecuted for treason, her eldest son Edward IV died in his forties and his two sons Edward V and Richard the duke of York disappeared and were likely murdered and her youngest son Richard III fell in the battle. No wonder she is weary of war.     

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎15‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 3:47 PM, nodorothyparker said:

That's the thing about whole divine right of kings thing.  Once you bought wholeheartedly into that (and Margaret Beauford wasn't by any means alone in that belief), not acting to try to make it happen could be seen as going against God. 

 Richard III was supposed to have lost God's protection even if he was an anointed king because he had murdered his nephews. So how could Margaret believe that by murdering two innocent children she was doing "God's will"? One simply can't beleive Margaret's character.    

I don't believe, though, that Margaret did any murders irl. Also, an idea that Henry could become a king was born rather late.      

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎28‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 5:11 PM, BooBear said:

Yes. He was deliberately cruel to her this episode even worse than the first episode. He had an evil twinge in his eye when he was getting dressed and she came in and asked if he understood what she was suffering. That clearly had to be some romance novel tripe because it makes no sense to attempt to woo the York factions by humiliating the queen a few days after she basically saved his arse by appealing to York sentiments for him.  Not to mention the real possibility that his York wife would change her loyalty with her "brother" right there at court with his wife. How easy would it have been for Elizabeth to change loyalty after what Henry showed her 7 years into her marriage?  

It would be impossible for Elizabeth to change sides, however badly Henry treated her, because if her Brother became the king, her sons would be in danger. So far, all ex-kings and ex-heirs had been killed.  

On ‎29‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 4:21 PM, Kata01 said:

The possibility of whether The Boy could be Richard Richard Richard hasn't concerned me in the least. However, after this episode I am convinced he is a charlaton, a good one. I'm sure after living in Burgundy with his aunt, grandmother, and other Yorkist exiles (not to mention "My Richard" Woodville writing on the reg) for 7 years he would be up to date on all the necessary RRR (Richard Richard Richard) trivia, so much so as to embody the personage. Add the right resemblage to the mix and voilà, presto RRR. There's something missing though...

The show took things to over the top levels with this kid though. Is he really THAT good? That perfect? That amazing? That cool of a customer? It screamed more saint/martyr than kingly behavior. Real kings (and queens) are messy - just look at Henry & Lizzie in this episode for evidence of that. That is royalty, my friends. His behavior was so extreme to me that by the end of the episode, I gave Lizzie my blessing to chop his head off- that ain't your brother, Liz. 

You are quite right. The Boy could learn many details from the Yorkist. The only sure way to know he is a real prince could be if he knew something that only Richard and Elizabeth would know - and even then, who could be sure that Richard hadn't tell that to somebody who told it to the Boy.

Elizabeth thinks in the book the Boy is brilliant because all Yorks are brilliant, unlike Henry, but in fact, the Yorks failed because they strifed with another (first George duke of Clarence and earl of Warwick against Edward IV ja Richard duke of Gloucester, then Richard III against Elizabeth Woodivile and his nephews). 

On ‎29‎.‎5‎.‎2017 at 8:32 PM, nodorothyparker said:

Gregory through the book maintains that Perkin Warbeck was Richard Richard Richard, but even there she doesn't have him going around loudly declaring it every other page in ways that any thinking man surely would have known would only antagonize the king holding his wife and child.  Even discounting that he might have been the real deal, that portrayal of a man who wisely did confess to being a pretender and bided his time makes more sense than this version.  But TV dramatics, I guess.  He did get some limited recognition and support from other European heads at the time but excepting someone like Margaret of Burgundy who clearly had a family ax to grind, they were also quick to cut their losses as their support didn't translate to any sort of victory that would destabilize the Tudors.  

Even had Richard Richard Richard been able to escape and regroup it would have been a huge uphill battle at that point as Henry had been on the throne with an established line of succession for something like 12 years.  Granted, Henry had been in exile for 14 years before he finally won the throne, but he also didn't have anyone holding his family hostage and really had nothing to lose coming in during a time when the country was already in upheaval over Richard III and the disappearances of the princes in the Tower.

 

Losing the battle showed at that the that God had given his judgment and the pretender wasn't the real prince. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×