Category: Uncategorized

Favorite Couples from the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor Dynasty

On By hmalagisiIn Uncategorized1 Comment

With Valentine’s Day around the corner, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about the couples that we all enjoy studying from the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor Dynasty. These are couples that went through a lot together and stayed together. That is why people like Henry VIII will not be on this list since we all know his marriage track record. This is a list combining your favorites, which you stated as answers to a question I posted on the Facebook page, as well as some of my own. These couples are in chronological order, not by favorites, and the first two couples are before the time that we would call “Wars of the Roses” but they are still important. I did have to narrow down this list quite a bit so if you don’t see a couple that is on this list, let’s discuss it.  I hope you enjoy!

1.) John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford

200px-johnofgauntJohn of Gaunt, the son of King Edward III and one of the wealthiest men in Europe, and Katherine Swynford, the woman who was the governess to John’s children. It seems like an unlikely match, but these two made it work. Of course, when these two lovebirds first met, they were both married to other people, John of Gaunt to Blanche of Lancaster and Katherine to Hugh Swynford. When both Blanche and Hugh died, rumors began to fly that John and Katherine were having an affair. John decided to quite these rumors by marrying a second time, to Constance of Castile. This marriage was one for political gains, not of love. His hope for marrying Constance was to become King of Castile, similar to how he became the Duke of Lancaster after marrying Blanche of Lancaster, but it ended up being a disaster. After his father’s death, John’s nephew Richard II became king and John gave up his claim to the throne of Castile. While he was married to Constance, John began to see Katherine and they had 4 children out of wedlock. Constance would die in 1394.  John would marry Katherine in 1396 and their children would be given the name “Beaufort”. Their children would be considered legitimate, but they could not inherit the throne. John would die 3 years later in 1399 and would be buried beside his first wife Blanche. John and Katherine’s love for one another lasted decades.

2.) Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois

Catherine_of_France.jpgThe Dowager Queen of England marrying a man who worked in her own household. That is the gist of the love story of Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois. Catherine of Valois was married to King Henry V of England and in return, under the Treaty of Troyes, Henry V and his descendants became kings of both England and France. A really great deal, except Henry V, died of dysentery a few months after his son and heir Henry VI was born. Catherine was 21 when she became the Dowager Queen and there was a real concern that she would marry again so Parliament passed a bill that stated that if Catherine wanted to remarry, she had to ask Parliament’s permission to do so. Well, she didn’t listen to this bill at all. She met and fell in love with a Welshman named Owen Tudor, who worked for her as either as the keeper of her household or her wardrobe.  They would marry sometime between 1428 and 1429. Later, in May 1432, Owen was granted the same rights as an Englishman.

To say this match was totally taboo would be an understatement, but for them, it worked. Catherine and Owen were willing to risk everything for their love. They would have anywhere between 4 to 6 children Two of their children would become famous during the Wars of the Roses, Jasper and Edmund Tudor. Catherine would die on January 3, 1437, and would be buried beside her first husband Henry V.   After Catherine’s death, Jasper and Edmund would receive titles and meet their half-brother King Henry VI, but Owen would face jail time. Owen would later be captured and executed after the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross on February 2, 1461.

3.) Richard Woodville and Jacquetta of Luxembourg

Richard Woodville and Jacquetta of Luxembourg. Another story of a wealthy woman marrying a man well below her station for love. Jacquetta was born in France during the height of the Hundred Years War. Her first husband was the brother of King Henry V, John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford and they were married in April 1433. Their marriage was controversial because John’s first wife Anne died only a few months before they were married. The couple moved back to England and in a matter of weeks, Jacquetta was given the rights of an English woman. In 1434, she was made a member of the Order of the Garter, a huge honor. Their marriage would not last long as John would die a year later in France.

Jacquetta was a widow and Henry VI wanted her sent back to England so he sent  Sir Richard Woodville, a knight, to bring Jacquetta back. This backfired spectacularly as Jacquetta and Richard fell in love and got married in secret while on their way back to England (just like another couple on this list). Henry VI was furious and fined the couple 1000 pounds, but on March 23, 1437, Parliament recognized their marriage as valid. Jacquetta and Richard were happily married and had 14 children, including Elizabeth Woodville, who would become Queen of England.  Jacquetta and Richard were with Margaret of Anjou as she made her way to England and to her marriage to Henry VI and the birth of their son. They were together when their daughter, Elizabeth Woodville, married her first husband and he died in battle when she met and married Edward IV, and Jacquetta was there for the birth of her first granddaughter Elizabeth of York. Jacquetta’s world came crashing down when Richard and their son John were captured and executed on August 12, 1469, after the Battle of Edgecote Moor. Jacquetta was arrested by Warwick and charged with witchcraft, but the charges were dropped. Jacquetta would die only a few years after Richard, on May 30, 1472. Jacquetta and Richard’s marriage lasted through decades and hardships, but it was full of love and a large family, the Woodvilles, that would change English politics forever.

4.) Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville

edbe20edb2d4ed4682369c7eb997b6dfKing Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, the widow of a soldier and a mother of two young boys. In a way, their love story is like a Cinderella story. Elizabeth Woodville was the eldest daughter of Richard and Jacquetta Woodville. She was a maid of honor for Margaret of Anjou and because of her high position at court, her parents arranged a marriage for her to Sir John Grey of Groby in 1452. The couple would have two sons, Thomas, and Richard Woodville. Their marriage would not last long as Sir John Grey was killed at the Second Battle of St. Albans in 1461.

The story of how Edward IV met Elizabeth is often embellished. The story goes that Edward IV met Elizabeth under an oak tree at her family home at Grafton Regis in Northamptonshire, where she pleaded with Edward to help her get an inheritance for her two sons. It is very unlikely that they met underneath this oak tree, but they did fall in love and would eventually get married in May 1464. Edward then told his Parliament, including the man who helped him the most Warwick “the Kingmaker”,  that he couldn’t marry any of the women that they suggested because he was already married. Elizabeth’s large family was given advantageous marriages and titles that helped shaped English politics, much to the chagrin of those who were already in power. Elizabeth was crowned Queen consort on May 16, 1465, and the following year, she gave birth to the couple’s first child, Elizabeth of York.

Things went downhill as politics took their marriage for a rollercoaster ride. Warwick decided that he was going to switch from York to Lancaster and placed Henry VI back on the throne, sending Edward IV into exile. Elizabeth Woodville was forced to seek sanctuary where she gave birth to their first son, the future Edward V. Edward IV would come back with a vengeance and defeated Warwick, reclaiming his crown, and found his wife and children in sanctuary. The family was reunited and happy. Their second son, Richard Duke of York, was married to Anne of Mowbray and they had arranged a marriage for their eldest daughter Elizabeth of York to the Dauphin of France. Elizabeth Woodville’s world came crashing down when her beloved husband, Edward IV, died on April 9, 1483. The crown passed to their young son Edward V, but before he was crowned king, Edward and his brother Richard were sent to the Tower of London, never to be seen again.

Elizabeth would arrange a marriage between her daughter Elizabeth of York, with the son of Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor. On August 22, 1485, Henry Tudor was able to defeat Richard III and become King Henry VII. He would marry Elizabeth of York and Elizabeth Woodville would be present for the birth of her grandchildren Arthur, Henry, Mary, and Margaret. Elizabeth Woodville would die less than a decade after Edward IV, on June 8, 1492. Edward and Elizabeth are buried by each other in St. George Chapel in Windsor Castle. Their love was something of legends and even though people did not agree with their union, they made each other stronger.  

5.) Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

89947Henry Tudor, later Henry VII, and Elizabeth of York. The couple that united the houses of York and Lancaster and started the Tudor Dynasty. This is the only couple on this list that was arranged to be married to each other, but they made it work extremely well. Henry Tudor was the son of Margaret Beaufort and Edmund Tudor who would go into hiding after the Yorkist believed he would be the one who could bring back the Lancasterian cause in the Wars of the Roses. After Edward IV died, Edward V and Richard Duke of York were sent to the Tower never to be seen again, and Richard III became king. Elizabeth Woodville and the Yorkists loyal to her did not like Richard III and knew something had to be done in order to end his reign. In order to bring an end to the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort agreed that their children, Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor, would be married if Henry could invade England successfully and overthrow Richard III. Henry and his uncle Jasper tried to invade in October 1483, but it failed. In December 1483, Henry made an oath in Rennes, France to marry Elizabeth of York.

Finally, in August 1485, Henry and Jasper Tudor made their way back to England, and it worked. They met against Richard III’s forces at the Battle of Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485, where with sheer luck, and the forces of Lord Stanley ( Henry’s stepfather), Henry was able to defeat Richard and become King Henry VII. Henry kept his promise and married Elizabeth of York the following year, on January 18, 1486. A few months later, on September 20, 1486, Henry and Elizabeth welcomed their firstborn son, Arthur Prince of Wales. They would have more children including Henry Tudor (future Henry VIII), Mary and Margaret Tudor. Things started off relatively stable for the first few months of Henry’s reign, but that would change in 1487.

1487 was the year that a young boy named Lambert Simnel claimed to be the earl of Warwick, Elizabeth’s cousin. This was a lie and Henry met Lambert Simnel at the Battle of Stoke Field on June 16, 1487, where Lambert was defeated in the last battle of the Wars of the Roses. Lambert would be a first in a long line of pretenders, trying to usurp the throne from Henry. One of the biggest pretenders was Perkin Warbeck, who claimed to be Richard Duke of York, Elizabeth’s younger brother. This may have been a recipe for a disaster between Henry and Elizabeth, but it actually strengthened their relationship. Elizabeth believed that Perkin Warbeck was not her brother. Perkin Warbeck was hanged at Tyburn on November 23, 1499.

The last few years of Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage was filled with joy and heartache. The couple had arranged advantageous marriages for their children Arthur and Margaret. Margaret was arranged to be married to King James IV of Scotland, to unite England and Scotland under the Treaty of Perpetual Peace.  Arthur was married to Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, on November 14, 1501, uniting Spain and England. The following year, on April 2, 1502, Arthur died unexpectantly, leaving Elizabeth to console her husband and to remind him that they were still young and that they could still have more children. Elizabeth did give birth to a daughter Katherine on February 2, 1503, but she would not live long. Elizabeth of York would die on February 11, 1503, leaving Henry alone in his grief. He never married again and when Henry VII died a few later on April 21, 1509, he wished to be buried next to his beloved wife. Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage may have been arranged, but they developed a deep love for one another that endure many hardships and created the Tudor Dynasty.

6.) Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor

Mary_Tudor_and_Charles_BrandonCharles Brandon and Mary Tudor. A Tudor knight who fell in love with the dowager Queen of France and the sister of the King of England. Their love story is one for the ages. Mary Tudor was the youngest daughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York and she was very close to her brother Henry VIII. She was known as the most beautiful princess in Europe. Her first marriage was to the King of France, Louis XII, who was much older than she was and had been married two times before. Their marriage did not last three months as King Louis XII died and they did not have any children. The new King of France, Francis I, tried to arrange a new marriage for Mary, but Henry VIII sent an envoy to collect his sister, which included the charming knight, Charles Brandon.

Charles and Mary probably knew each other their entire life since Charles was a close friend of Henry VIII. While they were on their way to England, the couple decided to get married in secret on March 3, 1515, and to tell Henry later. Henry was angry, at first, and fined the couple 24,000 pounds and the remainder of Mary’s dowry. It was an enormous amount, but the couple took it in stride and their marriage was recognized later that year with an official ceremony on May 13, 1515. This was not Charles’ first marriage as he was married two times before and had two daughters by his first marriage, Anne and Mary. Mary accepted both daughters and raised them along with her four children that she had with Charles. The couple would make their opinion about politics clear to Henry, especially when it came to Henry’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon in order to marry Anne Boleyn, which they were not thrilled with the idea.

Mary, who suffered from illnesses all of her life, died on June 25, 1533. Charles would marry again, this time to his ward Catherine Willoughby who would give him two sons. Charles died on August 22, 1545. Although both married other people before they married each other, one can sense how much Charles and Mary truly loved one another.

Who are your favorite couples from the Wars of the Roses or the Tudor Dynasty?

 

Trailer Review: “The Spanish Princess”

On By hmalagisiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

As many of you know, the first trailer for “The Spanish Princess”, the new miniseries by Starz and based off books by Philippa Gregory, just dropped. This is the story of Catherine of Aragon coming to England to marry Prince Arthur, but when Arthur dies unexpectantly, Catherine must choose between going back to Spain or marrying her dead husband’s brother Henry Tudor, who would become Henry VIII. I have watched the trailer and I have decided to review the trailer. 

The Books

This series is “drawn” from two of Philippa Gregory’s books, “The Constant Princess” and “The King’s Curse”.  It has been over a year or two since I personally read these books. So before we dive into a review of the trailer, I thought it would be appropriate to look at the summaries of both of these books, which you can find from Philippa Gregory’s website,  to see what we might expect to see from this series.

The first book we will look at is “The Constant Princess”:

61uvmxu-owl._sx326_bo1,204,203,200_We think of her as the barren wife of a notorious king; but behind this legacy lies a fascinating story. Katherine of Aragon is born Catalina, the Spanish Infanta, to parents who are both rulers and warriors. Aged four, she is betrothed to Arthur, Prince of Wales, and is raised to be Queen of England. She is never in doubt that it is her destiny to rule that far-off, wet, cold land. Her faith is tested when her prospective father-in-law greets her arrival in her new country with a great insult; Arthur seems little better than a boy; the food is strange and the customs coarse. Slowly she adapts to the first Tudor court, and life as Arthur’s wife grows ever more bearable. But when the studious young man dies, she is left to make her own future: how can she now be queen, and found a dynasty? Only by marrying Arthur’s young brother, the sunny but spoilt Henry. His father and grandmother are against it; her powerful parents prove little use. Yet Katherine is her mother’s daughter and her fighting spirit is strong. She will do anything to achieve her aim; even if it means telling the greatest lie, and holding to it.

The second book is “The King’s Curse”:

This is the story of deposed royal Margaret Pole, and her unique view of King Henry VIII’s 51qydh3apnlstratospheric rise to power in Tudor England. Margaret Pole spends her young life struggling to free her brother, arrested as a child, from the Tower of London. The Tower – symbol of the Tudor usurpation of her family’s throne – haunts Margaret’s dreams until the day that her brother is executed on the orders of Henry VII. Regarded as yet another threat to the volatile King Henry VII’s claim to the throne, Margaret is buried in marriage to a steady and kind Tudor supporter – Sir Richard Pole, governor of Wales. But Margaret’s quiet, hidden life is changed forever by the arrival of Arthur, the young Prince of Wales, and his beautiful bride, Katherine of Aragon, as Margaret soon becomes a trusted advisor and friend to the honeymooning couple. Margaret’s destiny, as an heiress to the Plantagenets, is not for a life in the shadows. Tragedy throws her into poverty and rebellion against the new royal family, luck restores her to her place at court where she becomes the chief lady-in-waiting to Queen Katherine and watches the dominance of the Spanish queen over her husband, and her fall. As the young king becomes increasingly paranoid of rivals he turns his fearful attention to Margaret and her royal family. Amid the rapid deterioration of the Tudor court, Margaret must choose whether her allegiance is to the increasingly tyrannical king, Henry VIII, or to her beloved queen and princess. Caught between the old world and the new, Margaret has to find her own way and hide her knowledge of an old curse on all the Tudors, which is slowly coming true . . .

The Trailer

The trailer for “The Spanish Princess” begins with the introduction of the show’s protagonist, Catherine of Aragon, played by Charlotte Hope, walking outside in her white wedding dress. Her purpose in England was to marry the future King of England in order to make an alliance between England and Spain. I think Charlotte Hope looks the part of Catherine of Aragon. She looks rather regal, a bit shy at first, but she becomes a strong and determined young woman. Plus she has auburn hair; which is the actual hair color Catherine of Aragon was known to have. A huge plus for fans of Catherine of Aragon and her life story.

The first few seconds of the trailer, we are introduced to the important members of the English court. King Henry VII, played by Elliot Cowan, is an older man who seems to dress quite lavishly and who seeks to make England a better country. The one problem that I have with the character of Henry VII is his accent. Though we are not sure what kind of accent he might have had since he was part Welsh and lived in France and Brittany for a time in his life, one would assume he might have some French or Welsh accent, but his accent, from what we can gather, sounds solely English. I might be nit-picking here a bit, but it did bother me a little bit. Always next to Henry’s side is his wife, Elizabeth of York, who is played by Alexandra Moen.

Now we come to the two brothers, Arthur and Henry, or “Harry” as he is called in this series. Prince Arthur, who is played by Angus Imrie, looks very thin and almost sickly in the images that we do see of him. From what we know of Arthur, he was rather healthy, until his death shortly after marrying Catherine. Henry “Harry”, played by Ruairi O’Connor, has that suave and debonaire feel to him. The one problem that many people have, myself included, is the fact that when Catherine and Henry first met, Henry was around 10 or 11 and Catherine was around 16. The trailer makes it seem as though the two were around the same age when they met, which was not the case.

Henry and Catherine developed feelings for each other and Henry wants Catherine to stay and marry him, although she is his brother’s widow. We see two members of the English royal family who are not exactly thrilled with this match. They are Margaret Beaufort, Henry VIII’s grandmother, played by Dame Harriet Walter, and  Margaret “Maggie” Pole, played by Laura Carmichael. We also get a look at the ladies of waiting to Catherine of Aragon, Lina, and Rosa, who are played by Stephanie Levi-John and Nadia Parkes respectfully. The series also decided to include Oviedo, played by Aaron Cobham, who falls in love with Lina.

I do enjoy the costumes for this series as they do seem to honor the past. The scenery is intriguing and transports the viewer to the time of the Tudors. The one scene that I did have a slight problem with was the last one in the trailer, which shows Catherine, Lina, and Rosa dressed in black in the cathedral, mourning for Prince Arthur. From what it looks like in the trailer, it is Arthur’s funeral. Lina and Rosa are wailing while Catherine is in the middle, no tears down her face, as she looks stoically at the camera. My issue with this scene is the fact that members of the royal family did not attend his funeral because of the risk of the sweating sickness. If you would like to read more about Prince Arthur’s funeral, Dr. Sean Cunningham, who wrote the book “Prince Arthur: The Tudor King Who Never Was”, wrote a fascinating article for On the Tudor Trail, which you can find below in the sources.

The series also uses nicknames such as “Harry” for Prince Henry, “Maggie” for Margaret Pole, “Charlie” for Charles Brandon and “Meg” Tudor. It is not clear if “Meg” is a combination of Mary and Margaret or if it is just Margaret Tudor. I don’t know why they would choose to go down this route as both Mary and Margaret are important figures, being the sisters of Henry and Arthur Tudor. Another notable absence from the list of characters is Isabella of Castille, Catherine’s formidable mother. We do, apparently, get an appearance from Christopher Columbus, according to the cast list, but not from Catherine’s own mother, who really shaped what kind of woman Catherine would become.

Overall, I did enjoy the trailer. I think it is interesting that Starz decided to combine both the stories of Catherine of Aragon and Margaret Pole into a mini-series. From what was shown in the trailer, it looks like their main focus will be Catherine and Henry so hopefully, we will see more of Margaret later in the show. “The Spanish Princess” looks like it will be an enjoyable show for those who love historical dramas.

What are your thoughts about this trailer and will you watch “The Spanish Princess”?

 

Sources:

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a26038583/the-spanish-princess-starz-first-teaser-trailer/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8417308/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

https://www.philippagregory.com/books/the-constant-princess

https://www.philippagregory.com/books/the-king-s-curse

http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/2016/07/30/prince-arthurs-funeral-ceremony-despair-and-shifting-politics-in-1502/

https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2015/06/19/the-wedding-of-arthur-tudor-prince-of-wales-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Guest Post: Was Henry IV A Usurper? By Michele Morrical

On By hmalagisiIn Uncategorized2 Comments

170px-king_henry_iv_from_npg_(2)Some medieval English kings have unfairly gotten a bad rap. Others are deservedly vilified (Richard III, I’m talking to you).

Our modern-day perception of English kings is largely constructed from only a few sources. Of course, we have the writings of Shakespeare which were generally based on the real events of English monarchs but had lots of extra drama added in to spice things up. We also have the writings of chroniclers who actually lived in the middle ages, but they aren’t always reliable. Just imagine if you were hired by Henry VIII to write the history of his reign. You would definitely write it in a way that reflected very well on the king. And we have modern-day historians who try to bring the past to life with new interpretations of English monarchs and their new explanations of their controversial actions.

One of the English kings who has received very little attention over the years is Henry IV, also known as Henry of Bolingbroke and Henry of Derby. The common perception is that Henry was a usurper, but was he really? Did he seize the throne from Richard II illegally or was he the rightful heir?

What was Henry IV’s claim to the throne?

To answer this question, we must go back a couple of reigns to Henry’s grandfather, King Edward III, a Plantagenet king that ruled England from 1327 to 1377. King Edward was also the nephew of King Charles IV of France through his mother Isabella. When Charles IV died childless, Edward asserted his right to the French crown as Charles’ nearest male relative. The French overruled him citing Salic Law which said inheritance could not be passed through a female line. So the throne went instead to Philip of Valois, Charles’ cousin through a completely male line. As if losing his claim to the kingdom of France wasn’t enough of a blow to Edward, Philip also confiscated Edward’s land in France. Edward was not one to take things lying down so he took military action against France and initiated the Hundred Years War.

One of King Edward’s best military commanders was his eldest son, Edward of Woodstock, also known as the Black Prince. The king’s son was raised and educated in preparation to be the next king and he was perfectly suited to follow in his father’s footsteps. However, there was a major problem. His repeated military expeditions around Europe caused him to become quite ill, including a raging case of dysentery. He died in 1376 at the age of 45. He had not outlived his father, therefore he never got the chance to fulfill his destiny as King of England.

After the death of the Black Prince, King Edward wrote his will and “Act of Entail” in which he named his heir. Rather than naming his eldest living son (John of Gaunt) to be the next king, he did something unusual. He instead named his grandson, Richard of Bordeaux, eldest living son of the Black Prince, to be next in the order of succession using a device called “Right of Substitution”. Essentially since the Black Prince died prematurely, his son Richard was accepted as a substitute.

After Richard, he named the next in line for succession to be John of Gaunt and the male heirs of his body, followed by his other living sons, Edmund, Duke of York, and Thomas, Duke of Gloucester. Interestingly enough, the “Act of Entail” document was kept secret from the public. The only people who knew about it were those named in the entail and the king’s closest confidants. It was never introduced to Parliament to put into law. Many rulers were hesitant to publicly name their heir because that gave any discontented subjects someone to rally around and overthrow the king.

If King Edward had followed traditional Salic Law rules, his eldest living son, John of Gaunt, would have been named his heir followed by Gaunt’s son, Henry of Bolingbroke, which would have left Richard completely out of the succession. Imagine how different the course of English history would have been if Edward had not made this decision to use the uncommon right of substitution. The inheritance would have been strictly through the house of Lancaster, cutting out the house of York. The Wars of the Roses may have never even happened.

Henry of Bolingbroke would have known about King Edward III’s act of entail and that he had been named third in line for the throne (after Richard and John of Gaunt) rather than second in line after Gaunt. Even so, being third in line to the throne wasn’t so bad for Henry. He lived a relatively comfortable life as a royal heir and spent his youth preparing to be a successful ruler like his grandfather. Henry became one of the most respected knights in Europe, he traveled abroad on crusades, and he learned it was better to work with the nobles and forge alliances rather than trying to control them. There was only one problem…Richard absolutely hated Henry. Richard was none of the things that Henry was. Richard was not strong and athletic, he did not joust, and he was not an experienced military leader. He was basically the antithesis of Edward III. Richard was terribly jealous of Henry and felt threatened that Henry or his father might one day try to wrestle the crown from his head.

Richard’s Revenge

For the first 10 years of Richard’s reign, it was assumed that Edward’s entail would be upheld by Richard but in the Parliament of 1386, Richard did something shocking. He threw out his grandfather’s entail and instead declared that his heir would be the twelve-year-old earl of March, Roger Mortimer, great-grandson of King Edward III. Roger’s mother Phillipa was the daughter and only child of King Edward’s second-born (yet deceased) son Lionel of Antwerp. Even though Lionel was deceased, Richard used the right of substitution in selecting Roger, just as Edward III had done in selecting Richard as the Black Prince’s substitute. However, it was highly unusual to name an heir through a female line, especially when there were plenty of other male heirs to choose from. Richard selected the Mortimers so that John of Gaunt, Henry of Bolingbroke, and the entire Lancastrian line would be excluded from the succession. He was putting them on notice that they better work for him instead of against him.

Richard’s declaration was met with great resistance from the lords of his realm who were already disgruntled from enduring years of his tyrannical treatment. They had been terribly unhappy about Richard’s style of kingship, lack of military experience, misguided attempts to negotiate with France, reckless financial spending, attempts to degrade the power of Parliament, and general misrule resulting from Richard’s circle of favorites. Threatening civil war and deposition, the Lords were successful in pressing Richard to exclude the minor Roger Mortimer from succession and to reinstate King Edward III’s entail naming John of Gaunt and his son Henry as the next in line to the throne.

Richard was a very spiteful and vengeful man. He would agree to a deal when he was face-to-face with the nobles, but behind their backs, he would plot to punish them for any sign of disloyalty. Over the next 10 years, he continually threatened the lords and nobles with arrest, confiscation of lands, titles, goods, and even exile if they didn’t bend to his every whim. Richard again changed the order of succession, throwing out John of Gaunt, Henry, and the Mortimers. He decided that the person who would be the least threatening to his reign would be Edward III’s fourth son, Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, who was an arthritic invalid.

Henry of Bolingbroke was always at the top of Richard’s hit list but since he was such a close royal relative, Richard couldn’t afford to take him out. His reputation would have been destroyed if he used force to get the likable, respected knight out of the picture. So instead of using force, he used a 1397 civil dispute between Henry and Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, as the mechanism to remove him. Richard ruled both men guilty and sentenced them both to exile: Henry for 10 years and Norfolk for life.

As if exile wasn’t punishment enough, just one year later when John of Gaunt died, Richard delivered the knock-out punch. Despite his promise to Gaunt, Richard revoked Henry’s entire Lancastrian inheritance and confiscated all of his lands and assets. Furthermore, Henry was to be considered a traitor to England. Henry of Bolingbroke had nothing left. To fall so far from being the heir to the throne down to a penniless vagabond was untenable for Henry. And there was only one person at fault: his cousin, King Richard II.

Henry’s Return to England

As Henry lived in exile, he thought about his situation and strategies for getting back what was rightly his. There weren’t many options. There was certainly no chance now at reconciliation with Richard, things had simply gone too far. The only way he would be allowed to return to England and be restored to his rightful inheritance would be if Richard was no longer the king of England.

Removing King Richard II from the throne is not something Henry could do by himself. Luckily, he had friends in high places who had also been unfairly treated by Richard. Together with several dukes and earls, Henry planned an uprising against Richard to protest his tyrannical rule. Henry landed in England on July 4, 1399, at Ravenspur in Yorkshire with only 300 men. As he traveled towards the safety of the Lancastrian stronghold, Pontefract Castle, his army grew into the thousands. Henry had become the leader of the revolution. He swore to his followers that his only intent was to defend England from Richard’s tyranny and to reclaim his Lancastrian inheritance. He promised that he would not take the throne for himself by force.

King Richard was with the royal army in Ireland at the time of Henry’s invasion. The Keeper of the Realm during his absence was his 58-year-old heir, Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. Edmund knew that his nephew was a cruel despotic ruler and he instead threw in his lot with Henry. Edmund agreed to support his uprising and would not take measures to suppress his army. Edmund also believed that Henry had been treated unfairly and was perfectly within his rights to reclaim his inheritance.

So Henry’s army moved across the country unchallenged until he came to Conway Castle where King Richard was hiding. Rather than fighting, they negotiated. Henry demanded that he be allowed to return to England and that his lands be restored to him. Richard agreed but then shortly thereafter declared he had no intent to keep his promise. In fact, he was more determined than ever to see Henry dead. Henry’s army arrested Richard and took him into their possession.

While Richard was kept under lock and key in a variety of royal castles, Henry was working with English lawyers to legally reinstate his claim to the Lancastrian inheritance. They determined that the best course of action would be for Richard to sign a written resignation which would then be ratified by Parliament. After much resistance, the king finally relented and signed the document. In doing so, he stepped down from the throne and agreed to Henry’s accession, just as King Edward III’s act of entail had outlined nearly twenty-five years earlier.

The Rule of Succession in England

Was Henry right to overthrow Richard II in an attempt to restore justice to the kingdom of England? Or did he take advantage of the circumstances by claiming the throne for himself?

It all comes down to this. Were any laws broken when Edward named his grandson Richard as his heir instead of his eldest living son John of Gaunt? Likewise, did Richard break any laws when he bypassed Edward’s entail and named Edward of Langley as his heir? Did Henry break any laws when he accepted the crown for himself and deposed his cousin Richard? Should kings have to uphold entails from their predecessors or was it legal for them to change it to their own personal liking?

We cannot judge these decisions as morally right or wrong, rather we can only judge them in terms of the law or the absence of law. In England during the Middle Ages, there was no law that strictly defined the order of succession. Other European kingdoms, such as France, observed Salic Law which prohibited women from being crowned as well as their sons. Germanic kingdoms followed the semi-Salic rule which allowed a woman to inherit but only if all the men in the royal bloodline were dead.

England was a kingdom heavily influenced by their different European neighbors so England’s laws and customs were a mish-mash of the various customs immigrants had brought with them to England. Since England had never put the order of succession into a legal act, it was basically up to the current ruler to choose the next heir to the throne.

Is it any wonder England had so many disputes over control of the kingdom during the Middle Ages? With no legal rules governing the order of succession, it became open to interpretation and that’s when the royal heirs and nobility used it to their advantage. It made it much more possible to maneuver their own royal relatives into positions where they might someday have a shot at the throne themselves.

Was Henry IV a Usurper?

It is my judgment that Henry IV was not a usurper. To be a usurper, one has to either seize authority illegally or by force.

Although Henry did amass a sizable army, they did not resort to violence to solve the conflict. The army was merely a show of force so that Richard would take them seriously and understand the gravity of the situation.

Henry was careful to use lawyers to find a legal way to depose King Richard II and thus overturn his previous statute naming Edmund of Langley as his heir. With Richard deposed and all of his previous acts of Parliament voided, the order of succession had to revert back to the previous king. That would make King Edward III’s act of entail valid again and Henry of Bolingbroke next in line to the throne.

 About the Author

Michele Morrical is a writer, blogger, and amateur historian on all things Tudor and Wars of the Roses. She lives in Indianapolis, Indiana with her husband, son, daughter, and many pets. You can find her writings at michelemorrical.com.

My journey into Tudor history began about 10 years ago with the TV show “The Tudors” from Showtime. As I watched the show, I wondered how much of it was really true because the storylines were more dramatic and shocking than any soap opera I had ever seen. I picked up Margaret George’s autobiography of Henry VIII and I was hooked. I’ve since read over 100 books on the Tudor period and I’m currently writing my own book about the Wars of the Roses

Book Giveaway: Owen- Book One of the Tudor Trilogy by Tony Riches

On By hmalagisiIn Uncategorized12 Comments

Hello Everyone!

As a way to start off 2019, I will be doing my first ever book giveaway. The book is a signed paperback copy of Owen- Book One of the Tudor Trilogy by Tony Riches!

owen 3d3

For those who are not familiar with this particular book, here is a short description from Tony Riches’ blog, The Writing Desk:

England 1422: Owen Tudor, a Welsh servant, waits in Windsor Castle to meet his new mistress, the beautiful and lonely Queen Catherine of Valois, widow of the warrior king, Henry V. Her infant son is crowned King of England and France, and while the country simmers on the brink of civil war, Owen becomes her protector.

They fall in love, risking Owen’s life and Queen Catherine’s reputation—but how do they found the dynasty which changes British history – the Tudors?

This is the first historical novel to fully explore the amazing life of Owen Tudor, grandfather of King Henry VII and the great-grandfather of King Henry VIII. Set against a background of the conflict between the Houses of Lancaster and York, which develops into what have become known as the Wars of the Roses, Owen’s story deserves to be told.

If you would like to read my opinions on this book, here is my Book Review: “Owen: Book One of the Tudor Trilogy” by Tony Riches

The Rules:

If you would like to be entered into the contest for this fantastic book, please follow the following steps.

#1- Subscribe to the “Adventures of a Tudor Nerd” blog.  

#2- Like this post and comment your favorite person who lived during the Wars of the Roses and why.

#3- Go to the “Adventures of a Tudor Nerd” Facebook page and comment on this link as to why you want a copy of Owen- Book One of the Tudor Trilogy.

This contest ends on January 31st, 2019.

The winner will be chosen on February 1st.

Best of luck everyone!

Guest Post by Tony Riches – Telling the Stories of the Tudors

On By hmalagisiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

tudor books

It began with my research for a novel about the life of Henry Tudor, who like me was born in the Welsh town of Pembroke. I decided to write it as an historical fiction novel in the hope of reaching a wider audience, including those who might never read a textbook about the Tudors. I also enjoy the challenge of ‘filling the gaps’ in the historical record and bringing these men and women to life.

I’d collected more than enough material for a book – and discovered that although Henry features (with varying degrees of accuracy) in many works of fiction, there were no novels devoted to telling his amazing story. I believe this was partly because Henry had been labelled as dull and miserly, when in fact he was an extravagant gambler, who spent a fortune on clothes, knew how to broker peace and brought an end to the Wars of the Roses.

I also discovered there were no novels about Henry’s Welsh grandfather, Owen Tudor, or Owen’s son, Jasper Tudor, who helped Henry become king. The Tudor trilogy provided the perfect ‘vehicle’ for Henry to be born in the first book, ‘come of age’ in the second and become King of England in the third.

I’m pleased to say the books of the Tudor trilogy became best sellers in the US, UK, and Australia, with the final book being the only historical fiction novel shortlisted for the Amazon Kindle Storyteller award. (Henry was a runner up but I won a Kindle Oasis and a bottle of good Champagne.)

The challenge I then faced was how to follow a successful trilogy. I’d enjoyed developing the character of Henry’s daughter, Mary Tudor, and realized the story of how she became Queen of France is little known. (In the TV series ‘The Tudors’ Mary was ‘merged’ with her sister Margaret – and some people understandably confuse her with her brother’s daughter, also Mary Tudor.)

I wrote Mary – Tudor Princess, which become my best-selling book last year, then followed up with my latest book, Brandon – Tudor Knight. Readers are probably familiar with Charles Brandon’s story of how he risked everything to marry Mary Tudor against the wishes of her vengeful brother, Henry VIII. What they might not know is how Brandon found himself seriously out of his depth fighting Henry’s wars in France, or that after Mary’s death he married his fourteen-year-old ward, wealthy heiress Lady Katherine Willoughby.

Now I have two ‘sequels’ to the Tudor Trilogy, with the five books forming a series providing a continuous narrative throughout the reign of the two King Henrys. Where to go next?  All the books are now available as audiobooks and are being translated into Spanish and Italian. I’ve also been recording podcasts about the stories of the Tudors each month, (see https://tonyriches.podbean.com/.)  

I’m now enjoying researching and writing the amazing story of what became of Katherine (Willoughby) Brandon after the death of Charles. Her story deserves to be told – and leads right up to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth I and my planned next series, which will explore the fascinating world of the Elizabethan Tudors.

 

Tony Riches
image1

About the Author

Tony Riches is a full-time UK author of best-selling historical fiction. He lives in image2Pembrokeshire, West Wales and is a specialist in the history of the Wars of the Roses and the lives of the early Tudors. For more information about Tony’s books please visit his website tonyriches.com and his popular blog, The Writing Desk and find him on  Facebook and Twitter @tonyriches

 

 

 

 

 

Brandon – Tudor Knightimage3

By Tony Riches

New on Amazon UK and Amazon US

 

From the author of the international bestselling Tudor Trilogy comes a true story of adventure, courtly love and chivalric loyalty. 

Handsome, charismatic and a champion jouster, Sir Charles Brandon is the epitome of a Tudor Knight. A favourite of King Henry VIII, Brandon has a secret. He has fallen in love with Henry’s sister, Mary Tudor, the beautiful widowed Queen of France, and risks everything to marry her without the King’s consent.

Brandon becomes Duke of Suffolk, but his loyalty is tested fighting Henry’s wars in France. Mary’s public support for Queen Catherine of Aragon brings Brandon into dangerous conflict with the ambitious Boleyn family and the king’s new right-hand man, Thomas Cromwell. 

Torn between duty to his family and loyalty to the king, Brandon faces an impossible decision: can he accept Anne Boleyn as his new queen? 

 

Guest Post: Step Back 400 Years and Take a Look Inside Shakespeare’s Globe Theater- By Cassidy Cash

On By hmalagisiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Attending a play at Shakespeare’s Globe was a fascinating experience quite different from going to a theater today.

unnamedGlobe Theater from the Outside

The first time London opened a theater where patrons could come to see a production, as opposed to traveling players going to the audience in noble homes or private parties, was when James Burbage constructed The Theater in London when William Shakespeare was just 12 years old. 16th century England was experiencing this new form of entertainment for the first time, with people like William Shakespeare creating a theater going event for the very first time. Here is an overview of what it would have been like if you were a Tudor going to see a play in Shakespeare’s Globe.

800px-Shakespeare´s_Globe_(HDR)_(8162098235)Steve Collis from Melbourne, Australia

No One Dimmed the Lights

No dark theater aisles here. Despite not having electricity, the Elizabethan playwrights were especially good at using the one source of light they had available to them: The sun.

William Shakespeare himself was quite innovative at using sunlight, improving on the design of Burbage’s The Theater with The Globe, which was designed specifically to utilize the sunlight in particular. With its open ceiling and round circle shape, the theater allowed the sunlight to stream in during the afternoon when plays were most often performed, and shine on the stage itself to illuminate the actors as they played.

800px-The_Globe_Stage_(8749872779)Tony Hisgett from Birmingham, UK

Standing Room Only

In what would most likely be called an “orchestra pit” today, the Globe theater was designed so that the bulk of the audience stood in an open area just beyond the stage called the yard. The stage itself was an Apron stage, designed to jut out into the audience so that when actors were performing on stage they were literally staring at the audience members as they performed. In fact, specific theater conventions like the aside, where actors ask the audience for advice or have a conversation that only the audience (and not the other characters on stage) know about, worked extremely well in this environment precisely because the audience was involved in the play itself.

It wasn’t all standing room only, however. Along the outside of the yard stood three levels of higher priced seats where you could sit in the Gallery and observe the play from a seat which was often covered from the elements like rain or snow which groundlings were not protected from in the yard. Theatergoers were allowed to pay extra to have a cushion in the gallery seats, but for most patrons, it was simply a wooden bench.

Despite the humble comforts, a wooden bench seems to modern theatergoers used to plus velvet seats in neatly arranged rows, these wooden seated gallery tickets were high priced because they tailored to the nobility. It was only the rich and high-class citizens who were allowed to sit in the gallery.

An example of an Apron Stage jutting out into the audience at The Globe, Melbourne. 

unnamed (1)

An example of an Apron Stage jutting out into the audience at The Globe, Melbourne. Steve Collis from Melbourne, Australia

The Audience was Smelly

In Elizabethan England, bathing was not an activity people did every single day like proper 21st-century hygiene would suggest. In fact, hygienic in general were of the sparse variety for the poor and lower class citizens who frequented The Globe theater which meant when you walked in, you smelled a cornucopia of rank odors. From the mud on people’s shoes to the urine, feces, animal dung, sweat, beer, and food, the atmosphere inside the theater was anything but refined and in actually was quite pungent.

unnamed (2)

With so many people crowded into the yard, the sound was significant, and the crowd often became quite rowdy. From the book “Shakspere to Sheridan; a book about the theatre of yesterday and to-day”

No One Whispers


Despite the modern reputations of theaters as a place similar to libraries where people are supposed to speak in hushed tones, if they speak at all, inside The Globe theater the sounds were loud and rancorous. Particularly in the yard where the poor and groundlings gathered to watch the plays, they had a reputation for being obnoxious, heckling the actors, yelling at performances they did not approve of, and even throwing things if they were disgusted at the portrayals before them.

Disapproval from the audience took multiple forms in that audience members would express displeasure at the actions of the character, disapproving for example, of how one king handled the historical situation. However, the audience’s displeasure with the actors themselves, including the ability to find the actor believable in a particular role, was a crucial aspect of acting on stage in Elizabethan England. If the audience did not like the actor themselves or felt the performance was done poorly, that actor would not be kept on in the company.

unnamed (3)

They Ate Hazelnuts like Popcorn

Attending a play at the Globe had, in some ways, more similarity with going to a movie theater than to a stage performance. Members of the audience would often bring in snacks, food, and drinks to consume while watching a production in the same way people in the United States often buy popcorn when going to see a movie.

In addition to the spectators bringing in food to eat while watching a show, there were often vendors in and around the theater selling ale, beer, and hazelnuts for the patrons to eat at the show. In excavations of Elizabethan theaters, archaeologists have uncovered spoons, bottles, shells of oysters and hazelnuts, as well as the remnants of various fruits and nuts.

Shakespeare's_Globe_Theatre_-_panoramio_(1)

The Tiring House is the part inside this little triangle shaped section over the roof of the apron stage. It was used to house props, as an entrance point for spirits who needed to descend from heaven, as well as musicians to sit when playing for the accompaniment of the action on stage. Jeff Hitchcock

There was Music

We are so used to the idea of a soundtrack today that it may come as a surprise to you that music played a pivotal role in Shakespeare’s performances. Whether it was a musician sitting in the Tiring House above the stage playing flourishes at the entrance or exit of a character, or it was musicians being included in the actions of the play through play-within-a-play or a character singing a song, the music was an integral part of what was happening on the stage.

Characters interacted with music on stage much more in Shakespeare’s day than they did now. For example, today’s audience is used to a soundtrack playing the background, or a tense trill of music increasing in pace as we watch a crime show to indicate the bad guy is about to appear.

However, for William Shakespeare’s cast of characters, the character (as opposed to just the actor playing the character) would have been aware of and interacting with the music which was included in the plot of the story. Unlike modern theaters which have an orchestra pit, Shakespeare’s musicians would have had a place in the cast, seats off to the side of the stage, or would have sat above the stage itself in the Tiring House to play on their cue.

 

unnamed (4)

What you can see on the stage now is similar to the kind of background all of Shakespeare’s plays performed at The Globe would have used in production. 

There was Limited Background Scenery


Large-scale scenery paintings to stand behind the actors as they perform a scene on stage was a theater convention invented after Shakespeare. For William Shakespeare, his actors did have some special effects like thunder, stage blood, and even descent of heavenly spirits from the skies, were all available to Shakespeare as well as used creatively and profusely. However, when it came to the set design, background scenery was kept to a minimum.

Instead, actors on stage brought essential props with them, like swords, crowns, or even a throne, grave, or other items which would indicate their location. Largely, when it came to describing where a character was at, or what he was doing, instead of relying on set design, Shakespeare’s plays relied on the dialogue of the characters themselves, which is one reason Shakespeare’s plays contain so many long speeches. The characters are describing for you what they want you to understand where they are and what’s happening.

unnamed (5)

17th century English actor Thomas Betterton in a scene from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in which the Ghost of Hamlet’s Father confronts him in his mother’s chamber. From Nicholas Rowe’s edition of Shakespeare’s works (1709). Here, Betterton’s wife Mary scandalously played Hamlet’s mother in a time when women on stage were considered notoriously indecent.


There Were No Women on Stage

In Shakespeare’s day, it was illegal for a woman to appear on stage. It was considered indecorous at best, and outright immoral at worst. Therefore, Shakespeare’s playing companies were completely male casts with young boys playing the parts of women. With their higher voices, smooth skin, and excellent costumes, they could pass for women on stage.

It wasn’t purely a young man’s higher voice and costume that allowed them to appear as a woman on stage, however, makeup played a key role in this illusion as well. For Shakespeare’s acting company, anyone appearing on stage white-faced, covered with a lime-based makeup paint which made the skin appear white, was automatically known to be a woman because only women wore this makeup. Famously, Queen Elizabeth was quite fond of this makeup.

The Plays Were Not at Night


The elegant time to attend a theater production these days is the evening show of 7:30pm. However, for Elizabethans, they did not have electricity, so their day started and ended with the sun. Therefore, the work day for most Elizabethans wrapped up in the afternoon, and they were home by 5 for dinner. That’s why most productions at The Globe happened around 2:00pm, because it’s after work, before dinner, and while there was still enough daylight to be able to see inside the theater.

Times and theater going may have changed significantly since Shakespeare was staging productions at The Globe (God Bless You, Indoor Plumbing), but one thing remains the same: the power and triumph of Shakespeare performances carry right through to the 21st century, ready on any stage to bring a great story to life.

. . .

Would you like a printable diagram of The Globe theater? Sign up to Cassidy’s That Shakespeare Girl weekly newsletter and you will be able to instantly download a brochure about our upcoming Trip to see The Globe in London, as well a hand illustrated guide of The Globe (normally $12 from Cassidy’s shop). Download your free right here: https://www.cassidycash.com/download-a-diagram-of-the-globe-theater/

Travel with me: Tour the Life of Shakespeare
Travel with me and British History Tours. Spend 5 Days/4 Nights seeing every iconic site related to William Shakespeare we could possibly cram into one trip. You don’t want to miss it! More details and sign up here. www.cassidycash.com/travelshakespeare

cassidycash headshotCassidy Cash, is the host of That Shakespeare Life, the podcast that takes listeners behind the curtain and into the real life of William Shakespeare. Cassidy believes that in order to understand and perform Shakespeare’s plays, understanding the history of the man who wrote them is essential. She uses art, animated short films, and a podcast to help you learn something new about the bard. When she is not researching Shakespeare, she homeschools two boys, enjoys cooking new recipes, and drinking too much coffee. Cassidy lives in Birmingham, AL with her husband, Tim, a mountain of books, more pets than what’s reasonable. Connect with Cassidy on Twitter @thatshakespeare, or at http://www.cassidycash.com

Elizabeth I and the Elizabethans

On By hmalagisiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

As many of you know, I have chosen to make September a month where we look at Queen Elizabeth I and the Elizabethans, men and women who helped create this era into a “Golden Age”. Now I know what you are thinking, why jump to Elizabeth and the Elizabethans right after a month about the Wars of the Roses. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to focus on Henry VIII and his court next, if you are going in chronological order? You would be correct, however this year I have been thinking a lot about Elizabeth I and the Elizabethans.

A few days ago, I asked who your historical role model was and why. Many of you answered that it was the Virgin Queen herself Elizabeth I. For me, Elizabeth I has been my historical role model because it was her story and her courage that helped me get through some of the toughest times in my life. When I was younger, my family and I were always moving from one shelter to another. It was a hard time, but I decided to focus on something positive instead of on the negative, and that was reading and studying. I have always been an avid reader and one day, I picked up a “Royal Diaries” book on Elizabeth I. There was something about Elizabeth’s story that really inspired me. I decided that I was going to read any book that I could on or about her life, including encyclopedias. Yes, I was one of “those kids”.

It was through studying Elizabeth I and her story that my passion for studying history was born. I wanted to be able to tell the stories of those remarkable men and women from the past. I remember staying up late at night, well passed curfew, studying. I didn’t know what career path I wanted to take, but all I knew was that I wanted to study history in college. Long story short, I was able to fulfill my dream that started after reading about Elizabeth I and her story.

I think that’s the amazing part about studying history. The more you read the life stories from those who came before us, the more you are able to appreciate them. It was Elizabeth I and the Elizabethans who helped me when I was younger. It is my hope that the stories of these remarkable men and women will also help you and will inspire you. These are stories of strength, of courage, of heartache and of grief. These are stories of adventurers, playwrights, ladies in waiting, councilors, royal favorites , and one remarkable queen.

Questions About The Wars of the Roses

On By hmalagisiIn Uncategorized1 Comment

The Wars of the Roses, the dynastic battle between the Yorks and the Lancasters for the throne of England, last from 1455 at the 1st Battle of St. Albans until 1487 at the Battle of Stoke Field. This is one of my absolute favorite time periods to study because it not only marked the beginning of the Tudor dynasty, but it was also so complex and full of intriguing questions. I have decided to take the questions that you all sent me and answer them to the best of my ability to start off August, which I have dedicated to exploring this time period in honor of the Battle of Bosworth Field. I hope this will encourage more discussions about this series of wars that changed English history forever.

1.) How mad was King Henry VI and was his condition widely known in court, the country, and France? If Henry VI wasn’t mad would York still have rebelled?

There are a lot of theories about King Henry VI and what exactly his “madness, but the leading theories are that it was either catatonic schizophrenia or a severe case of depression. Catatonic schizophrenia limits a person’s movements, which would explain why he is also known as the “sleeping king”. Compared to normal people, Henry VI would seem rather mad, but compare him to say someone like Charles VI of France, the father of Katherine of Valois who believed that he was made out of glass and couldn’t remember his wife and children, Henry VI’s madness doesn’t seem that bad. Margaret of Anjou and others close to the king kept his secret very close so at the beginning, his madness was only known in the court. As the Wars of the Roses progressed and seditious propaganda was made against Henry VI, I think the common people would have learned about his madness. As for the country of France, I am not sure if they knew about Henry VI’s madness because they do offer Margaret of Anjou aid to restore him back to the throne.

I believe that York would still have rebelled because it wasn’t just Henry’s madness that made him a less than average ruler. Henry was a pious, religious man who didn’t really like fighting. He didn’t have the courage that was needed in order to be a medieval ruler of England. I believe that York knew this and decided to act. At first, he might have only been fighting his enemies in court, but I think he believed that his bloodline had a better claim to the throne and he wanted to make England better, so he rebelled against Henry VI. It wasn’t because he was mad, but because he was a weak ruler, that York rebelled.

2.) Why did Lord Stanley, who was a staunch supporter of Richard III, switch sides and support Henry Tudor during the Battle of Bosworth Field? He would not have benefitted from supporting  Henry anymore than he had Richard and all of his wife’s estates were declared forfeit to himself. So couldn’t have been for financial gain?

This was the biggest switch during the Wars of the Roses, and ultimately it is what established the victory for Henry Tudor. Richard believed that he had Lord Stanley on his side, but the morning of the battle, Lord Stanley faked being sick to avoid fighting. Lord Stanley and his son Lord Strange sat on the sidelines during the battle. Then, when all hope seemed lost for Henry Tudor, Lord Stanley and Lord Strange come to the rescue. Lord Stanley broke his own oath Sans Changer (Without Changing)to help a young man, who was virtually unknown, become King of England and helped create the Tudor Dynasty.

So the question is why did he do it. Why did Lord Stanley switch sides? I believe he might have switched because he saw how much his wife Margaret Beaufort believed in her son’s cause. Think about it. She risked everything to make sure he was safe. Even when she had lost everything, Margaret was still funding his rebellion. Even though Lord Stanley saw favor from Richard III, it must have been disheartening for him to see Richard III’s closest allies being either killed or exiled. I think this must have freaked Lord Stanley out. He wanted to make sure that he would have survived so he took a risk and bet on the young man Henry Tudor.

3.) Do you think Edward IV regretted marrying Elizabeth Woodville instead of going with a foreign bride which could have given him an alliance and back up during the war?

I don’t think Edward IV ever regretted marrying Elizabeth Woodville. I believe he loved her very dearly. In the Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV. in England and the Finall Recouerye of His Kingdomes from Henry VI (which is a very interesting read that I recommend if you want to study the Wars of the Roses), there is a moment where Edward IV returns to his throne in 1471 and sees his family again after being in exiled. He is described as having tears in his eyes as he embraces his wife and children. I believe that this passage, whether it was embellished a bit or not, shows Edward IV never regretted marrying Elizabeth Woodville. Sure a foreign bride may have established an alliance and back up during the war, but Edward was popular with the English people, even if his wife wasn’t popular with the people. Even with his numerous affairs, Edward IV’s true love was Elizabeth Woodville.

4.) Had Elizabeth (Woodville)Grey not gone into sanctuary before Richard III’s coronation, would she have survived his purge of her family members?

I really don’t think that Elizabeth (Woodville) Grey was in danger of being killed. Sure Richard III disliked the Woodvilles, but I don’t think he would have killed a woman, even if she was indeed the cause of his hatred towards one family. Richard III may have slandered his mother’s name, but I don’t think he would have murderous intentions towards women. I believe that she would have survived the purge of her family members.

5.) What was the nature of the relationship between Elizabeth of York and Richard III? Was it more than uncle and niece?

Elizabeth of York was the eldest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. She was the niece of Richard III and there are some who say that he was planning on taking her as his wife after Anne Neville died. I believe that Richard III and Elizabeth of York had a normal uncle and niece relationship. We must remember that the Wars of the Roses was not only a series of wars that were fought on the battlefield, but also through propaganda. What better way to defame Richard III a bit further than claim that he had a relationship with his niece? There is no evidence that they had a relationship other than that of an uncle and niece.

6.) Was Edward IV a usurper?

A usurper is anyone who takes a position of power through force or illegal means. By this definition, Edward IV was indeed a usurper. He won his crown first at the battle of Towton on March 29, 1461, and then again at the battle of Tewkesbury in 1471. He took the crown of England twice. However, just because Edward IV was a usurper does not mean that he was a bad ruler. Henry VII was also a usurper and he was able to establish the Tudor dynasty, thus ending the Wars of the Roses and brought back a time of peace and prosperity to England. Edward IV did something similar while he reigned from 1471 until his untimely death in 1483. England had a strong and stable ruler, the opposite of what Henry VI was,  with Edward IV even though he was a usurper.

Top 5 “Tudor” Men to Study

On By hmalagisiIn Uncategorized1 Comment

Hello everyone! So a few weeks ago, I made a list of my top 5 Tudor women to study. This time around, I decided to focus on the men of this era. The reason that I have the word Tudor in quotations is that one of the men on this list is technically not a Tudor nor did he serve in the Tudor court. As always, this list is in no particular order and it might change after I do more research on the era. These men at the moment fascinate me and I look forward to learning more about them as I continue my exploration of the Tudor age.

1.) Jasper Tudor

The man in the sidelines who helped make the Tudor dynasty happen.80aa362b8647d5844194e415a130c3fd

Brother of Edmund Tudor, half- brother to Henry VI, and uncle to Henry Tudor. A man of many titles, but also a man who spent most of his adult life on the run. Jasper is one of those people who has an epic story, but he really doesn’t get a whole lot of attention and to me, that’s a little sad. I can’t even imagine what was going through his head when he found out that his brother died and that his widow Margaret Beaufort had a son. And that was just in a span of a few months. Now let’s throw in the fact that the time that Jasper was living in was the Wars of the Roses where they basically played musical chairs with the crown of England so one minute his half brother was king of England and the next he was a prisoner. Pretty stressful is putting it mildly. To add insult to injury, Jasper’s nephew Henry, was placed into York households to be raised and to watch over the young boy.

Jasper was always on the run, trying to keep himself and Henry safe. Whether in Wales or in France, where both Jasper and Henry were held as prisoners for very powerful people, Jasper worked hard to keep them alive. You would think that these two would lay low the rest of their lives. You would be wrong. Margaret Beaufort, Henry’s mother, had bigger plans for her son. With Henry VI dead and the Yorks on the throne with Edward IV and then Richard III, Margaret believed that her son was the next rightful king of England. So while Jasper and Henry were overseas in France, Margaret and Jasper orchestrated a coup d’etat. They were able to muster a force for Henry so that he could march against Richard III and on August 22, 1485, their plan worked. Henry was declared king and Jasper went back to his natural place, working for Henry’s good as his right hand man.

As the step brother of a king, I have often wondered why Jasper didn’t seize the crown for himself. This man was full of such intense loyalty for his family and had such an interesting life and yet he chose a life on the sidelines. I want to read biographies on him. Such a dynamic figure in Tudor history.

2.) Henry Tudor (later on Henry VII)

download (1)The man who would become king of England and the patriarch of the Tudor dynasty.  

As stated above, Henry’s life started off rough. Always on the run, he never knew his father and he never really got a chance to know his mother that well until after he became king. That all changed  at Bosworth Field when Richard III was killed and Henry became king. From rags to riches real quick. But if Henry wanted to end the constant calamity that the Wars of the Roses was causing, he needed to marry the right woman. His mother and Elizabeth Woodville arranged a marriage between Henry and Elizabeth of York, joining the houses of York and Lancaster. It was a brilliant move and helped put an end to the fighting. Henry and Elizabeth would have a large family including two sons, Arthur and Henry, thus starting the Tudor dynasty.

Henry is often thought of as being a mizer and a usurper or being a hero, but who was the true Henry? The more I study him, the more I realize how complicated this man was. He was not just a man who took the throne or a hero who started a brand new dynasty, but a family man and someone who knew heartache and love. There is something about Henry that is intriguing. His descendants might get all the attention for all their drama, but Henry Tudor was a man who built a dynasty out of practically nothing. He had to fight for all that he had against numerous pretenders who believed that he was not the rightful king. Overall, he was a survivor who became king.

3.) Richard III

The “black legend”.

Now I know what you are thinking, Richard III is not a Tudor king or someone who King_Richard_III.jpgserved a Tudor king so why is he on this list? To me, Richard has just as much influence in creating the Tudor dynasty as the Tudors themselves. If you think about it, if he didn’t take the throne, then Henry wouldn’t have marched against him at the Battle of Bosworth Field. It was his death that helped start the Tudor dynasty.

I do tend to berate Richard quite a bit since I believe he did kill his nephews, but there is something about this man that keeps me wanting to learn more about him. I may think that he is a murderer but as a king, I am learning that he was pretty decent. Just like Henry Tudor was just a man who survived, so was Richard. The more I study these two, the more I am realizing how similar they were. Even though Richard only ruled for two years, there is still a lot that we do not know about him. Maybe he was a family man just like Henry. His childhood might have shaped the way he ruled England and how he handled his enemies.

Even though there has been quite a bit of research about Richard III in the last 500 years, he is still a mysterious legend and I look forward to learning more about him and his times.

4.) Henry VIII

henry-viii-of-england-1The man. The myth. The legend.

When you hear his name, instantly you think about his multiple marriages and his break from the Roman Catholic Church. But who was Henry VIII the man behind this legend? Henry was second in line to the throne behind his brother Arthur, but when Arthur died shortly after he was married to Katherine of Aragon, the throne passed on to Henry. To say Henry was not prepared for this, nor were his parents, would be the understatement of the year. But he had to carry on in his father’s place when he passed away. The boy who was once a scholar now had to become a king.  It was a tall order to fill and it looked like from the very beginning he was doing a pretty good job.

And then things changed rapidly when his attention moved from his first wife to his second, and so on and so forth. Henry’s major flaws were his wandering eyes and his anger. We think we know everything there is to know about Henry, but do we really? This legendary man seems almost too fanciful to be a real human being. But he was. He was flawed like everyone else. Though he was a king, he was still human.

That is what keeps me fascinated about Henry VIII and his life. How did the king figure compare and contrast to the man who was Henry VIII? Who was Henry VIII really? No matter how much I read about him and his reign, its his human aspects and how he dealt with his wives and children that keep me coming back for more. I believe that there is more to Henry VIII than most people realize.

5.) Robert Dudley

The man who almost married the “Virgin Queen”220px-Robert_Dudley

If you have studied Elizabeth I, you know Robert Dudley. He was the man who stayed by Elizabeth’s side through the good times and the bad, even when he was married not once but twice. His first wife Amy, died when she fell down a flight of stairs, but many believed that Robert had her poisoned so that he could marry the queen. Robert was always close to Elizabeth and some in the court believed that he was too close. But maybe Elizabeth knew this when she suggested that Robert should marry Mary Queen of Scots. This deal, however, fell through when Mary married Lord Darnley.

As Elizabeth grew older, Robert kept trying to propose marriage, but he was become restless. He had affairs with some of Elizabeth’s ladies and would later marry Lettice Knollys, a kinswoman of the Queen. Elizabeth was livid and banished both Robert and Lettice from court. Robert would come back into her good graces; Lettice would not.

Robert loved Elizabeth deeply and many suspect that she loved him back. It is said that after he died, she kept his last letter to her in a chest that she kept close to her. Robert was a man who loved the queen, but he could never have her as his wife.

I have often wondered what Robert felt towards his two wives Amy and Lettice. Did he actually love them or did he use them to get closer to Elizabeth? If he did marry the queen, what would England look like? These are only a few questions that come to my mind when I think of Robert Dudley.

 

These are my top 5 “Tudor” men to study. Who are your top 5?

Sir Thomas More and His Controversial History

On By hmalagisiIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

When we think of Richard III and the Wars of the Roses, most of us will first think of Sir Thomas More and his “The History of King Richard III”. It is probably one of the most controversial sources about the Wars of the Roses out there and yet historians still use it. The question is why is there such an attraction to this book and why did Thomas More write it? It is my hope with this article to shed some light on this book, on More and what his possible intentions were when he wrote this book. I will be breaking this article into two parts; who Sir Thomas More was and what the book says. It is important to understand More’s background if we are to have any hope in understanding “The History of  King Richard III”. I will only be writing about More’s life up until the time he wrote this book because his later life under Henry VIII and his execution really do not explain the purpose of why More wrote this book.

Sir Thomas More: The Man

So who was Sir Thomas More and why should he matter? Robert Whittington in 1520 says:

More is a man of an angel’s wit and singular learning; I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? As time requireth a man of marvellous mirth and pastimes; and sometimes of  as sad gravity; a man for all season. (Murphy, 1)

Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478 (Ackroyd, 6) to John More and Agnes Graunger. More’s childhood saw the transition from Edward IV as king  to Richard III and finally to Henry VII. He attended school for a while at St. Anthony’s and then went on to become a page for John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury, a man that More deeply admired and who would appear in his History as a wise man. ( Ackroyd, 35)

After working for John Morton, More studied for a little bit at Oxford University. It was at Oxford where he was able to engage in humanism which is studying classic literature through the study of  the languages of antiquity and once that was mastered, using rhetoric to debate certain topics. (Johnson, 34-35) Humanism would come to shape the writings of More and his friend Erasmus of Rotterdam, who’s translation of the New Testament would go against the Vulgate, questioning the authority of the papacy, and influence those like Luther, even those Erasmus was a devout Catholic. ( Elton, 113). To put it another way, “Humanists were concerned with integrating, not separating, the human and the Christian.” (Murphy, 7)

More left Oxford without obtaining a degree and went to New Inn and later he was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn in London in 1496. Inns were not what we considered inns today; they were where men who interested in law went to study. ( Ackroyd, 53). He was sixteen at the time. Peter Ackroyd explains how More was able to balance both his religious studies with his study of law:

Religion and law were not to be considered separately; they implied one another. That is why law was considered to be perfect in itself, undamaged by the bad judgments of individual practitioners; the same argument, on the merits of the Mass as opposed to the virtue of the priest who offered it, was at the heart of Catholic eucharistic belief. That is why the law was also considered to permanent; it was what was known to be true, withstanding change or decay. (Ackroyd, 63).

This must be understood in order to understand More. To him, using religious terms to describe political events was just another part of daily life. Another part of his daily life was his family; in 1505, he married Jane Colt and they had four children: Margaret, Elizabeth, Cecily, and John.(Murphy, vii). Four years later, in 1509, Henry VIII became king of England and in 1510, More was made Under- Sheriff of London and was elected into Parliament. (Murphy, vii). Three years later, More wrote his “The History of King Richard III”, but he never finished it. (More, 3).  

More’s “The History of King Richard III”

Many argue that More wrote his “ The History of King Richard III” for propaganda of the Tudor Dynasty, especially for Henry VII, however Ackroyd points out something very interesting about their relationship:

It has often been suggested that, at a later date, More professed hostility towards the financial exactions which Henry VII tried to levy upon London. There is no evidence of any open dispute but certainly, at the time of the accession of his so, More composed a sharp attack upon the dead king. (Ackroyd, 84)

If this is the case then what was More’s intentions in writing this book? Before we try to  answer that question, we have to explore the text itself.

“The History of King Richard III” by Sir Thomas More is roughly less than a hundred pages in length. Relatively short for such a controversial text. It should be noted that this text is considered a “history” in the loosest possible sense. In fact, More wasn’t using recent histories from his time to formulate his own history, but being the humanist that he was,  he used histories from Sallust and Tacitus as examples. ( Ackroyd, 161). Another difference from a typical history is that More relies on oral sources for his history. ( Ackroyd, 161). Anyone who studies history knows that oral sources are not always the most reliable source because words can be misconstrued.

More doesn’t start his history of Richard III with say his birth; instead he starts his book with the death of Edward IV. He describes Edward as  “a goodly personage, and very princely to be hold: of heart courageous…” (More, 4). More then goes on to describe the protector of Edward’s children, Richard III, obviously starting with his physical appearances first (More, 8) and then describes who he was as:

…Close and secret, a deep dissimuler, lowly of countenance, arrogant of the heart, outwardly coumpinable where he inwardly hated, not letting to kiss whom he thought to kill; dispiteous and cruel, not for evil will alway, but often for ambition…. Friend and foe was ,such what indifferent….(More, 9)

Not the most courteous way to describe the brother of a king who would be a king himself, but as Sylvester notes, it is not because Richard was a Yorkist king but because he was a “dissimulating tyrant”(More, xv). Now Richard was not Edward’s choice as protector, in fact it was the Queen’s brother Sir Anthony Woodville, “a right honorable man, as valiant of hand as politic in counsel”(More, 15). However, Richard did not like this suggestion and so he had Lord Rivers and his men sent to prison and then later beheaded for “treason”. (More, 21).

Of course in Sir Thomas More’s book, there are no dates, which makes it difficult to pinpoint when these events exactly happened or if they happened at all, including the speeches that More included such as those of the Duke of Buckingham who is trying to convince the former Queen Elizabeth Woodville to hand over her other son to Richard.( More, 29-33). Likewise when Elizabeth refuses to give up her son (More, 35-39) and then later when she reluctantly agrees to do so (More, 41-42). These are very iconic speeches in this book that are full of passion and heartbreak.

So why would More included these either factual or fictitious speeches? Peter Ackroyd gives us an interesting insight into that question:

It is significant, too, that the most elaborate passages of More’s narrative are conceived as speeches; the merits of sanctuary for the royal children are the subject of long debate, for example, while the right of Richard to be king is explained in a number of orations. ‘The History of Richard III’ can be understood, then, as a lesson in the arts of disputation and rhetorical debate similar to those in which More engaged as a schoolboy and a scholar….In his grammatical work More was instructing those who might well be chosen to administer the government of the state: grammar was part of rhetoric, and rhetoric was part of public duty. (Ackroyd, 162-163).

This book is not just a “history” but it is also a lesson in rhetoric for those in government. More may have been a fan of reading history, but his true love was humanism and government, in which rhetoric and grammar were immensely important. It is that love of humanism and government that we see throughout the entire book.

More goes on with Richard’s case on why he should be king. After Richard gets rid of his traitorous former friend Lord Hastings (More, 49-54), he moves on to the important part of his argument; that his brother Edward was already married to a Mistress Shore before he married Elizabeth Woodville.(More, 55-58). Since his brother was already married, that meant that any children that he had with Elizabeth Woodville would be considered bastards, including the young king Edward V. This was damning enough but Richard wanted to make sure that it had legal backing he made a document, that declared the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville bastards. (More, 60-61). Richard also asks for Dr. Shaa to preach a sermon against Edward’s children with Elizabeth and the Duke of Buckingham giving his speech on how great Richard is (More, 70-76). This leads to the epic conclusion where Richard “reluctantly” takes the throne since he is the obvious choice to take crown since his brother’s heirs were declared bastards. Richard III has become King of England.

But there is one more piece to the puzzle. What happened to the young king and his brother? More leaves us questioning what happened to them because he speaks of rumors of  John Green, Sir Robert Brackenbury, the Constable of the Tower, Sir James Tyrell and John Dighton being ordered by Richard III to kill the brothers.(More, 85-90). One has to wonder if this is a credible theory or just rhetoric since More only heard this theory and the fact that there is no written evidence. More does not go into any more detail about this and “ends” the book with Bishop Morton trying to convince Richard III to lead the country with wisdom. (Ackroyd, 35). This is a very unusual ending for someone who is supposed to be writing the book as propaganda for the Tudor dynasty.

Conclusion

So knowing that More was writing this as more of an exercise on humanism and did not finish this book, how should we approach “The History of King Richard III”? I don’t believe that we should merely toss it out. It was not propaganda for the Tudor dynasty since it was written in 1513, before More’s political career really took off. The speeches can be seen as examples of rhetoric. There are some historical facts like the death of Lord Hastings and Lord Rivers, Elizabeth Woodville handing over her son to Richard, and legal document as well as Dr. Shaa’s sermon. Those match up with other sources. As for Mistress Shore and the murder of the princes of the tower, it’s a bit harder to prove since we do not have actual paper evidence to support either theory.

Overall I think More’s history should be understood as a take on history from a humanistic lens. It’s an important piece to read because some of the facts in this piece are in fact true and it gives us an interesting view into what a Tudor scholar thought about those who came immediately before the Tudors. “The History of King Richard III” by Sir Thomas More is a fascinating read for anyone who is interested in the Wars of the Roses, a darker view on Richard III, or on how humanism could be applied in a written sense. I  highly recommend that you read this book.

Want to Learn More about More? (Sources)

Ackroyd, Peter, and Diarmaid MacCulloch. The Life of Thomas More. London: Folio Society, 2017.

Elton, G. R. England Under the Tudors. London: Methuen, 1956.

Johnson, Paul. The Renaissance: A Short History. Bridgewater, NJ: Distributed by Paw Prints/Baker & Taylor, 2008.

More, Thomas. The History of King Richard III. Edited by Richard S. Sylvester. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.

Murphy, Anne. Thomas More. Liguori, MO: Triumph Books, 1997.