Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Rivkah

If the boys died at the beginning of Richard's reign, they were 12 & 1/2, and almost exactly 10. If they died shortly after Bosworth, they were 14 & 1/2 and 12. The skeletons will look really different, depending on when they died.

The skeletons from the Abbey were forensically examined in the 1930s (I think) by Lawrence Tanner archivist of the Abbey and a scientific team. of course, then the science was less advanced, the techniques not the ones we would use, and there has been criticism that the team had a prejudged view of what they wanted to find - i.e they were out to prove that the bones belonged to the boys.

If you are interested to you might find material on line or on the RIII Society website.

I've never heard anyone who believes that Richard killed them suggest he did so after his coronation, particularly long after, and it isn't possible that Henry orchestrated a hit from exile, while Richard was king-- or at any rate, next to impossible-- and somehow Richard was oblivious, and didn't realize the princes were missing.

All things are possible. Almost every conceivable individual around has been suspected by someone. the key question is though did the boys die?or were they simply taken to a place of greater safety?

We are aware of an "enterprise" involving the Tower in Richard's reign which he refers to in a letter. it does not seem to be something of the king's devising.

It also stretches credulity, I think, to suppose that someone killed them during Richard's reign, without Richard's knowledge, and without Richard even realizing it after the fact.

I don't think anyone denies that.

If Richard decided for some reason to become complicit after the fact, I think the cover-up still would have involved displaying the bodies and burying them with a public service.

But if they were not dead there would be no bodies and nothing to display or any need to do so.

Now, here's what I'm really getting at: why the boys needed to disappear, as opposed to being smothered, them someone saying "Oh, they had a fever, it happens."

There was no need to remove them at all (in the sense of kill them). tTey were judicially barred from inheriting the crown - by Act of Parliament (Titulus Regulus - or Title to the Crown). As you know, Henry VII had this repealed so that Elizabeth of York was legitimate and he could marry her. In repealing the Act he at once made her brothers legitimate too - so they at once had a better claim to the throne than Henry VII. They were thus no threat to Richard, every threat to Henry.

Even with the Act, a third nephew, Edward of Warwick (though attainted, had a similar claim to the throne. Richard kept the lad alive and honoured him. Henry kept him close imprisoned and executed him (eventually). Compare the two approaches. Why should Richard kill the sons of Edward IV and leave the son of George alive?

There seems to be a persistent belief that the younger boy, Richard of York, survived and died under Henry VIII as an old man. Some sort of knowledge of his survival seems reflected in the fact that pretenders claimed to be him (or Edward of Warwick) and NOT the older boy - the one-time Edward V. Thus Edward may have died of natural causes/accident at some point, and the younger lad lived.

Phil H

[Archaic]

Canadian Man Donates DNA

Here's an article about the Canadian man whose DNA may help identify the remains as those of Richard III:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19731622

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: There's a movie on YouTube based on the theory that the younger of the 2 princes in the Tower, Richard, survived and became a pretender to the throne. I believe the movie is titled 'The Princes In The Tower'. I haven't watched it and don't know how historically accurate it is.

[Errata]

My own position is clear - I don't know whether Richard killed his nephews, I rather think not. But as a C15th prince he would certainly have been capable of ruthless action if required.

Good post Errata,

Phil H

And I actually agree with you on most of that. We certainly have enough information to put together many good biographies on the man. But historical fiction deals what a person thinks and feels. Did Richard "exult" in Titulus Regis? Did he accept the crown with "a certain air of resignation and sadness"? Did he love his wife? Did he "plead" for George's life, or did he "make a token protest against his execution for the sake of family feeling"? I occasionally write plays for a living, and it's the turn of phrase that sells any particular character. In a play, we use stage directions and asides to reveal the truth or untruth in a characters words. And it all hinges on a decision by the playwright at the outset as to what "archetype" (for lack of a better word) the character is. Puck is mischievous. We know that because he tells us. It's no different in historical fiction. If Richard "gleefully" declared the boys bastards, then the author has made the decision that Richard is at least ambitious and somewhat callous, and at worst evil. An author who doesn't go in with what "archetype" Richard was comes out with a very confusing portrait of the man, or conversely, uses no adjectives.

Richard can be as complicated as we like, but as a character in historical fiction where we are privy to his thoughts, he has to be consistent. Or at least consistently inconsistent. When we presume to put words into someones mouth, whether they are real or fictional, we take responsibility for their image. And as such we have to have chosen the image we want to portray before we even put pen to paper. I think it's often unconscious, but we make some pretty big judgements on a person's character very early on in the process. It's pretty visceral.

If someone wrote Richard as good and dutiful brother up until the moment Edward died, and then he suddenly becomes a rabidly ambitious usurper, that would be a bad book. Unless he also included the part where Richard gets knocked on the head, goes noisily mad, something to explain such a radical shift in personality. And it's not like it never happens that people suddenly switch on or off without us ever knowing why, but it makes for lousy literature.

[RivkahChaya]

The skeletons from the Abbey were forensically examined in the 1930s (I think) by Lawrence Tanner archivist of the Abbey and a scientific team.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's all kinds of things people know now about the growth plates at the ends of bones, and how to measure how much growth is left. There are other ways of imaging bones besides x-rays now-- we can see layers of bone. I don't know, short of cutting into the mandible, if there was any way to check the formation of the older boy's wisdom teeth.

It might be possible to determine, once and for all, if the two were brothers-- fraternal, maternal, or full brothers, and that they were in fact, male. If the younger one really was 10, it wouldn't be much different from a female skeleton, and if it was markedly different, it may have been older than 10, even if it was small.

If you are interested to you might find material on line or on the RIII Society website.

Visit it pretty regularly, if not frequently.

There was no need to remove them at all (in the sense of kill them).

No need for Richard to. But, if those skeletons are theirs, apparently the need for someone to. Which is why I'm jonesing to have them examined.

There's a movie on YouTube based on the theory that the younger of the 2 princes in the Tower, Richard, survived and became a pretender to the throne. I believe the movie is titled 'The Princes In The Tower'. I haven't watched it and don't know how historically accurate it is.

There really was someone named Perkin Warbeck who was a pretender to being the younger prince. He was real in that there really was a person calling himself Perkin Warbeck, and soforth, but I don't think anyone thinks he was real in that he was really the younger prince.

Mary Shelley (yes, of Frankenstein) wrote a novel about Perkin Warbeck, published in 1830. There have been a couple of different movies about him, including a mini-series, and a sort of docu-drama (but none based on Shelley's book). Shelley's book is historical fiction, but there are a couple of non-fiction books about him too.

If someone wrote Richard as good and dutiful brother up until the moment Edward died, and then he suddenly becomes a rabidly ambitious usurper, that would be a bad book. Unless he also included the part where Richard gets knocked on the head, goes noisily mad, something to explain such a radical shift in personality. And it's not like it never happens that people suddenly switch on or off without us ever knowing why, but it makes for lousy literature.

The only thing that makes sense, apart from brain tumor, and such (and I'm not putting this forward, but I know someone who wrote a graduate thesis on it in history, then went on to Yale divinity school, and became an Episcopal priest; really interesting guy) is that Richard was worried about losing the protectorate (if that's the right word; regency?) to one of the Woodvilles, and that after majority, Edward V would fill all influential positions up with his mother's relatives. He conjured up Titulus Regius, and then once he had the keys to the Tower, did away with the boys, in case someone challenged it (TR, that is) after his death, which he expected the Woodvilles to do. The theory is that he saw his brother as having been sort of, umm, emasculated by his wife, and now her family was out to make all of England their bitch. So to speak.

Has anyone ever suggested that the Woodvilles poisoned Edward IV, or am I getting that from father Jim as well? I can't remember where I heard it. I know it's nutball conspiracy theory, the Ricardian answer to "prove a villain"; I just can't remember where I heard it.

[Errata]

I was watching that David Starkey series "Monarchy" and in it he made the rather startling claim that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotted together to dethrone Richard and put Henry in his place, and married to Elizabeth (the younger). And that this happened while Elizabeth Woodville was in Sanctuary, through messages exchanged through a mutual doctor.

I had never heard such a thing before. And I can think of a few problems with the story, but I was wondering if this was a known thing, or if it was new to anyone else?

[Phil H]

Richard can be as complicated as we like, but as a character in historical fiction where we are privy to his thoughts, he has to be consistent.

One of the interesting features of Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" was that the reader never goes into Lincoln's head, or sees his thoughts, as we do for other charcaters. Lincoln is OBSERVED in that novel, never psychoanalysed.

Rivkah - I think there is an assumption that Lady Margaret (one of the great bitches of English history - she was about five feet tall btw) and Elizabeth Wydeville "plotted" because of the agreement between them that Henry Tudor should marry Elizabeth's daughter. But Elizabeth was later reconciled to Richard. fascinatingly, the Wydeville woman had far more difficult relations with Henry who took all her possessions away and sent her to be sequestered in Bermondsey Abbey. It appears she gave support to Lambert Simnel (at least given the dates) and thus may have known that at least one of her sons was alive.

Also Rivkah - SEVERAL sets of bones were found in the Tower in Elizabethan and Stuart times, including I believe those of an "ape". there is no particular reason to believe those in the Abbey were special.

There has been much debate over where these bones were found - More says they were buried under a stairway, then moved. Allegedly, These bones were found when a stairway was dismantled - so if the bodies (assuming they ever existed, of the boys) had been moved, how could these be theirs? Too much emphasis has been placed on Sir Thomas as an historian. If anything he was a satirist - but he is often wrong on facts and inconsistent in detail.

Warbeck was probably (I emphasise the word) an illegitimate son of either Edward IV (a notorious womaniser) or George of Clarence. Their sister, Margaret of Burgundy appears to have looked after a child at one time.

There are also some unusual questions about the earlier pretender, Lambert Simnel - the first name, Lambert, is unknown in England hitherto. There is a detae about who he was. There is also confusion about his mentor. And he changed the person he was pretending to be from Richard of York to Edward of Warwick (or vuice versa, I'll have to check) - why?

Those around him - John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and Francis, Viscount Lovell would have known the real Richard and Warwick (the latter was actually in the Tower).

Phil H

[Errata]

One of the interesting features of Gore Vidal's "Lincoln" was that the reader never goes into Lincoln's head, or sees his thoughts, as we do for other charcaters. Lincoln is OBSERVED in that novel, never psychoanalysed.

Rivkah - I think there is an assumption that Lady Margaret (one of the great bitches of English history - she was about five feet tall btw) and Elizabeth Wydeville "plotted" because of the agreement between them that Henry Tudor should marry Elizabeth's daughter. But Elizabeth was later reconciled to Richard. fascinatingly, the Wydeville woman had far more difficult relations with Henry who took all her possessions away and sent her to be sequestered in Bermondsey Abbey. It appears she gave support to Lambert Simnel (at least given the dates) and thus may have known that at least one of her sons was alive.



Phil H

A: And I think that's why we have some confusion as to whether or not it is a biography or historical fiction. At least here.

B: David Starkey said (rather specifically) that after Elizabeth Woodville sent the younger boy to join the older, she assumed they were dead. While she was still in sanctuary, she was visited by her physician, who was also Margaret Beaufort's physician. She sent a message to the former Queen suggesting the plot against Richard, and that the younger Elizabeth would marry Henry, becoming queen. And that Elizabeth Woodville agreed to this, and so informed her hoarde of relations I expect. He also said that Margaret Beaufort was the one who had her shut up in a convent, because as a former queen Elizabeth Woodville would have precedence over Beaufort, and she wasn't going to have any of that. THAT bit I believe.

I had assumed that this particular series, being BBC and all, was either running through the primary school version of the monarchs, or was a well researched portrait of the attendant characters. Or a bit of both. But if this little story is not generally known in England (the way Henry II and the Archbishop of Canterbury is generally known) then I have no idea where it comes from. Is David Starkey some sort of known and trusted historian or presenter? Does the BBC typically present random little rumors as fact? Am I placing way too much trust in the veracity of the BBC and/or David Starkey? PBS doesn't lie to me...

[RivkahChaya]

Also Rivkah - SEVERAL sets of bones were found in the Tower in Elizabethan and Stuart times, including I believe those of an "ape". there is no particular reason to believe those in the Abbey were special.

I think I knew that. So, are you saying that people really know there's a good chance the skeletons in the tomb of Edward and Richard are not Edward & Richard (and maybe not even complete skeletons), but they are there sort of the way there are tombs of unknown soldiers, and that's why they won't be disturbed again?

Too much emphasis has been placed on Sir Thomas as an historian. If anything he was a satirist - but he is often wrong on facts and inconsistent in detail.

That's a really excellent point. I never thought of trying to read More as though he is writing tongue-in-cheek, or with a sarcastic subtext when he writes what passes for history, even though I'm well aware of his other satirical writings, and his general interest in satire. He not only wrote, but read satire, and sort of belonged to a round table of satirists. Supposedly, Erasmus was his best friend, and if I remember correctly, dedicated The Praise of Folly to More, because he wrote it while visiting More's estate, and The Praise of Folly has got to be one of the finest works of satire ever. Also, the title is a pun on More's name.

It seems difficult to think that Shakespeare, when using More as a source, wouldn't "get" the joke (assuming that it's there), but he was writing under Henry VII's granddaughter, so he probably didn't have a choice.

Warbeck was probably (I emphasise the word) an illegitimate son of either Edward IV

By which, I assume you mean, an illegitimate son by someone other than Elizabeth Woodville.

There are also some unusual questions about the earlier pretender, Lambert Simnel - the first name, Lambert, is unknown in England hitherto.

While, on the other hand, the early 16th century was just lousy with Perkins? What is the point? I realize that probably 85% of the men in England were John, William, Henry, James, Edward, Richard, or Stephen, but what is the point of noting the oddness of the name, unless you think it means something. What do you think it means?

In the US, up until about 1960, when a man had a last name as a first name, it usually meant that his mother didn't have any brother, and her maiden name was going to "daughter out," so it was preserved as a first name. Actually, that was more common in New England; in the South, it was often daughters who got the last-name-as-a-first-name. That's how Harper and Taylor became girl's names in the US. They were more common last names in the South, although for what reason, I don't know. (Harper Lee helped "Harper" along, I'm sure.) Are you suggesting that Someone wouldn't come up with the odd pseudonym "Lambert" unless it was a last name that was significant for him, like his mother's maiden name, meaning that his mother wasn't Elizabeth Woodville? That makes him a pretty stupid pretender.

Anyway, the name, outside of England, goes back to at least the 7th century St. Lambert, who was a bishop in what is now the Netherlands. Apparently he's pretty popular in Belgium, as well.

[RivkahChaya]

Wait-- ape? Europeans didn't even know about apes until the late 1700s. If there were ape bones, then either someone had been tossing carcasses onto the same dump site for several centuries, be they princes, or humanoid creatures that would have been curiosities regarded with both awe and skepticism, or the presence of an ape suggests the bones had not been there long when the stairway was excavated.

Maybe they were all ape. Juvenile chimp skulls look startlingly human.

[Phil H]

There was a zoo (called the royal menagerie) in the Tower for 100s of years - they collected all sorts of rare animals - lions (English coat of arms); giraffes, elephants etc - its quite possible that there were monkeys and one got away.

The skeletons in the abbey are not complete - I have some diagrams somewhere that show them, I'll try to dig them out. But yes, it's widely known they are probably not genuine - though the reason they won't be touched is that there is a pretty general embargo now on exhuming bodies - royal or otherwise.

In the C18th and C19th there was quite a fashion for opening royal graves and haukling out the remains. Sometimes this was because the tomb needed restoration, sometimes for the heck of it! Gradually it became frowned on and is now never done.

I think the point about Lambert was that it suggests the biography/identity of the boy was invented. I'll find the book and check the details.

Errata - Dr David Starkey is a well-known TV historian in the UK. He is a distinguished and acknowledged expert on the Tudors, especially Henry VIII. His slim works on Henry VIII and Elizabeth as a young woman are well worth reading and innovative. He knows his stuff.

Once out of his "period" though, I think he is somewhat "at sea". He has no feel for the period in the way he has for the 1500s. I suspect that as a Tudor expert he somewhat clings to the Tudor myth about Richard III and does not question it far.

Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort, who can tell. As is often the case Elizabeth's rustication to Bermondsey may have had many causes. the timing smacks of suspicions of her loyalty - as does taking away her weath.

I am unsure on the precedence point - as Elizabeth was never married to Edward in the eyes of the church, she was never legally Queen - so would there have been a problem? Margaret signed herself Margaret R (the R standing for either a Queen's "Regina" or her title as Countess of RICHMOND). Henry gave her precedence.

Richard's mother - never Queen - had in her day been treated as if she had been and (I think) signed herself Cecily R.

Phil H

[Errata]

Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort, who can tell. As is often the case Elizabeth's rustication to Bermondsey may have had many causes. the timing smacks of suspicions of her loyalty - as does taking away her weath.

I am unsure on the precedence point - as Elizabeth was never married to Edward in the eyes of the church, she was never legally Queen - so would there have been a problem? Margaret signed herself Margaret R (the R standing for either a Queen's "Regina" or her title as Countess of RICHMOND). Henry gave her precedence.

Richard's mother - never Queen - had in her day been treated as if she had been and (I think) signed herself Cecily R.

Phil H

Well, I suppose that has to depend on the illegitimacy. I've read two plausible versions, the first that Edward married Eleanor Butler (or whoever) and the second that he betrothed himself to her. Both according to the church makes his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid, but only one makes the marriage legally invalid, if I understand it correctly. Either way, she did serve as queen. I think the coronation renders any other arguments somewhat moot. I mean, I think that had she been some woman who wandered in off the street and managed to get herself crowned, it would still stick. Kind of like a baptism. Maybe. And of course Henry VII had Titulus Regis reversed, so according to the current King, her marriage had been legitimate.

And I suspect Cecily was a proud woman who recognized her husband as the true king of England, and signed her name as queen in recognition of such. Or as the mother of the royal heirs chose to style herself as Cecily Regina.

As far as precedence goes, Elizabeth Woodville was a queen, may technically have been married to a King, and was the daughter of an earl and a princess. Margaret Beaufort was never queen, married to an Earl, daughter of a duke, and was the great great illegitimate granddaughter of a king. Even without having been queen, Elizabeth Woodville would have had precedence based on her parentage.

I imagine the real problem was that Elizabeth was a genuinely nice lady that people liked, AND she had precedence over Margaret Beaufort who was pretty convinced that she had done all the hard work in the whole affair. I have read tales where Beaufort could barely manage to give precedence to the current queen, her daughter in law.

[jason_c]

Also Rivkah - SEVERAL sets of bones were found in the Tower in Elizabethan and Stuart times, including I believe those of an "ape". there is no particular reason to believe those in the Abbey were special.

There has been much debate over where these bones were found - More says they were buried under a stairway, then moved. Allegedly, These bones were found when a stairway was dismantled - so if the bodies (assuming they ever existed, of the boys) had been moved, how could these be theirs? Too much emphasis has been placed on Sir Thomas as an historian. If anything he was a satirist - but he is often wrong on facts and inconsistent in detail.

.

Phil H

Hold on a second. The partial truths and slanders against More are starting to grate with me a bit. You claim that More said the bones were moved. He did say this of sorts, however, he admitted it was only hearsay. More did not state the removal of the bones as fact. Below we have two instances on the whereabouts of the bones where More suggests he is not certain of the boys final resting place. It seems More's account of the murder is more accurate than some posters account of Sir Thomas More's manuscript. A manuscript that is fairly easily accessed online.

"Which vpon the sight of them, caused those murtherers to burye them at the stayre foote, metely depe in the grounde vnder a great heape of stones. Than rode sir Iames in geat haste to king Richarde, and shewed him al the maner of the murther, who gaue hym gret thanks, and as som say there made him knight. But he allowed not as I have heard, the burying in so vile a corner, saying that he woulde haue them buried in a better place, because thei wer a kinges sonnes.......Very trouthe is it & well knowen, that at such time as syr Iames Tirell was in the Tower, for Treason committed agaynste the moste famous prince king Henry the seuenth, bothe Dighton an he were examined, & confessed the murther in maner aboue writen, but whither the bodies were remoued thei could nothing tel"

[Phil H]

jason_c

More knew nothing - as is clear from your extract - and he declined to finish either version of his manuscript. That speaks volumes. You can't have it both ways sorry. The sainted More is not worth a finger-snap as an historian.

Errata

The position is that Edward was PRECONTRACTED to Lady Eleanor Butler - different to a betrothal in that a precontract gacve Edward the right to have sex with the lady, which he did. This indeed, made his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville invalid, because Lady Eleanor was still alive at the time. After her death, Edward could have married Elizabeth, but the boys, Edward and Richard, would then have remained illegitimate, as born out of wedlock.

Either way, she did serve as queen.

She may have been anointed, but she was still not Edward's wife in the eyes of the church and thus could not be Queen. Napoleon and Josephine had to be married on the eve of their coronation because an imperfect civil ceremony was not enough and the Pope refused to crown them unless they were married by a cleric.

I think the coronation renders any other arguments somewhat moot.

It probably meant that she could not be ignored, but Henry VII did not treat her leniently. whatever her status.

I mean, I think that had she been some woman who wandered in off the street and managed to get herself crowned, it would still stick.

As late as 1936 with Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson this issue still raised hackles. It was legally avowed that the wife of the king IS the queen. Coronation would have given her a sanctity beyond which anyone wanted - so she had to go, and the king. You are thus probably right, but it would all depend on how she was treated in practice. Richard II treated her with some dignity, Henry Tudor consigned her to a convent pretty quickly - anointed or no.

And of course Henry VII had Titulus Regis reversed, so according to the current King, her marriage had been legitimate.

Reversing TR must have been a legal and personal nightmare for HVII - I am so pleased!!!

And I suspect Cecily was a proud woman

Her nickname was said to be "Proud Cis"!!

As far as precedence goes, Elizabeth Woodville was a queen, may technically have been married to a King, and was the daughter of an earl and a princess. Margaret Beaufort was never queen, married to an Earl, daughter of a duke, and was the great great illegitimate granddaughter of a king. Even without having been queen, Elizabeth Woodville would have had precedence based on her parentage.

Except that the sovereign is the "fount of honour" and can decree precedence. His mother was given precedence over everyone - I'm not sure that didn't include the Queen too!!

I imagine the real problem was that Elizabeth was a genuinely nice lady

I laughed at that. Whatever Elizabeth W's personal charms, she was like all her Wydeville relatives, grasping and selfish. I don't think she was widely liked - though probably feared i - in 1483.

I have read tales where Beaufort could barely manage to give precedence to the current queen, her daughter in law.

That would be in the dwarven bitch's character alright. [Did i give my feelings away then?]

Phil H

[jason_c]

jason_c

More knew nothing - as is clear from your extract - and he declined to finish either version of his manuscript. That speaks volumes. You can't have it both ways sorry. The sainted More is not worth a finger-snap as an historian.



Phil H

Phil

More knew nothing? Well he certainly claimed that 2 children's bodies were buried at the bottom of a staircase. Exactly where 2 skeletal remains were later found of what appears to have been young children. Whilst not conclusive(unless we have further tests)it is suggestive.

As for the moving of the bodies afterwards More implies twice that he is unsure of this fact. Does admitting to being unsure sound like someone writing entirely for propaganda purposes, or of someone deluding himself? He seems to have shown some amount of critical analysis of the evidence, even if its not as critical as most modern scholars would like. Firstly he says he only "heard" that the bodies were moved. Secondly he says this could not be confirmed under questioning. Again, this is a man who appears to admit when he's unsure of the facts. This was not an Anderson like " definitely ascertained fact".

Wether you agree with More or not you should at least paraphrase his account more accurately when condemning it.

[Errata]

As far as precedence goes, Elizabeth Woodville was a queen, may technically have been married to a King, and was the daughter of an earl and a princess. Margaret Beaufort was never queen, married to an Earl, daughter of a duke, and was the great great illegitimate granddaughter of a king. Even without having been queen, Elizabeth Woodville would have had precedence based on her parentage.

Except that the sovereign is the "fount of honour" and can decree precedence. His mother was given precedence over everyone - I'm not sure that didn't include the Queen too!!

I imagine the real problem was that Elizabeth was a genuinely nice lady

I laughed at that. Whatever Elizabeth W's personal charms, she was like all her Wydeville relatives, grasping and selfish. I don't think she was widely liked - though probably feared i - in 1483.

I have read tales where Beaufort could barely manage to give precedence to the current queen, her daughter in law.

That would be in the dwarven bitch's character alright. [Did i give my feelings away then?]

Phil H

I think Elizabeth Woodville was a bit like Ted Kennedy. Problematic because of who she was and who her family was, spoiled, a little vapid, selfish, but on a personal basis probably quite nice. I mean, there was no way a Neville was going to like her, and any conversation she ever had at court was probably suspicious. But I bet she was a hit with the servants. I imagine that those who didn't care about her family or position thought she was great. She was supposedly quite kind. It doesn't mean she wasn't grasping and selfish I suppose, but only in the political arena not the personal. I sort of imagine her being carelessly kind to her servants, gossiping and giggling with her ladies. Generous with her cast offs, arranging good marriages for any who wanted one. I bet puppies liked her.

It's sort of the one thing I would bet that Margaret Beaufort couldn't get for herself in any way. I can imagine her just losing it overhearing a servant talk about how lovely the queen dowager was, and so nice. Court friendships were political. Anyone could command that kind of respect. But winning the loyalty of powerless people was probably beyond Margaret Beaufort's ken.

But here's a thing. Eleanor Butler died in 1468. Assuming he married Elizabeth Woodville again at the time of Eleanor's death, both the boys would still have been legitimate, as would their older sister Cecily, and all who came after Cecily, but not Mary, and not the Elizabeth who married Henry VII. Which certainly could have blown Titulus Regis out of the water, but still puts Henry VII in more of a bind than Richard III.