Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Tudors => Topic started by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 10:45:22 AM

Title: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 10:45:22 AM
.....Prince Richard, youngest son of Elizabeth and Edward IV?
Perkin Warbeck/Osbeck troubled Henry VII from his surfacing in Ireland in 1491 until his capture 6 years later. He was a plausible candidate for Richard because he clearly resembled his putative father Edward IV and he never betrayed himself by word or deed. However, he always refused to give an account of how he "escaped" from the Tower after the death of his brother.
Margaret of Burgundy backed him so did she believe the lad was her young nephew or did she manipulate and "feed" an imposter relevant information to cause mischief for Henry?
Henry refused to confront him with his "sister" Elizabeth of York and also declined help in recognizing him and denouncing him as an imposter from others who had known Richard. Why do you think he did that?
So was he an imposter- a Fleming born in Tournai in 1474? Was he perhaps a bastard son of Edward IV? Or was he Richard, youngest son of Edward? What do you think 8) 8)
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: bell_the_cat on October 22, 2005, 11:42:39 AM
Just a thought, but do we know where PW is buried? If so it would be easy to compare DNA samples with say EoY. This would decide the issue for once and for all!

...or maybe not. :-/
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 22, 2005, 12:41:24 PM
I would have to say that I am almost certain he was not the Duke of York.

I can't answer as to Henry VII's actions, but the fact that Warbeck couldn't account for his escape was very fishy. And also, Duchess Margaret's support can't really count for anything, since she aided so many of his kind the Tudors called her 'Aunt to all the Pretenders!'

Perhaps, perhaps, he was a bastard son born to Edward IV, since he resembled him. And maybe, just maybe - this probably sounds silly - Henry VII didn't want Elizabeth of York to see him because he was afraid that she wanted so much to believe her brothers were alive that she would sort of convince herself that Warbeck was Richard. Does this sound plausible, or am I crazy?  ???
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Elisabeth on October 22, 2005, 01:17:32 PM
You make sense to me, Prince. I think another reason Henry didn't allow his wife to see PW was simply that he didn't want to put her through any unnecessary pain. It's quite possible that he had been informed upon ascending the throne (by various people in the "know") that the princes had been murdered. BTW, does anyone know if Henry ever met with PW himself? Or did he find the whole story so implausible that he left his subordinates to deal with it?
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 01:25:55 PM
I too am (almost convinced) that he was an imposter, but that is why I like to look at the arguments as to why he could have been Richard. It makes for a very interesting discussion 8)
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 22, 2005, 01:29:45 PM
It certainly does Kim!

BTW, Elisabeth, I agree with you in that Henry probably wanted to save Elisabeth any pain or suffering. I read about Warbeck in Wikipedia and it doesn't mention Henry ever meeting him . . .
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Elisabeth on October 22, 2005, 01:40:46 PM
It is an interesting topic for a discussion. Does anyone know, what is the evidence that PW was the illegitimate son of Edward IV? Is the putative relationship based only on his apparent physical resemblance to Edward, or were there other factors involved as well? I'm  just wondering, 'cause I've met my fair share of broad and beefy blond Englishmen... it's not an uncommon physical type in the land of Albion!  ;D
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 01:42:10 PM
Here is Mr. Warbeck(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/kimnewrick/warbeck.jpg)
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 22, 2005, 01:43:51 PM
He does look like Edward IV . . . but as to him being Edward's bastard it seems unlikely. I mean, he was born in 1474, right? Edward was king of England by then. Do we know if he visited France/the Low Countries in that year?
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 01:47:19 PM
And EdwardIV(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a265/kimnewrick/PlantagenetEdwardIV.jpg)
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 02:00:27 PM
Quote
Just a thought, but do we know where PW is buried? If so it would be easy to compare DNA samples with say EoY. This would decide the issue for once and for all!

...or maybe not. :-/

Hoohoo my friend I should think the chances of that happening are less than nil. I don't know where he was buried.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Elisabeth on October 22, 2005, 02:04:16 PM
There is a resemblance, but I would consider this somewhat suspect, since any portrait of Perkin Warbeck would have been made after he became a claimant to the identity of the Duke of York, and the artist might have deliberately tried to heighten the resemblance between PW and Edward IV. Ordinary people didn't get to have their portraits sketched or painted, so obviously PW was already a prominent person when this sketch was done.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 22, 2005, 02:08:01 PM
Yes, Elisabeth, that is a very good point - we can't trust portraits of Warbeck, because unless the artist was unusally honest, they are likely inaccurate. Do we know who painted this one?
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on October 22, 2005, 02:08:42 PM
 Absolutely right Elisabeth, I may look like Miss Piggy on valium..but I am definately not related ;) The tragedy of all this though lead to the execution of the poor Earl of Warwick. What a life that sad lad had.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Prince_Lieven on October 22, 2005, 02:10:38 PM
Quote
Absolutely right Elisabeth, I may look like Miss Piggy on valium..but I am definately not related ;) .


I can't believe a woman with so sweet a nature could look like that!
;D ;D And yes, you're right about Warwick, it is a pity. Still, I don't suppose there was much a difference between life in the Tower and death . . .
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on October 22, 2005, 03:07:18 PM
i am 99% convinced that perkin warbeck was not who he claimed he was. the reason i leave 1% out is because you can never be 100% sure of anything, not even who you are, but i think all evidences point to it being a fraud.

the fact that henry didn't want elizabeth to meet perkin might be considerate for her on his part, it might mean to spare her of pain, but i also see it as a way to not pay that much importance to perkin. had henry aranged a meeting between perkin and elizabeth he pretty much would have said 'it is possible that richard is alive' therefor not only strengthening perkin's claim (who could have easily said had he not been recognized by elizabeth that it's been a long time and he grew up and all...) but paving the way for other later claims... by not arranging the meeting he simply said 'richard is dead. get over yourself'.

as for margaret's support, i think she would have supported just about anyone who had a chance of taking henry's throne. :)
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: stacey on October 23, 2005, 11:59:27 PM
Well, if I HAD to make a bet--it would be that Perkin Warbeck was an imposter. But the resemblance between Warbeck and the general run of Plantagenet kings is indeed striking--so who knows...MY real question is that old one: What really DID happen to those two little princes in the tower? Or perhaps instead of saying "what" I should say "Who ordered their murders?" In that case my money is on Henry Tudor. I never liked that guy! Sneaky, manipulative, impossibly greedy, squinty-eyed--I don't think he would have hesitated a second to condone (or overlook) the murder of two innocent children if it meant he could grab the throne for himself....and after all it did turn out very nicely for Henry in the end, didn't it?!
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on October 24, 2005, 02:31:29 AM
just because he was the one who won, doesn't mean he was the only one who wanted to win. and again i say, henry's not the kind to make unnecessary moves, not out of consideration but out of calculation...
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: David_Pritchard on November 26, 2005, 07:51:43 PM
Quote
Just a thought, but do we know where PW is buried? If so it would be easy to compare DNA samples with say EoY. This would decide the issue for once and for all!

...or maybe not. :-/



Perkin Warbeck was executed like a commoner, by hanging that is, on the Tyburn scaffold in London on Saturday 23rd 1499. It was the custom for the executioner to receive the dead prisoner's clothes and the body to be sent to a physician for disection and medical study. Parts of Perkin may well have been interred in a number of privies and trash pits as the disection proceeded over time.

David
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: bell_the_cat on November 27, 2005, 04:51:26 AM
Thanks David

So not much chance of a DNA test then - unless Lady Catherine managed to keep a lock of hair .....
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on June 24, 2007, 01:28:16 PM
I seriously don't think Perkin was Richard of York. it's more likely he was one of many Edward's bastards, and i think he is.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: dolgoruky18 on August 31, 2007, 07:04:01 AM
Perkin Warbeck's body was cut down after death and then beheaded. The body was taken to the Church of the Austin Friars in Bread Street and buried there. No memorial was raised, neither was his name included on the list of other executed men buried there. His head was displayed on London Bridge until it finally rotted away.

Lady Katherine married several more times, but never had children. When she made her Will, she referred to her "cousin" Margaret Kyme or Keymes, the obscure daughter of Cecily of York by her last marriage. Cecily was the younger sister of Elizabeth of York and the missing Princes. It is odd, thereore, that Katherine should refer to her in this way unless she still retained some belief that Perkin was who he claimed to be.

The most recent (and brilliant) book on the subject is "Perkin" by Ann Wroe first published in2003.

Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: FaithWhiteRose on August 31, 2007, 09:32:54 PM
Perkin Warbeck's body was cut down after death and then beheaded. The body was taken to the Church of the Austin Friars in Bread Street and buried there. No memorial was raised, neither was his name included on the list of other executed men buried there. His head was displayed on London Bridge until it finally rotted away

The executions those days... is it even necessary for a person to be decapitated when he's already dead? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on August 21, 2009, 02:18:47 PM
we'll never know if Perkin was Richard, but the story is interesting, and Henry Tudor certainly took the armies he seemed to be able to gather very seriously.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on August 24, 2009, 12:48:21 PM
maybe because henry knew better than anyone that a shady claim does not prevent you from becoming king.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on August 24, 2009, 04:51:34 PM
exactly, but victories in the battlefield do, as Henry proved.

of course there is the argument that Perkin must have presented some sort of percieved legitimate claim to the English throne for all of rest of the royal houses of Europe to have accepted his presence in their courts, and in some cases given his invasion of Ireland material support. If Perkin were a total fraud, as he confessed he was later, it would seem that the French, the Spanish and the Imperial courts would have shied away from him.

at any rate, the Perkin Warbeck saga makes an excellent story.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: mcdnab on August 25, 2009, 07:39:34 AM
The fact that both boys hadn't been since 1483 means that it is extremely difficult to assume, however much one might wish to, that they'd escaped.

The rumours of their disappearance were highly damaging for Richard III the fact he didn't produce them alive is in itself suggestive. There is also the fact that if he had produced them they would provide a fresh focus for rebellion at home and abroad. He was as the saying goes between a rock and a hard place - even if one of the boys died of natural causes he couldn't escape the suggestion that the boy had been murdered.

Others have suggested one or both of them might have died in an attempted rescue attempt or that in fact both fell ill and died during their captivity again explaining Richard's failure to produce them to counter the claims against him.

The candidates for murder range from Richard himself to Henry Tudor (though the idea they could have remained prisoners for nearly two years with no-one seeing them stretches my imagination a bit too far).

Recently Philippa Gregory's latest fiction book the White Queen suggests that Elizabeth Wydeville planted a changeling in the tower and smuggled her youngest son abroad - but she was in sanctuary at Westminster at the time and it was guarded so again a bit of a stretch of the imagination however entertaining it might be.

Recognition by Margaret of Burgundy is hardly surprising and given his success at other courts during the 1490's she certainly taught him well. Margaret's beef wasn't so much about the deposition of her brother Richard III (she certainly didn't seem to have such a problem with him deposing and bastardising her nephew) but about her long standing arguement with Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII about her English dower lands supporting would-be pretenders gave her a stick to continue beating Henry with.

The fact that Henry didn't put his wife through meeting with Warbeck isn't that surprising - she would naturally denounce him as a fraud and those who supported him would say she'd failed to acknowledge him under pressure from her husband or to safeguard her own and her children's position. It had no advantage to Henry VII after all Warbeck was defeated and a prisoner and now presented no threat.

The mystery haunted much of Henry's reign and despite the image of security the regular appearances of pretenders and his reaction to them have always suggested to me that he really wasn't sure what happened to Edward V and Richard Duke of York and Norfolk which in turn suggests that his mother in law Elizabeth Wydeville and his wife Elizabeth of York were also pretty much in the dark with only guesswork to go on or had decided not to tell him the truth. (which might support the theory that Elizabeth Wydeville had been involved or had knowledge of a rescue attempt that went wrong and that ended in one of the boys dying and the other perhaps been murdered as a reaction to the failed rescue).
I've never been convinced myself by Warbeck despite some very good research on the matter and some interesting possibilities
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on August 27, 2009, 12:19:02 PM
The fact that both boys hadn't been since 1483 means that it is extremely difficult to assume, however much one might wish to, that they'd escaped.

The rumours of their disappearance were highly damaging for Richard III the fact he didn't produce them alive is in itself suggestive. There is also the fact that if he had produced them they would provide a fresh focus for rebellion at home and abroad. He was as the saying goes between a rock and a hard place - even if one of the boys died of natural causes he couldn't escape the suggestion that the boy had been murdered.

Others have suggested one or both of them might have died in an attempted rescue attempt or that in fact both fell ill and died during their captivity again explaining Richard's failure to produce them to counter the claims against him.

The candidates for murder range from Richard himself to Henry Tudor (though the idea they could have remained prisoners for nearly two years with no-one seeing them stretches my imagination a bit too far).

Recently Philippa Gregory's latest fiction book the White Queen suggests that Elizabeth Wydeville planted a changeling in the tower and smuggled her youngest son abroad - but she was in sanctuary at Westminster at the time and it was guarded so again a bit of a stretch of the imagination however entertaining it might be.

Recognition by Margaret of Burgundy is hardly surprising and given his success at other courts during the 1490's she certainly taught him well. Margaret's beef wasn't so much about the deposition of her brother Richard III (she certainly didn't seem to have such a problem with him deposing and bastardising her nephew) but about her long standing arguement with Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII about her English dower lands supporting would-be pretenders gave her a stick to continue beating Henry with.

The fact that Henry didn't put his wife through meeting with Warbeck isn't that surprising - she would naturally denounce him as a fraud and those who supported him would say she'd failed to acknowledge him under pressure from her husband or to safeguard her own and her children's position. It had no advantage to Henry VII after all Warbeck was defeated and a prisoner and now presented no threat.

The mystery haunted much of Henry's reign and despite the image of security the regular appearances of pretenders and his reaction to them have always suggested to me that he really wasn't sure what happened to Edward V and Richard Duke of York and Norfolk which in turn suggests that his mother in law Elizabeth Wydeville and his wife Elizabeth of York were also pretty much in the dark with only guesswork to go on or had decided not to tell him the truth. (which might support the theory that Elizabeth Wydeville had been involved or had knowledge of a rescue attempt that went wrong and that ended in one of the boys dying and the other perhaps been murdered as a reaction to the failed rescue).
I've never been convinced myself by Warbeck despite some very good research on the matter and some interesting possibilities

i agree with everything you said here - as far as i'm concerned it's a rational explanation for all the warbeck mysteries.

Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on August 28, 2009, 04:16:59 PM
I seriously don't think Perkin was Richard of York. it's more likely he was one of many Edward's bastards, and i think he is.

is there any documentation which supports this? I think that your assertion makes more sense than assuming that Perkin's confession was legitimate and he was a total hoax with no biological connection to the Plantagenets.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on August 31, 2009, 01:15:48 PM
it would explain his looking like edward iv and having a certain regal persona.... of course there is no proof, but then again there's no proof that he was richard of york either - actually it's most likely that he wasn't...

we're just here to discuss the possibility
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on August 31, 2009, 02:03:11 PM
yes, and an interesting discussion!

someone mentioned the Ann Wroe book earlier: "The Perfect Prince". I really enjoyed reading it, it suggests some interesting possibilities such as Elizabeth Woodville rescuing Richard from the clutches of his uncle and substituting another body in his place.

(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg232/brokeplex/history/41K3DE9MDVL_SL500_AA246_PIkin2Botto.jpg)

The reception Perkin received in royal courts abroad tell us that his bonafides were presented in a way so that he was not seriously questioned as the true heir to the Plantagenets, at least outside of England. This fact alone causes me to be inclined to accept that he was either Richard or as suggested earlier a member of the royal family born on the wrong side of the bed.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on September 01, 2009, 09:52:54 AM
i was on a riccardian list once. they all believed richard of york survived - they believed perkin was richard. they mentioned that edward v was a sickly boy and died young, but richard was sent by his "good uncle richard" somewhere up north to be safe (cause of course at that point many people wanted to kill him).

richard iii of course took his nephew's throne to protect him and then sent him into obscurity for the same reason.

*eye roll*
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 01, 2009, 01:32:30 PM
I agree that is a bit far fetched, I don't see old bitter uncle Richard protecting the young Duke of York.

 But, Elizabeth Woodville may have rescued young Richard and had him taken to safety. In fact in many ways, a surviving young Richard was a type of insurance policy for many in the Royal family.

Would Henry Tudor have been so generous if he hadn't known that there was a "potential" heir waiting out there for the right moment to strike?
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on September 02, 2009, 01:32:19 PM
even if Richard was dead, Henry wouldn't have been the heir - Elizabeth would have been. And I agree that a woman ruler would have been rather unbelievable at the time, however whoever she married would have been a strong contender.

So, maybe Henry was generous because he knew that even if he did everything he could to make sure that everyone knew that HE was the monarch, not his wife, he should stay on his wife's good side (or her family's for that matter) because in the end he wouldn't have been half as strong without her presence at his side.

I doubt Elizabeth Woodville would have supported Henry'ss claim instead of her son's... no matter how generous he was.

And, on the other hand, Henry was really not that generous to Elizabeth Woodville - she died in total obscurity.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 02, 2009, 04:58:19 PM
you are saying that Henry Tudor wouldn't have been the "heir"? I agree, he "inheirited" mostly by right of conquest.

In a different time the late 17th century, it was Mary who "inheirited" the British Stuart throne after James was overthrown, and her husband William was name coruler.

And back in the late 15th century, the power factions in England were more than willing to have a breather in civil wars in order to give Henry Tudor a chance to produce and heir with a Yorkist wife. 
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: mcdnab on September 03, 2009, 07:31:29 AM
Firstly Henry VII never claimed the throne by hereditary right - his first Parliament acknowledged him as King by "right of conquest". Henry was exceptionally keen to ensure that he was not recognised as King by right of his wife and it also avoided issues over whether his Lancastrian Beaufort claim (through his mother who was still alive) was valid given the fact the Beaufort families rights were questionable due to their lack of legitimacy.
Secondly after the Battle of Bosworth - Henry restored Elizabeth Wydeville's dower rights and reinstated her rights and titles as Queen Dowager (removed by Richard III after he declared her marriage to the late Edward IV invalid) - she was present at court on occasions and was chief sponsor of Prince Arthur at his christening at Winchester. Most Ricardians have suggested that in 1487 she became involved in Lincoln's rebellion as she was either disatisfied with her daughter's condition or was plotting to restore one of her missing sons so she lost her property and was forced into the Abbey of Bermondsey where she died penniless in 1492.
However Bermondsey was an Abbey that previous Queen dowager's had retired to (notably Katherine of Valois widow of Henry V), it also had a connection to the House of York. Elizabeth certainly lost her dower lands but was in receipt of a cash pension and was still an occasional visitor to court - also in the autumn of 1487 she was half heartedly offered as a wife to King James III of Scots (her second daughter Cecily being again offered to his son).
Henry VII's problem was fairly unique - the bulk of the wealth of the House of York was held by the Dowager Duchess Cecily (mother of Edward IV) she didn't die until the mid 1490's when her estates would revert to the crown, he had to provide a full dower and appropriate income for his wife Elizabeth of York (who as an English royal bride brought him nothing but her rights to the throne), had to provide dowers to his wife's surviving sisters and much of his own family fortune was held by his mother (who would outlive him). To a man with a keen financial brain it might have made sense to use his mother in law's dower to provide for his wife and settle a cash pension on her instead.

Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 03, 2009, 01:58:15 PM
thanks for the information about the last days of Elizabeth Woodville!

here is something I found on Wiki about the legitimacy of the Beaufort inheritance


Amongst the most ardent supporters of the House of Lancaster were the Beaufort family, descended from John of Gaunt and his mistress Katherine Swynford. When Gaunt and Swynford married in 1396 (some 25 years after the birth of their first child), the church rewarded them by legitimising their offspring through a papal bull. This was enshrined in an act of parliament the following year, but opinions were divided on whether the Beauforts could have any claim on the English throne.

With the House of Lancaster extinct, the relatively unknown Henry Tudor proclaimed himself the Lancastrian heir from his exile in Brittany, claiming descent through his mother Lady Margaret Beaufort, to John of Gaunt. In 1485, Tudor was able to use the unpopularity of the final Yorkist Richard III to take the crown as Henry VII of England. This was not to be a revival of the House of Lancaster, though, as Henry married the Yorkist heiress Elizabeth of York and founded a dynasty of dual Lancastrian and Yorkist descent, the House of Tudor.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lancaster
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on September 06, 2009, 02:27:34 AM
I think it also helped that Henry's father was the half-brother of the last Lancastrian king (Henry VI). Henry VII was perceived as Lancastrian.

The fact that he married the Yorkist princess was like a fairytale - a successful Romeo and Juliet type of thing, where the love of the two manages to melt down the hatred between the two families. Or at least that is how it was presented to me in the fourth grade when I first heard about the Wars of the Roses. The reason the Tudors were a new dynasty and not presented as a Lancastrian branch was exactly this: their image was supposed to be a blend of both families (reflected in the pink Tudor rose). That's how Henry hoped to get rid of any animosity - he tried to present himself as the heir (by right and marriage) of BOTH families.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 06, 2009, 04:56:20 PM
I think it also helped that Henry's father was the half-brother of the last Lancastrian king (Henry VI). Henry VII was perceived as Lancastrian.

The fact that he married the Yorkist princess was like a fairytale - a successful Romeo and Juliet type of thing, where the love of the two manages to melt down the hatred between the two families. Or at least that is how it was presented to me in the fourth grade when I first heard about the Wars of the Roses. The reason the Tudors were a new dynasty and not presented as a Lancastrian branch was exactly this: their image was supposed to be a blend of both families (reflected in the pink Tudor rose). That's how Henry hoped to get rid of any animosity - he tried to present himself as the heir (by right and marriage) of BOTH families.

and Henry VII did an excellent job of setting aside the War of the Roses, and moving on to a more unified England.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on September 09, 2009, 04:15:08 PM
... which is why he's my favorite king :)
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 09, 2009, 06:03:57 PM
really, Henry VII is your favorite Tudor, or do you mean he is your favorite English King?
There is no doubt that Henry Tudor was a genius at organization, and unlike other monarchs he kept his fine edge throughout his reign.
This thread has rekindled my interest in the late Plantagenets and the early Tudors, and I found 3 interesting books about the period, and am reading them.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: ilyala on September 10, 2009, 02:11:49 PM
He's my favorite king ever because:

a) in my book, he was very successful as a king. the country was broke when he got there and rich when he left. also hardly any wars - and all when he couldn't avoid them.
b) he is very mysterious, you hardly read about him in history books (in general history books the story usually stops with "he married Elizabeth of York and ended the wars of the roses... their son..."). You have to dig very deep to find something about his personality other than "he was cheap" - which btw he wasn't.
c) he was also rather successful in his private life - amazingly his marriage went well (despite a rather rocky start with him refusing to crown his wife...) and he had intelligent (albeit rather spoilt) children.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 10, 2009, 03:48:10 PM
good points about Henry Tudor. I think that his chief strength was in knowing who to appoint to administer the kingdom, and just how closely he should micromanage. That is a trait that many monarchs lacked, Elizabeth was an example of another monarch who knew how to delegate and when to micromanage. The list of monarchs who failed in this important adminstrative skill is very long.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 10, 2009, 04:30:06 PM
... which is why he's my favorite king :)

just out of curiosity are you familiar with any of these books?

"The Perfect Prince" by Ann Wroe
"The Princes in the Tower" by Alison Weir
"The Year of The Three Kings - 1483" by Giles St Aubyn

what do you recommend for information about the late Yorkists and the early Tudors?
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: mcdnab on September 11, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
Depends on what level you want to read at = the Anne Wroe is very long but fascinating, the Weir is popular history and that's no bad thing - an easy read and Ricardians loathe her for it! The Giles St Aubyn feels a bit dated now but has some value.
Recently there's a David Baldwin on Elizabeth Wydeville which is rather good (but an updated version of her only other biographer McGibbon who wrote in the 30's).
I think the standard on Edward IV is still Charles Ross.

Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 11, 2009, 05:15:50 PM
thanks for the recommendations
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on September 12, 2009, 02:35:48 AM
"This sun of York" by Mary Clive. Quite an old bio now but thorough.
The Baldwin book re Elizabeth Woodville is well worth the pennies too....the appendices make for a fascinating read.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: perkinwarbeck on September 12, 2009, 03:29:18 PM
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg232/brokeplex/history/465bd5966e35c4a59316d465167434d414f.jpg)

this looked good to me and I ordered it thru amazon. thanks for the other recommendations.
Title: Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
Post by: Kimberly on September 13, 2009, 12:08:32 AM
Yep, that's the one.