Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - perkinwarbeck

Pages: [1]
1
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 12, 2009, 03:29:18 PM »


this looked good to me and I ordered it thru amazon. thanks for the other recommendations.

2
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« on: September 11, 2009, 05:15:50 PM »
thanks for the recommendations

3
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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?

4
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.

5
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.

6
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.

7
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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

8
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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. 

9
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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?

10
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.



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.

11
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.

12
Having Fun! / Re: If you had time-machine in which era would you return?
« on: August 24, 2009, 05:57:24 PM »
Born in the 1820's and a young man in the 1840's in the United States. That era of canal building, and western gold rush trails out to California. A graceful, yet more vigorous period than today.

13
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.

14
The Tudors / Re: Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..
« 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.

Pages: [1]