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 - FaithWhiteRose

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: October 26, 2011, 09:36:24 PM »
I definitely agree with you there about dispensations being handed out for the purpose of politics rather than canon law. To these people and in this time period, that was what mattered the most. The Pope himself had an important political role to play, and it isn't wholly inaccurate to say that that was at the forefront of his mind as he led the Roman Catholic Church.

As for Elizabeth of York and Richard III, think the Pope would have been convinced but the English people would not.

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: October 22, 2011, 06:02:11 PM »
I'm sorry to say that I don't know at all. The greater obstacle would have been not the matter of the dispensation itself, but the reaction of the English people to an uncle-niece relationship. I was speaking mostly of the political and strategic advantages such a marriage would have brought Richard.

I still believe that a dispensation would have been possible. I don't know how common one for an uncle-niece marriage would be the context of the time period, but it's certainly not an idea that can be dismissed either.

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: October 19, 2011, 03:43:58 PM »
He definitely had plans to marry Joanna of Portugal. Any foreign princess would have made sense, really, because she secured for him a heady political alliance.

EoY would have brought him the advantage of uniting Richard and the Woodvilles. Tudor could also not lay any claim to her that way, and neither could any other man who held designs on the throne. There was, after all, only one Yorkist heiress in all England (excluding her sisters, of course), and it was Elizabeth of York. Margaret of Warwick was certainly another, but the daughter of a former king holds more obvious power than the daughter of a prince or duke.

As for the law that declared her a bastard? Even if it were the law, do you think she was treated as a bastard by her contemporaries, that is, on a regular basis? She had been a princess her whole life. A law does not necessarily change the mindset of the people who saw her, received her, interacted with her. Titulus Regius was conceived for the purpose of putting aside Edward IV's sons and giving Richard way to the throne. The princes in the tower were likely dead, and if not that, dead in name and by practical terms anyway. His marriage with Elizabeth of York would have united the House of York and given him the heirs he so desperately needed after the death of his son, Edward, Prince of Wales.

The people seeing him wed the sister of Edward V and Richard, Duke of York could have also steered them away from the notion that Richard III was responsible for the young princes' deaths. Elizabeth of York would have been attracted to the option because, naturally, she would have been queen. She would have the opportunity to exit the sanctuary she had spent the recent years of her life in and be honored at court. It was her natural home, having been born and bred a princess.

A foreign alliance would have been likelier still, but Richard also had the challenge of uniting England. His own house of York was tragically, fatally divided, and to salvage that he may have considered marrying his greatest enemy's niece, the daughter of a Woodville. Of all the internal headaches he had, it would have been one less if he had only to deal with his traditional enemy, Lancaster, and not the fervently ambitious Woodville clan.

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: October 18, 2011, 06:39:20 PM »
I think the fact that Richard III felt it necessary to make a public denial of any intention to marry Elizabeth demonstrates that according to the mores of the time a marriage between uncle and niece was Going Too Far.

That is not strictly true--Richard also felt the need to deny the marriage to the lords of the North, who were wary of him being held sway by the Wydvilles' power.

Also, by Church standards, my family would have committed incest several times over. My own parents are first cousins once removed; my father's brother married my mother's sister; and in my extended family there are many marriages between first cousins and the offspring that has resulted from it.

There are other threads if you wish to discuss this subject Norbert. but going back to a possible romance between Richard and Elizabeth of York;
In the British Museum, there is Richard's personal copy of "Tristan and Iseulte" which "bears an intriguing motto and signature of Elizabeth". The motto is-"sans removyr" (without changing).There is also a copy of a book by Boethius, which also carries notations by her in the margins and is also inscribed with combinations of Richard's motto-Loyalte me Lye, and Elizabeth's name...both in her handwriting.

I find this so utterly fascinating. Is there anywhere else I can get information about it? :)

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: October 17, 2011, 05:57:24 PM »
Thank you Kim and Ann for your detailed comments. I assume that these were the specific set of rules established by the Church (correct me if I am wrong!), but how were they regarded in practice? Would English society in the medieval period not accommodated a marriage of Anne and Richard's nature? Was it, by social and cultural terms, incestuous? Or was it more of a law that did not extend beyond the bounds of Church and state?

The Tudors / Re: The Crimes of Richard III
« on: October 16, 2011, 10:16:27 PM »
I've been digging around some of my Richard III Society stuff this morning and I thought we might share info./opinions on these four major accusations against Richard. These four crimes are;
1) the murder of Edward of Lancaster on the battlefield at Tewkesbury on May 4th 1471.
2) The murder of Henry VI in the Tower of London in 1471.
3)The murder of George Duke of Clarence.
4) Anne Neville-marriage and poisening.
Its probably obvious to you that I am a passionte fan and supporter of this exceptional man  :-* but what do you think?

1. Even if Richard did that, there were a whole lot of others involved in it. In all probability, it can be said that Edward was caught in the onslaught of charging York soldiers and killed by them.
2. Like no. 1, this was most likely done in the knowledge of Edward IV, if not by his own hand. Richard was certainly involved in this to some extent.
3. I believe that Clarence was executed on Edward's orders.
4. No. Anne Neville was deteriorating already from sickness. If Richard III wanted to get rid of her, he could have very well gained an annulment. All their heirs were dead and she was in failing health. It was more than enough reason to divorce her.

The Tudors / Re: Romance between Elizabeth of York and Richard III?
« on: October 16, 2011, 09:39:49 PM »

Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the future Richard III, in marrying Anne Neville, was committing incest in the first degree because his brother the Duke of Clarence had already married Anne's sister, Isabel. Normally, under such circumstances, a member of a royal family would apply for a papal dispensation to do away with any familial impediments to such a politically advantageous marriage. Richard did indeed apply for a papal dispensation, but surprisingly, not one that covered this degree of relationship. Hicks asks, why was this? A brother(in-law) marriage to a sister(in-law) was regarded with a great deal of disapproval, even disgust, in fifteenth-century Western Europe. It was sinful and forbidden by God. Did Richard not seek a papal dispensation for this degree of relationship because he was already planning to divorce Anne at some point in the future, when she was no longer politically significant? Was he reluctant to wait for such a dispensation to come through, fearing that his political advantage in marrying her at the time would be lost? At any rate, the very fact that Richard and Anne never applied for, much less received, a papal dispensation for their close familial relationship meant that their marriage was never valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Richard could have legally divorced Anne at any time.

Which means that Richard's denunciation of his brother Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and his labeling of their children as "bastards," rings more than hollow, it rings all together false. It was Richard who had actually contracted an illegal marriage and produced illegitimate offspring (Prince Edward of Middleham). Now if that's not the pot calling the kettle black... Richard III really is the poster prince of moral hypocrisy. 

What makes the relationship of two brothers marrying two sisters incestuous? They are not related by blood. I have no information about it being incestuous during the Middle Ages or not, except for what you have provided me. If you could elucidate on that point, I'd be grateful.

Also, the entire basis of Titulus Regius, the statute that absolved Edward IV's marriage and bastardized his heirs, was the allegation of Edward's previous marriage to a woman by the name of Eleanor Talbot. Marrying a woman whilst already being married to another in a culture that does not entertain polygamy provides far stronger grounds than any absence of a papal dispensation. And I am still in doubt over the brother-in-law, sister-in-law notion of incest. In that time period people freely married their cousins and vice versa, connections that are now designated as being incest simply because people say so.

The Tudors / Re: Antigone Plantagenet
« on: October 16, 2011, 07:17:47 PM »
Eleanor Cobham was tried as a witch and stigmatized for it. Possibly for that reason, her children were either forgotten or their claim to the throne nullified, as well as their illegitimacy, even if Catholic law legitimized them.

The Tudors / Re: Favourite Fictional Tudor based books?
« on: October 26, 2008, 08:11:00 PM »
I haven't read The Lady in the Tower, though I must agree that Murder Most Royal was absolutely amazing. The irony at the end was just haunting. The Sixth Wife made me understand Katharine Parr more, but it was somewhat boring imho, as with The King's Secret Matter.

The Tudors / Re: Favourite Fictional Tudor based books?
« on: October 13, 2008, 12:37:09 PM »
Thanks for your opinions :)

The Tudors / Re: Favourite Fictional Tudor based books?
« on: October 12, 2008, 09:51:16 PM »
Oooohhh, Elisabeth, stop it please,I have only just paid my Amazon bill(hidden from the lord and master of course) and now you list all these books ;D My goodness me I well remember reading Brief Gaudy Hour by Margaret Campbell Barnes ans she also wrote a lovely book-My Lady of Cleves.

Is Brief Gaudy Hour any good? I saw it at B&N but never had a chance to purchase it. I liked the cover lol, but my weakness for nice covers has more than once made me buy and read bad books :-)

The Tudors / Re: Favourite Fictional Tudor based books?
« on: October 12, 2008, 09:49:05 PM »
Hi there SonjaMarie,  its nice to have a new "voice" here. Hope you enjoy yourself. Have you tried The Autobiography of Henry VIII by Margaret George- its very good.Legacy by Susan Kay is also excellent- its about ElizabethIst ( in particular, the psychological effect of the death of her mother on Elizabeth).
The Diary of Anne Boleyn is ok as is The Other Boleyn Girl.( sort of beach time reading if you know what i mean) ;) Regards Kim.

Grr . . . Kim said everything I wanted to say! <huffy> <brighten up a bit> Welcome to Ally-Pally Sonja-Marie! I know what you mean about Jean Plaidy. I only book of hers I like was 'Victoria Victorious'. I just think her books have no drama.

Oh, I agree. I read Jean Plaidy's The King's Secret Matter and thought it was quite boring. The Sixth Wife is okay, though the potrayal of Katherine Parr really makes you understand her more. Murder Most Royal was fantastic though. I thought the medieval language was so great and colorful (sometimes I would accidentally say "'tis' or 'thee' in conversation in modern times after finishing it;-)) and the ending was just haunting.

The Tudors / Re: Bloody Mary (Mary I)
« on: October 12, 2008, 09:46:00 PM »

BTW, does anyone else find it strange that she is nearly always referred to as 'Mary Tudor' rather than the more proper Mary I. Elizabeth is never called Elizabeth Tudor.

I always gathered that Mary became "Mary Tudor" because of when Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn, her royal title was stripped from her.  She became a bastard. And though the same happened with Elizabeth, Elizabeth became a prosperous queen with a prosperous reign. Besides, more people are familiar with "Elizabeth I" than "Mary Tudor" or "Mary I".

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn
« on: October 12, 2008, 09:42:51 PM »
I finally saw "The Other Boleyn Girl" in which Anne is portrayed as a real scheming bitch along with her family.

I checked back the last few pages and saw nothing about the movie and this version of Anne as an evil woman. Any comments anybody?

Natalie Portman was quite good as Anne IMO. Scarlett Johansson was fantastic as Mary.
And I don't think Anne was much of a bitch in the movie... I actually sympathized with her. But I think the problem was Mary's: she was too innocent. And Anne's "bitchiness" was sometimes directed towards her 100% innocent sister (which in my opinion was inaccurate)...

The Tudors / Re: New Showtime series about the Tudors
« on: August 13, 2008, 02:43:57 PM »
It was pretty cool. Anne of Cleves, played by Brigitte Nielsen, fights her way into England and kills Jane Seymour with her bare hands. No, wait. She kills her with ninja stars. Much more true to the period. She and Thomas Cromwell are revealed to be vampires, the last remnants of a blood cult that began in ancient Egypt. They congratulate themselves upon the success of their vampire plot, little realizing that they are being overheard by Thomas and Edward Seymour, who are actually werewolves belonging to the cult that has opposed the evil vampires for all of these centuries. The Seymours and Anne/Cromwell battle it out on the roof of Hampton Palace during a banquet at which Henry is seduced by Katherine Howard, who is actually a time traveler from the 34th century, sent back in time to discover the secret of Henry's incredible youthfulness. The Seymours manage to behead Thomas Cromwell (veracity! Everywhere you go, historical veracity!), and Anne accepts her defeat and retires to the countryside, where she and Mary Boleyn, the Other Vampire Girl, found Hogwarts. Meanwhile, Katherine has succeeded in seducing Henry VIII, and they are married. But at the wedding a mysterious woman arrives to stop the ceremony. She claims to be Anne Bolyen, and to have been spirited out of the execution in the Tower by a compassionate guard when her head was only half-off. She has now returned, determined to claim her inheritance as a former Queen of England.

I think Voldemort makes his first appearance in Season 3. I, for one, am very excited.

Oh! And don't tell me... both Lestat and Edward Cullen come to avenge the death of Thomas Cromwell! ;-)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26