Perkin Warbeck.. Was he, or wasn't he..

[perkinwarbeck]

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.

[ilyala]

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*

[perkinwarbeck]

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?

[ilyala]

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.

[perkinwarbeck]

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. 

[mcdnab]

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.

[perkinwarbeck]

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

[ilyala]

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.

[perkinwarbeck]

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.

[ilyala]

... which is why he's my favorite king

[perkinwarbeck]

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.

[ilyala]

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.

[perkinwarbeck]

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.

[perkinwarbeck]

... 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?

[mcdnab]

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.