History HubΒ permalink
Elizabeth Woodville, Queen of England
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
Hi folks,
I found in a book store here in Georgia, a book on Elizabeth Woodville. I am not that well acquainted as Minette or Andrew Spencer and others about her. So Naturally I was interested and purchased the book.
It is delightful. It starts with how Edward IV met our dear Lizzy. Her husband was the Chief of Cavalry on the Lancasterian army and had just been killed in the battle of Tauton. He father, another stalwart of the battle, had been badly wounded. As a result of being on the wrong side and backing the wrong King (Henry VI vs Edward IV) she had lost all her property and dowager rights. She was holding a petition in her hand when a very tall, blond man rode in her village. The king saw her with her two sons on either side of her, stopped his horse and descended. She was a tall woman but he was way taller than her. Their eyes met as she silently handed her petition. The king too was smitten by her eyes and her lovely blond hair.
He told his commander, Sir William Hastings to go ahead. He will go to her home with her for a drink of water and join up in a half hour. Hastings went ahead. The king went with her and found her family of Lancastrians charming and immediately accepted her petition. Then he asked her if she would walk with him in her garden. She reluctantly agreed. Soon the king was gazing at her and told her he had to go Fight the Percys and might be killed in the battle; would she grant him the boon of coming to him that evening. She said, "My lord I am a chaste woman and can not do anything to shame my family." The king said and she were long gazing at each other. The King "At least tell me that you do feel something!" Lady Elizabeth, very reluctantly, "Yes your majesty"
And thus begins the start of one of the biggest romances of English history and thus start so many events; The Rivers enmity with Hastings, the Princes of the Tower, the Rivers clan, Richard III, the whole of pre-Tudor history.
I am just a novice in all this, although an interested novice. Minette and Andrew will tell you all the detail and also Temperance. I just wanted to trace the beginning of this, what can you call, friendship, love affair; we will see where this leads us, as widow without any fortune meets the young, new Yorkist King of all England.
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
It sounds like a nice romantic story to me....
-
Message 3
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
That sounds like the "Mills&Boon" version!
It's certainly not the way that Philippa Gregory tells it in "The White Queen", not that she's necessarily more accurate. -
Message 4
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
Hi Tas,
As the others have said, the account you have read is the author's imaginative version of what might have taken place.
As far as I know, all that has come down to us is that King Edward IV was approached by the widow Elizabeth Woodville on the road and received her petition in which she was complaining that her late husband's family were not honouring their obligations towards her.
A few weeks later the King was in a meeting with his council, and one of his advisers suggested to him that he might soon see fit to begin the process of choosing a wife. The council was then stunned by the King when he answered that he was already married - to the widow who he had met on the road!
It caused great consternation, for the situation was unprecedented; Kings always married their own kind, not commoners. Also the choosing of a wife was supposed to be all bound up with international diplomacy (i.e. alliances).
As it happens, Elizabeth made an excellent wife and Queen.
Over here we have an archaeological programme entitled 'Time Team' (you would love it, I'm sure). About six months ago they covered the Woodville's ancestral family home in Leicestershire. They had been a significant family in that part of the land since the Norman Conquest. -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
Hi Shivfan, Raundsgirl, LairigGhru,
I have just read the next Chapter and it is indeed turning out to be quite a pot-boiler.
I do not know how much of all this is close to history and how much is the writer's imagination. The king, before he goes away, gets her to agree to meet him in the evening, alone. Although a widow, she is just 25 years old, and it seems she also falls in love with this very good-looking young man, so she agrees.
She waits for the king at dusk and soon he arrives alone. He tries to rape her and she somehow snatches his knife from his clothes and moves away. The king says, "It is treason to threaten your king!" She says, "I am not threatening you. I am telling you, I will kill myself if you approach me." The king backs off and wants to walk with her home. She says no, so the king asks her if he can walk behind her like a servant, and she agrees. He walks behind her until she gets home and then tells her he will never be back, because he has never been so humiliated. He walks away and she can hardly contain herself. She wants to run behind him. however, she overcomes her frailty and goes home.
It is turning out to be quite an interesting story. More later.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by alanpatten (U1866183) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
This marriage was the beginning of the downfall of the House of York. Elizabeth and her relatives became so avaricious, that they caused the split between Richard III (then Duke of York) and the Queen;s family after the death of Edward IV. This lead to Richard Duke of York, seizing the throne, which he lost two years later at Bosworth to the usurper Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII. The rest is anti-Richard, tudor propoganda.
Regards................Alan -
Message 7
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 26th August 2011
Hi Alan,
LairigGhru writes:
<quote> As far as I know, all that has come down to us is that King Edward IV was approached by the widow Elizabeth Woodville on the road and received her petition in which she was complaining that her late husband's family were not honouring their obligations towards her.
A few weeks later the King was in a meeting with his council, and one of his advisers suggested to him that he might soon see fit to begin the process of choosing a wife. The council was then stunned by the King when he answered that he was already married - to the widow who he had met on the road! </quote>
Something else must have happened between the petition presented by Elizabeth to Edward. That something seems to be the story of this book I am reading. I think Elizabeth must have been extremely shrewd in matters of the heart, or an extremely straightforward person, who wanted to preserve her chastity; hence the scene with the dagger with the King. The king goes off in a huff, having never been thus insulted, but having gone, must have thought about her and come back. She had opened her long blond tresses to him and he had run his fingers through; an extreme liberty in those times; so he was smitten.
And probably thus happened the strangest wedding in the history of England. As LairigGhru says further:
<quote>It caused great consternation, for the situation was unprecedented; Kings always married their own kind, not commoners. Also the choosing of a wife was supposed to be all bound up with international diplomacy (i.e. alliances).</Quote
The account of the book seems plausible; why else would such a strange match take place. I wish Andrew Spencer was there to inform us about how much is history and how much informed conjecture.
The fact that Elizabeth did not allow the King to have his way is I believe what sealed the marriage, just like with Ann Boleyn and King Henry VIII.
Tas -
Message 8
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Friday, 26th August 2011
Hello Tas,
I hope you are enjoying your book, I will have to look out for it, Edward certainly had an eye for a beautiful woman and E W is supposed to have been lovely and his roving eye brought a host of Woodvilles into power which caused a lot of problems. Did you know he is also supposed to have had plighted his troth with another lady before Elizabeth, a Lady Eleanor Butler, this caused a lot of problems later, also have you read "The Sunne In Splendour " yet, by Sharon Kay Penman? I just re-read this last book, I found it as interesting as the first time. All the best.
Gran -
Message 9
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 26th August 2011
Hi Gran,
I have not read much on the subject. As I said before, I am an outright amateur at English History. However ,I am a very interested amateur.
Much of what I know about this period I am thankful to Minette and to Andrew Spencer, and on the Tudors to Temperance. They are all three much better read than I. However, I have learnt a lot of English history on this board through discussions.
All the best,
Tas -
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 27th August 2011
The young King Edward IV asks Elizabeth's father for a muster of troops to fight against the armies of King Henry VI and Queen Margaret. Now these were previously Lancastrians, now they had become turn coats (Yorkists) and her father agrees to provide a handful of troops. His wife is an accomplished courtier and wise in the ways of the world. She counsels her daughters to go to see the troops off to war. They all happily agree. Elizabeth wears a grey dress, not very remarkable, but making her look like a real lady.
Soon the Kings colors are in the air, as he rides in. When he gets to her father he stops his horse and descends. Her father bows low, and says, "Sire, this is the best we could do, but they will fight for you valiantly." The king likes it and turns towards the mother and his daughters and smiles. Elizabeth, despite herself, moves towards the king and he also gets very close, as they whisper to each other. He says " I ca not sleep." She says, "I can not sleep either nor eat." After a few more words they decide it is love and the king asks her to marry him secretly. She agrees.
They are secretly married. The king forgets to bring a ring and she gives him a ring from her pocket. They retreat to a family cottage, just the two of them. It is quite a romance!
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
In the next phase of this saga, Edward IV is preparing to go to battle at Northampton with King Henry VI and Queen Margaret.
He is quite confident, but like a good commander, is making all the detailed preparations. he advises Elizabeth W to keep their marriage secret, should he die in battle. Then the Lancastrian King will take them back as Lancastrians. However, if she has any children, she should go for a while to Burgundy and lie low. If the child is a boy, he will become one of the chief heirs to the throne and she should keep him until he is old enough to claim the throne.
He advises her that her brothers, Clarence and Richard will help her in keeping their young son safe. Considering what happened subsequently, this seems like he trusted his brothers completely at that time.
However, mainly he promises to bring himself safe and sound for Elizabeth. They are both worried that his uncle Warwick is seeking an alliance with a French princess and will likely be against their marriage, But Edward is willing to risk his wrath.
Even if this is all the writer's imagination, it is so well put together, I can not imagine it being far from the truth.
Edward it seems, when young was a very dynamic king not like the Edward of Shakespeare's play Richard III:
Gloucester: "He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber to the lascivious pleasings of a lute." or
Clarence : "He hearkens to prophesies. And one of them said 'G' of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be, and since my name begins with 'G', he thinks it is me. Therefore he has appointed this guard to convey me to the Tower."
Tas -
Message 12
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
I read elsewhere that Edward IV died at the age of 40 years. Apparently he caught a chill or had typhoid or had a stroke. In the middle ages people died fairly young. If they reached 60 years, it was thought to be old age.
Many of the Lords died in Battles during the War of the Roses. In fact I understand there used to be a tacit understanding between the soldiers of both sides: "Kill the Lords and spare the Commons." A very useful and thoughtful attitude to the perpetual battles of the War of the Roses. It lasted over 30 years.
The Battle of Towton was the most costly for both sides and a lot of people were killed. There was a snow-storm during the battle. The Lancasterians shot a lot of arrows at the Yorkists, the Yorkist General asked his men to withdraw out of range of the arrows. Once the Lancastrians had exhausted their arrows, the Yorkist General asked his men to collect all the arrows and shoot them back at the Lancastrians. The Lancastirans had no recourse but to charge. They lost heavily. The most bloody battle on English soil to this date!
Tas -
Message 13
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
Dear Tas,
I've just written a long post about this subject now lost, I know not how! Gosh it takes the wind out of one's sails! -
Message 14
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Sunday, 28th August 2011
Mind you I have forced myself to read Philippa Gregory's "Red Queen" and am now loosing the will to live. Elizabeth Woodville is descended from fish and mermaids and Margaret Beaufort from Joan of Arc? What next? Why does History need facts at all? Apart from which they are so very badly written....Why oh why?!!!!
-
Message 15
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 29th August 2011
Minette, when composing any long post, if you first draft or write it on Word, Notebook or something similar and when it is complete THEN copy and paste the entire message into the MB reply box. This way there is no frustration with losing hours of work in thought and composition.
-
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 29th August 2011
Minette
You have my sympathies.. though I seem to remember you suffering from this before many moons ago, and receiving the same kind of advice..
But I know what you mean about "wind and sails". Having only recently come back from France I had the wind taken out of my sails a couple of days ago when I had not really noticed the little "windows update" icon and suddenly found an automatic shut down coming in the middle of a post.
To start again or not.
I must say, however, that I had been surprised that you had not yet really posted on this thread in view of your strong views and interest in this lady (or should that be merely woman?)
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 29th August 2011
Hi Minette,
I am really sorry that you lost that long post. It would have been so informative. Follow Island Dawn's advice and you will never have another similar frustration.
Most of what I know about his period of history, I have learnt from you, our mutual friend Andrew Spencer and Temperance.
The entire plot of this book seems so plausible. I was wondering if you would come and tell us how much is fact and how much is based on the author's imagination. LairigGhru has made a stab at that. It is obviously quite a story. A King, a conquering king, is smitten by this beautiful woman, who refuses to come to his bed in the evening, sort of spurns him and yet convinces him that the thing between them is genuine love.
Now he has gone to do battle with King Henry VI and his Queen Margaret and shis new Lady Elizabeth is waiting for him to come the victor and raise her as his Queen, the Queen of all England. What is she going to do with all that power? Will she use it to aggrandize her family's fortune, and create jealousy in the old Aristocracy, or will she use it for good, for the benefit of the people of England; that is the question.
In any case, a fascinating woman.
So even in America you can find a good book on English history. Yesterday I was at "the Avenue," a very fashionable and elegant open air mall about two miles from my home and looked in on a book shop. Its little section on history was loaded with books on English history. However, I can only read so much, so I will go back to the shop when I am ready.
Regards,
Tas -
Message 18
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Monday, 29th August 2011
Hi Minnette,
My commiserations about the loss of your work, and a theory about why it might have happened.
On several occasions in the past I have lost work through touching the "Tab" key whilst composing an email. I don't know whether it remains a 'no, no' to this day - maybe the system designers have made changes - but it certainly used to be one. -
Message 19
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Monday, 29th August 2011
I just tested that theory of mine and found that pressing the Tab key did indeed make the message fail. In my case it left the message visible, so perhaps I could have copied my message and thus saved it - perhaps not, however.
-
Message 20
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 30th August 2011
When King Edward is on his way for the battle at Hexam, he pauses with Elizabeth and their conversation is intimate. Her brother is lurking in the shadows and when the king has gone he berates his sister for letting down the family honor and behaving like a whore. She tells him she is married to him. He asks, "who were the witnesses?" "My mother and her lady in waiting" "Who was the priest?" "He brought the priest." The brother tells her that she has been duped, that that was no genuine priest; the king just wanted to get her in his bed."
They send out a servant to go and find out about the battle. Who won. The servant comes after several days with the news that there has been a great battle. That King Edward won and King Henry lost and Queen Margaret has run away to Scotland with her son, Henry's Heir Apparent.
This Prince Edward is believed not to have been Henry VI's son but some one else's. Although we are not sure about that.
Eventually Edward IV sends word to her father that he is going to come and dine with them and a little message to Elizabeth that he will sleep with her that night.
Tas -
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 31st August 2011
In the next phase of this saga Elizabeth Woodville is hoping for the best and ready for the least. A letter arrives from the king summoning her father, with the brothers to attend the court. Be it noted that her father is as yet unaware of her secret marriage.
The father departs with his five sons and they all arrive at the king's place. A meeting of the council is taking place and Warwick arrives with an agreement with the French king for the hand of a princess of Savoy for Edward IV. Edward nonchalantly tells the council that he is already married to Lady Elizabeth Grey. Her father is flabbergasted but hides his lack of knowledge. Warwick pulls the king away from the council into a room and there they are heard discussing in loud voices. At the end of a long discussion they come out, Warwick angry and the king confident and firm.
With this incident Elizabeth is now firmly on the throne of England. What a love; what a king; what a queen! More later.
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 1st September 2011
As soon as Elizabeth Woodville's mother got news of her becoming Queen of England, she started making preparations for her coronation. She invited everyone of the nobles, even from Burgandy, who was at all remotely connected with her family. She was already planing which of their family members would be married to which of the nobility. As Queen Mother, she was determined to squeeze every ounce of juice from her prerogative to provide patronage. Thus Sir William Hastings, the King's best friend and Lord Warwick, the King's mentor were both turned against the Woodville clan.
Elizabeth was shrewd enough to realize that Hastings was loyal enough to the King to accept any one of his choice, but she remembered his look of disdain towards her when she handed the king her petition. However, she was more worried about the Earl of Warwick, who she thought had been planning to run the King as a figurehead-monarch with himself as the power behind the throne.
Tas -
Message 23
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 1st September 2011
Her mother said to Elizabeth: "You will make a far better queen than Queen Margaret." She was the first Lady-in-Waiting to Queen Margaret. She thought Margaret was the worst English Queen ever and she told Elizabeth that Queen Margaret had had affairs and that her son, the Prince of Wales, was not King Henry's child.
She told Elizabeth to be just and fair to the people of England.
I suspect that even more than the Queen herself, her mother and her family were the cause of the general dislike of this parvenu family that had been thrust forward by fate to become so prominent.
Her mother told Elizabeth to get everything that she wanted in the first year of her power, else she would not have much power left.
Tas -
Message 24
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 4th September 2011
Hi folks,
I have been reading further about this remarkable woman who became Queen of England. it seems her mother was her chief Counsel. When she went to meet her mother-in-law, the dowager Duchess of York, she was very wary, but her husband Edward said to her, "What can she do?" This encouraged Elizabeth and she took her mother and her sisters with her. The Dowager treated her with disdain and did not even get up to receive her, the Queen of England. However, her mother was quite up to the task of taking care of the Duchess.
I did not realize that Elizabeth Woodville was older than her husband. Eventually the mother-in-law parted with Elizabeth with the understanding that she would call her "Mother."
Edward gave her a magnificent coronation, to make sure that everyone realized that she was now going to be the Queen. She went to her coronation with Warwick on one side of her and Hastings on her other side. As she walked she became quite nervous and grabbed at the arm of Warwick. Warwick said to her, " It is quite alright that she is a little nervous. She is a commoner; if she was a Princess she would be more accustomed to all these people bowing deep to her. She had to take off her shoes to approach the throne and then she was anointed and the crown was placed on her head.
Now she was Queen of England and everyone was bowing deep to her and courtesying left right and center. It is all a very interesting story and the deeper I go into it, I am hoping one of my mentors in history: MInette, Andrew Spencer or Temperance would step in and tell me if there is any historic evidence how it all went.
Tas -
Message 25
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 4th September 2011
Tas
I suppose the task of skimming through the Elizabeth of York and Monstrous Richard III threads is a bit of a daunting prospect.. But certainly Minette has written with great passion about this lady several times.
Is there not some kind of search engine facility these days? Just an idea.
Cass -
Message 26
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 4th September 2011
The Woodville clan came from just up the road from here at Grafton Regis south of Northampton. Lots of lumps and bumps. You can fit a visit in with the canal museum at Stoke Bruerne just down the road going north.
-
Message 27
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Sunday, 4th September 2011
-
Message 28
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 4th September 2011
Thank you LairigGhru, I read the entire website and they give a wonderful account of this remarkable woman; everything.
It is tragic how many sorrows she suffered and how she overcame them, twice going to sanctuary.
It is remarkable that Edward created her his queen Consort. If only Edward had lived just 4 or 5 years more and died at the age of 45. Then his son Edward V would have been old enough to assume Kingship, and there would not have been the entire question of King Richard III.
My book says that when Edward wanted her to be crowned as his queen, she went to the Tower of London and right away she did not like it; perhaps a premonition of what would happen to her young sons in one of its towers.
It is indeed poignant to think of the two young boys playing on its battlements and then being smothered in their sleep.
One can forgive Richard a lot of things, even the extra judicial murder of lord Hastings, but if he really caused their murder, it would be impossible to forgive him that.
I wonder what kind of king Edward V would have been!
Tas -
Message 29
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Hi Cass, Stanilic, Larig,
It seems that the author of my book was some how a witness to those times, so accurate has she been in all her accounts, crosschecked with history so far. I particularly enjoyed the website Larig gave me about Grafton, which had, in a nice summary, the account of Elizabeth Woodville.
Since you folks probably know by now that I am no historian, just an interested outsider, I have learnt several new things: One, that Edward was 5 years younger than Elizabeth. Two, that Elizabeth has been called the most beautiful woman then in England. Kind of like a younger man going for a beautiful older woman. Haven't we heard about that kind of thing elsewhere?
She seems to have liked Richard when she first met him at her Royal Banquet and was sending courses to him from her table. He was quite young at that time, like a young teenager.
It is indeed a very interesting story!
Tas -
Message 30
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Tas
Re beautiful "older" women I think that Eleanor of Aquitaine was probably older than Henry II ..
She had already been married to the King of France for long enough for her sister's adventures to warrant the planning and execution of the Second Crusade.. Interestingly the fact that she had not had any children did not put Henry off-- I suppose she had Aquitaine- and therefore the wealth that enabled Henry of Anjou to win his mother's civil war against Stephen. But perhaps her famed sensuous beauty was enough to persuade Henry that indeed the lack had all been with her husband.. And they did produce four sons- the last John I think when she was in her forties.. One would have thought that was quite exceptional then.
But in those pragmatic and practical days a woman who had already shown that she could produce healthy children removed one layer of insecurity.
Having read part of that website biography I was reminded that I am currently writing about the increasing role of legitimacy and lawyers - or as I put it 'the marriage of legitimacy and wealth" .
So I noted the matter of her losing contest over her initial dowry rights. Probably the other side had money to hire more high-powered lawyers. Probably as you have surmised had Edward IV lived long enough he would have been able to find lawyers to prove the legitimacy of the marriage and their heirs.. As it was Richard III got his hold on power and was able to do the reverse and at the least (if we go along with Minette and the Ricardians) illegitamise his two wards and nephews.
Cass -
Message 31
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Hi Cass,
Re beautiful "older" women I think that Eleanor of Aquitaine was probably older than Henry II ..Β
I think I may have been subconsciously thinking about that when I wrote:
Kind of like a younger man going for a beautiful older woman. Haven't we heard about that kind of thing elsewhere?Β
Tas -
Message 32
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Tas, the historical details can all be checked out, but I can't help thinking the author of your book has romanticised and sentimentalised it to a high degree.
'Might is Right' was the guiding principal of men and women of power in those days and they were pragmatic rather than chivalrous.
To be frank, I think it's 'English History for Americans'
When you have finished it, try 'The White Queen' by Philippa Gregory. Same characters, same story, but a different way of looking at it (though not necessarily any more accurate) -
Message 33
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Hi Raundsgirl,
We Americans do like our English history slightly romanticized. We do like a good, romantic story. One of our favorite tales in that of Camelot; another is about Robin Hood.
I will try to find that book "The White Queen" by Philippa Gregory and another book of hers, "The Red Queen". I wonder which queen that is about.
I am surprised how many books on English history are available here in far away Georgia on English history. I like this style of history; I like all the romanticism, largely because I am no historian.
All the best,
Tas -
Message 34
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Monday, 5th September 2011
'The Red Queen' is about Margaret Beaufort, Tas.
I can't agree with you about romanticising history, I'm afraid. People's real lives were far from romantic, they were hard and frequently brutal, especially ordinary people. To me, understanding what their lives were really like is the clue to understanding their motives. To romanticise them seems patronising; it diminishes them and makes them into stereotypes.. The more we know about how they really lived, the more real they become. -
Message 35
Posted by alanpatten (U1866183) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Tas if you like this type of book try the american authoress Sharon Penman. She puts a tremendous amount of research into her novels.
Regards.............Alan -
Message 36
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Hi Tas,
If you would like to find out how it was to live in the 14th century or so, you might enjoy reading Ian Mortimer's book, "The Time Travellers Guide to Medieval England'
I found it really enlightening
So glad you are enjoying these books, I do too although I am kind of running out of new ones to get my teeth into.
All the best
Gran -
Message 37
Posted by Small Town Girl (U1483784) on Monday, 5th September 2011
....Richard III (then Duke of York) ...... lead to Richard Duke of York, seizing the throne ....Β
Er ... Richard was Duke of Gloucester not York.
STG -
Message 38
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 5th September 2011
Hi Alan, Gran, Raundsgirl,
I have bought another book by an American authors. It is called "The Tudors" by G.J. Meyers. I have not read it yet. If it is half as entertaining as my book on Elizabeth Woodville, which by the way does not appear to be a novel; It is written in the first person by who else but Lady Elizabeth herself. If it is at all as good as this book I will enjoy it.
By the way why is she called Woodville; why not Grey? Before reading this book I never expected her to be such an interesting character. I had no idea she was older than her second hubsand Edward. I had no idea that Edward had died so young and probably of typhoid or a stroke. I had no idea that when Elizabeth was married and crowned Richard was a mere teenager and that Elizabeth liked him so much she was sending him choice dishes from her own table.
I used to think of Edward according to Laurence Olivier's version of Richard III, as an older ( Sir Cedric Hardwicke), rather lascivious man, who had a thing for Mistress Jane Shore.
I also thought that Clarence was older, from Sir John Gielgud's depiction of him, and that Edward was older during the Wars of the Roses. He appears to have been just twenty when he met Elizabeth Grey nΓ©e Woodville. One lives and learns.
You folks definitely have a very interesting history I must say, even without Camelot and Robbin Hood.
Tas -
Message 39
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 6th September 2011
Now that Elizabeth is Queen, she and Edward start creating a new nobility. She and her mother look the pedigrees of all the eligible nobles of the land; she starts marrying off her sisters, of whom there were a lot, to all the eligible members of the nobility. She marries her younger sister to the arrogant young boy who was the King's ward, the Duke of Buckingham, so she becomes a Duchess. Her father is created an Earl, Earl Rivers and her brother Anthony, who was calling her a whore and doubting her marriage to the king as the Marquis of Dorset. One match originally intended for one of Warwick's family she buys off with the promise of a greater cash reward.
In all this she is encouraged by the king who wants to create a new aristocracy only loyal to him; not to the White or the Red Rose. However, all this creates a lot of heart-burning among the established aristocracy. However, the queen carries out all her religious duties and to her subjects, I imagine alms giving, etc., and to the king she is the most loyal and loving wife. They have many children: two sons and a lot of daughters, one of whom, Elizabeth of York becomes the Queen of England in her own right by marrying Henry VII.
Now we have had two extremely long threads on all this, so I will go no further. I will only send a message if I find something new and really interesting for you all.
Tas -
Message 40
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Elizabeth's success at taking a lot of power away from Warwick makes him attempt a rebellion at the beginning of which Elizabeth's father and brother are taken prisoner. Before he knows it King Edward is also taken prisoner. Some how he advises the Queen to go to London to hold that town for him and prepare to go in hiding to very common people with her daughters.
He wants to place Clarence, the King's brother, on the throne. Unfortunately the people of England will not follow him and Elizabeth succeeds in going to London, where the people are enthusiastic about supporting her and their rightful young king
Warwick beheads both Elizabeth's father and brother. The king adopts a new tactic with Warwick. He is being held a prisoner at Middleham Castle. He pretends that he is the guest of Warwick and invites his council to meet there and carries out the country's business from the castle. Soon he convinces Warwick to let him go out hunting. One day he finds that his favorite steed is saddled up and made ready for him for hunting. He knows how fast that horse is. He runs away from the castle and arrives in London.
However, he advises Elizabeth to for the time being to swallow her anger and compromise with Warwick, as he will also. Warwick is lulled into an attitude of some kind of victory. Bellow the surface, a lot is happening to undermine him.
That how it is going so far.
Tas -
Message 41
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Tas, I've deliberately kept out of this, as I didn't want to argue with you, but I can't contain myself any longer!
The Woodville marriage was possibly the most disastrous union ever contracted by an English king - *if* it was legal which it very probably was not. Threats with a knife - attempted rape - a cunning minx (and mother) bargaining with a sex-mad teenager! Good grief - it's worse than the Tudors script! And it probably happened - drama maybe, but "romance"? I'm afraid not!
Elizabeth may have been jaw-droppingly beautiful and "as fertile as a stable cat" (to quote Philippa Gregory), but she she was *such* a poor choice politically.
PS She didn't have blonde hair at all. Do you remember Minette queried this on the old Elizabeth of York thread? That famous portrait of Elizabeth quite clearly shows her hair is red - gilt or gild (the word everyone quotes as "evidence" that she was a blonde) has an archaic meaning of blood-red.
In haste. Back later.
SST. -
Message 42
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Hi Temperance,
I am so glad you came in. I must say this is an engrossing story to say the least. She must have been extremely beautiful, whether Blond or not, to have such a strong effect on the young King Edward. She seems also to be an able tactician if she could hold her own against Warwick. I am particularly enjoying the character of Richard and his elder brother, Clarence.
Clarence was like putty in the hands of Warwick. I think Warwick would have got everything completely if he had succeeded in putting Clarence on the throne; his daughter would then have been Queen.
Was it Raundsgirl who said on this thread that this was not a romantic period at all, rather every one was coldly trying to get their way in this time, and she could not have been more right. It seems to lose one's father and brother as Elizabeth did and yet pretend to be on friendly terms with Warwick, is calculation carried to extreme.
I can understand why all the old established aristocracy was so much against the Queen; however, I had not realized that it was all done with the acquiescence of King Edward. He was not only a great General but also a great political tactician. I am just sorry that he died so relatively young. If only he had lived another 5 years, his son would safely be on the throne and the whole question of Richard would not have arisen.
I am doubly happy that I visited Middleham Castle, because during his short imprisonment, Edward was held prisoner there. I suspect Warwick let him get out of Prison, because the people of England were just not following Warwick's lead in placing Clarence on the throne or anything else. Better have the legitimate Yorkist King on throne then loose everything to the Lancasterians.
Tas -
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Tas
I suspect you -or accuse you- of having an Indian view of sex..
Nothing promiscuous about Krishna cavorting with the mikmaids etc..
I may have told you the story recounted by Gerald Durrell on a Zoo trip to somewhere like Borneo.. He fell in with a group of tourists from various places who got to discuss homosexualty and how normal it was among the Ancient Greeks etc.. An Indian gentleman had listened quietly to the conversation for some time before observing "Well. What I say is that a man must have a hobby."
In fact the obervation is quite relevant, for classical attitudes to sex surely were aroused along with other aspects of Classical Civilization during the Renaissance. The works of Renaissance artists pandered to the keenness of rich families to have all of the positive qualities of their daughter carefully portrayed in order that they would not have to be exposed in the flesh, as Thomas More recounts as happening in Utopia..
There it is such a rational place that a father would take a young man into the bedroom where his daughters were sleeping, strip of the bedclothes and reveal his daughters naked bodies.. Then the prospective suitor could make an informed choice.
In fact the book I read some time ago on Lucrezia Borgia argued that Lucrezia herself had been maligned by history.. I loved the story of her first husband- a really minor nobody who was in the family long enough to realise that, the way that they were rising in the world, he was an embarassment. He signed everything they could ask, and got out while he could.. Her subsequent husbands were not so lucky or not so intelligent. as the Borgias rose right up to the Papacy and cemented their positions by marrying Lucrezia to ever more powerful and useful husbands.
Like modern " girl power" sex was the currency with the widest reach, and if Botticelli's Venus rising from the waves shared the same face as his Mary it was because such beauty was only to be impregnated by Gods.. but a man can dream.
In Jane Austen's world marrying is often the crucial key to a young woman's future. But at least in that period of Romance and the Worship of Nature, it was possible to believe that a young woman might be loved for her beautiful nature and character..
But the Renaissance has been called the Age of the Eye, and it is very obvious that looking good and attractive was very important, and powerful men wanted wives that they could flaunt before other men who knew that they were out of reach...
So what about the Mona Lisa? It has been said that she was a rich banker's wife..Bankers keep their valuables safe and locked away, where they alone can see them from time to time, otherwise they might get stolen away.. But just a modest little portrait dear.. The enigmatic smile that gives nothing away.
Cass -
Message 44
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Hi Cass,
I suspect you -or accuse you- of having an Indian view of sex..
Nothing promiscuous about Krishna cavorting with the mikmaids etc.Β
That reminds me of an Indian soap opera which is doing the rounds right now. I saw episodes of it when I was recently in England, about a beautiful Indian girl, who marries older men and then steals their fortune. The Soap Opera is called "Looteri Dulhan" or "Bandit Bride."
What is the Indian attitude to sex and marriage? It is really difficult to say because traditionally in India, love follows marriage, and typically marriages are made, as in medieval England, when the bride and groom had very little choice. Marriages were made to improve the family's fortune. This is still prevalent in most of India.
Also it is difficult to generalize Indian culture because there are a host of regional cultures out there; every State has it sown culture, except that some things are common to most. There is another ingredient out there, the cast system. It is still quite difficult to marry outside one's cast.
Personally it does not shock me at all the Edward, when still young, was smitten by this very beautiful woman and married for love instead of an alliance with France or Burgundy. I suspect the established higher aristocracy of England were against Elizabeth because she out played them at their own game, as she ruthlessly married off all her sisters. None of the bridegrooms complained, I suspect because all her sisters were probably quite good-looking.
One of her brothers was married off to a Duchess of rather advanced years; he was married for the future prospects. Edward IV went along with all this, because he wanted to create a new aristocracy, loyal only to him. So as the Indian saying goes "If Bride and Groom are in agreement, then the priest has nothing left to do but to perform the marriage."
Tas -
Message 45
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Tas
Many thoughts come to mind with your post.. One being that as a male teacher I often found that girls from an Indian (mostly non-Muslim) background were far more comfortable about their beauty than their British counterparts, and it seemed to be connected with the fact that girls seem to be in some ways freer just to act naturally , make eye contact, smile and be friendly because they come from a culture in which sex and marriage- as you say- traditionally has nothing to do with such things.
Hence while posting earlier I was thinking of a song that I wrote this summer about a charming pupil whom I taught from the age of about 13 to 18. When she was in the Sixth Form someone (I always suspect someone who went on to be a Hollywood actor and film producer) wrote a list of very small books. One of them was my wardrobe, since I usually wore the same suit most days. The other was "everything that is not perfect about my body, nature and character" referring to this pupil whose beauty was indeed staggering- and a delightful, quiet and modest girl as well. After a degree in Philosophy and some journalism she became a TV fashion presenter- but the kind who did not need make-up.
When we finally said goodbye- after all those years when I had been her tutor, I remembered the experience of one of my friends from University, who was so attractive that blokes were likely to feel that she was "out of their league". When I mentioned it she smiled and said "I know how to let someone know when I am interested". She probably did. Though I am not sure that she was not a single Mum last time I saw her on TV. Beautiful women can often attract men who want a trophy wife.
This all has an Indian connection, for some years later- after an RE lesson which had dealt with arranged marriages in Hinduism, one of the girls came up to me after the lesson to say that there are advantages, because her sister had seen a young man at uni and was attracted to him, but he was doing nothing about it- and she was wondering whether she should not go the family route..
So, sticking my neck out as I do, I said that if her sister was a grown up version of her (c15 years old) she was probably very attractive, and young men often feel afraid of being "shamed up" in front of their friends when they try to approach a beautiful girl, who then spurns them. So I advised her to tell her sister to understand that the young man needed time to pluck up courage.. She beamed with pleasure. "Sir Thinks I'm attractive" [ I might have had letters of complaint from the parents of a girl from a different background]..And she kept me posted of the subsequent developments.. Giving me a cppy of the betrothal ceremony script and showing me photos. The two families had been only about half a mile from each other here in South London- and I have great hopes that they are happy. They seem to have had life worked out.
Cass -
Message 46
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Hi Cass,
Thanks for the anecdotes from your school-teacher background. They are indeed very interesting.
From my experience of marriages of Indian girls, I think the marriages of Indian girls to Englishmen or New Zealnders or Australians are typically very successful. However, I can not say the same for marriages of Indians with Indians, which are more often than not problematical for the bride.
I once read a survey somewhere that New Zealanders make the best husbands and Englishmen were among the top of the heap. I do not know how bona-fide is that survey. The sample included many married women.
In the context of the above discussion, I have the feeling that marriages in the middle ages should not be looked at from the point of view of a modern marriage. It is more like an Asian marriage. In India marriage is not just between two people but between two families and that is why the Marriage of Elizabeth to Edward meant that the whole Woodville family was acquiring new relations. If they got carried away it is understandable. After all they were marrying many stations above themselves. I understand this was the first marriage of a Commoner with Royalty. Now all America is very enthusiastic about the marriage of your Duchess Kate with Prince William.
People are even interested in her sister Pippa and our celebrity magazines are full of her doings and her fashion.
Tas -
Message 47
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 7th September 2011
Tas
Marriage to commoners potentially strengthens the current British Royal Family because the "Commons" have most of the power..
But from what I understand of the Woodville story, marriage into that family did not enhance the power of the Yorkists- rather the reverse.. By taking "nobodies" and elevating them to positions of power- replacing people of real power- the Yorkists fatally weakened their position. The power is within the person and not the post..
As a nuclear physicist in charge of a team you might appoint your wife to some high position, but if she does not have the power and authority in herself to carry out the functions you will end up doing her job as well as your own. In other words instead of your team supporting you and making you more effective, you will spend your time supporting them and -with your diivided energy and attention- will work less effectively yourself.
These are the kind of issues that came up and come up in teaching all the time.. When someone is appointed a teacher they are not invested with the authority and power to be a teacher that must come from within.
But it is true that the Yorkists are considered as beginning that process of weakening the nobility and becoming more reliant on the Middle Classes. This has suited the middle classes, who have written most of the histories since, but I have just been writing today that we tend to forget that people like Sir Thomas More, Martin Luther and Christopher Columbus were respected at the time because- though they were men of intelligence and new ideas they were still men associated with the virtues and strengths that people had learned to understand and trust during the Middle Ages. As one of the books that I am using puts it, this was an age of despotic kings and tyrants.. And the fate of despots and tyrants throughout history is that they need to watch their back.
Though you have expressed admiration for some of the progressive ideas of the Yorkists, people do not want to be ruled by kings or politicians who believe that they have good ideas and try to impose them. They want someone like JFK who says "think what you can do for your country not what your country can do for you", and who believes that they- the people- have good ideas that they are only too pleased to make use of for the public good.
Government is not a function of intelligence but of partnership.
Cass -
Message 48
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 8th September 2011
Hi Cass,
There is much in your message with which one cannot disagree. You do need able people to do the job. There is no substitute for that. I agree that some of the greatest minds of that age were extremely able people.
However, one alwsys needs to bring in new blood. If the old aristocracy always prevails, they become too complacent and it is as if it is their right to win, without doing anyhting. As against this, new people are much more hardworking at their job. They take more chances.
Thus with the new aristocracy of the Woodvilles. At the end of the day they stood firm for Edward IV and his heirs. It was the old established aristocracy that allowed Richard to disenfranchise the young King Edward V; people like Buckingham, while his uncle Rivers stood firmly at his side. The only one of the old aristocracy that sided with Edward V and stood by his side was the dead king's old and faithful friend Lord Hastings.
It is incredible that Hastings saw no danger to himself and went confidently into the council meeting where his death sentence was pronounced by Gloucester without much ado.
If only Edward IV had survived another decade, all would have been right. He never had sufficient time to build the new aristocracy.
Whenever there is a change of power, people make a run for seats of power; it is like a game of musical chairs, when the music stops. Every one was running for new seats; Rivers and Dorset lost out, as did Hastings. Unfortunately for the new King Edward V, Gloucester, Buckingham, etc. won out.
Going to Florida for a few days so I may not be on the board for a while. Take care all,
Tas -
Message 49
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Thursday, 8th September 2011
Tas, I've deliberately kept out of this, as I didn't want to argue with you, but I can't contain myself any longer!
The Woodville marriage was possibly the most disastrous union ever contracted by an English king - *if* it was legal which it very probably was not. Threats with a knife - attempted rape - a cunning minx (and mother) bargaining with a sex-mad teenager! Good grief - it's worse than the Tudors script! And it probably happened - drama maybe, but "romance"? I'm afraid not!
Elizabeth may have been jaw-droppingly beautiful and "as fertile as a stable cat" (to quote Philippa Gregory), but she she was *such* a poor choice politically.
PS She didn't have blonde hair at all. Do you remember Minette queried this on the old Elizabeth of York thread? That famous portrait of Elizabeth quite clearly shows her hair is red - gilt or gild (the word everyone quotes as "evidence" that she was a blonde) has an archaic meaning of blood-red.
In haste. Back later.
SST. Β Ooooh, Temperance, I luv it when 'nice girls' get angry! You should lash out more often - you're rather good at it, and it's much better for you than sitting there with your knuckles clenched and steam coming out of your ears...
-
Message 50
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Thursday, 8th September 2011
Dear Tas,
I feel ashamed that I haven't replied before. Not holidays and riots but children! Everyone is off to London. I've always believed that Eliz Woodville is the real "key" to the Richard III enterprise. When is a marriage not a marriage is just one question to ask during ths time, few do!
I'm afraid I've only skimmed the posts but believe SST has said something about the "romantic" meeting of Edward IV and Eliz Woodville in Whittlebury Forest. Just the other day I read they had met at "Saucey Forest"! Boringly knowing this area, the Forest I believe was meant, is actually "Salsey Forrest". Many pheasants have been shot there! And why don't these writers ever visit the places about which they write? Silly question.
Anyway...Having had to read Gregory's, "The Red Queen" (even now not ended!) my brain isn't well, is she really using irony or being ....Herself? Ye Gods! Badly written, inaccurate and daft! How can people take her seriously? I almost give up. But back to the romantic meeting of Edward IV and Eliz Woodville - as the traditional historians would have it. The rest would call it simply aggravated and attempted rape, infront of two minors, but back to the traditional story....So lovely!
We must follow traditionalist in all things. Goodness knows I've been ridiculed for not following this tradition, (Ricardian, revisionist, apologist) NOT that they are bullies who fear reason! And so to the "meeting"!
First of all Eliz W. met Edward IV with her "gilt" hair flying free. SST has already pointed out that "gilt" in this period was red/gold not simply blonde hair. Funny to think that this queen who was ignored in death by the old cow Maragaret Beaufort was probably the person who gave the Tudors/Twdwrs her red hair.
Gregory in her "Red Queen" (red for Lancastrian!) attempts to say with no shred of proof, that the dirty, smelly Welsh Twdwrs had red stubbly hair. Look at the portraits of Elizabeth Woodville! At a time when ladies plucked all facial hair, including foreheads, strands of red/gold hair still show! As they do with portraits of Elizabeth of York her daughter. More evidence no room to present it!
Edward IV was a new king when he met Liz Woodville, five years his senior and one thing we know about the Woodvilles was that they were handsome. Young kings are often dangerous, all that testosterone flying around Ed IV was not used to having women turn his "overtures" down. So enters the problem of marriage. When is a marriage a marriage? A contract of marriage is just that today. A binding contract. The fact of the matter is that Historians pick and choose.
For example it is written and accepted by all that Katherine de Valois was married to Owain ap Twdwr. This is impossible. Edward I and Henry IV both ruled that being a sub-species a Welsh person could not marry an English person, without intervention. Apart from the fact the King and council ruled that a Dowager Queen/Katherine de Valois could nor marry with out the Council's consent, (which she did not have to marry Owain ap Twdwr)it was not until Edmund and Jasper were accepted as Henry VI's half step-brothers that their father Owain was awarded the rights of an Englishman.
The meeting and subsequent "marriage" between Edward IV and Liz Woodville on May ist, never verified (Beltane the Wicca fertility right) until after their marriage by Elizabeth's mother, Jacquetta (the former Duchess of Bedford who faced death for witchcraft) has been traditionally accepted as a real marriage. Tradition enjoys tidy endings! Sod the truth. The very idea that Edward IV could have met the beautiful Lady Eleanor Butler in early 1461 and due to her piety could never have bedded her without the same secret ceremony as that he went through with Liz Woodville is simply too ridiculous! Such is History!
It must be clear, understandable and never questioned! Oh and romantic!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.