The White Queen

[ShadeofViolet]

Anyone else ridiculously excited?

I know Philippa Gregory's books tend to be a bit Barbara Cartland in places, and I hope the BBC havent increased it, but I still cannot wait to watch it.

also reading the kingmakers Daughter and George thinks Isabelle has been poisoned by Elizabeth and the Neville daughters think she is a witch. do you think there is any truth that Isabelle could have been murdered or do you think she just died?

Mad Madge, I reckon (Margaret Beaufort).

Here's the thing, Henry vi decided to reverse the illegitimacy thingy of the Edward iv offspring when he wed the eldest, Elizabeth, in order to marry a royal princess and strengthen his piss weak hold on the crown. By doing so, he would immediately create the oldest boy Edward King of England. Doh!

So the solution to this conundrum is to dispose of the Princes in the Tower and tell everyone that Richard did it.

I thought that she died a few months after childbirth-so complications from that?

Also another horrid henry thing is he claimed the throne from the day before Richard's death at Boswell Fields, and so created hundreds of York traitors who fought on his side. So he could execute them all .

Brutal.

And since Margaret Beaufort was the winner, she got to write the history books and blame Richard. I think that was what PG was trying to say in the documentary.

Who now? Elizabeth?

ummmm.

But by then-were the boys already dead?

Richard needed them illegitimate to take the crown.

But was there always a chance that whilst alive someone would want Edward as KIng?

Why did he hide them in the Tower?

I agree that Henry's need to have them dead was absolute.

But was Richard also falling out of favour by then?

He had a bigger army at Bosworth though, didn't he?

Although it was supposedly the Stanleys who won the day?

So maybe could have gone either way?

Sorry, pp was to alemci re Isabelle Neville.

I think MB had the biggest motive and I'm sure I read somewhere she had access to the tower from some nasty turncoat.

Richard buggered up Bosworth certainly.

The Stanley's deserted him - tho he should have guessed they might?

I don't know when the boys disappeared. Josephine Tey has it that they were still alive after Richard copped it at B. But I don't know what research led her to think that.

I don't know the order of things either.

Was thinking that the Princes were dead before Richard crowned, but it ain't necessarily so!

I suppose when they died might sway it one way or the other!

Although, the people who had henry 6th depsed-what was their claim for doing so?

Was Henry Tudor his nearest surviving male relative-if so I can see his claim from that point.

Although Mad Mags was saying that his destiny was to be King even when Henry6th son was still alive??

I'm sure he thought the Tower was the safest place in England to keep them in. Wrong again!

The boys were alive at the time of Richard's coronation. Some clergy chap close to Edward 1v Stillington came forward with the bombshell about previous betrothal making the boys illegitimate. This was decided in parliament I think, not just Riii cooking the story up by himself.

So the boys were no threat to Richard's rule.

oh I think the Henry 6 claim is weakened because of MB's own line to (busking here sorry) john of Gaunt was illegitimate. A pp explained it properly upthread.

So if the boy Edward could not be crowned as a result of his illegitimacy then one can argue that neither could Henry vi.

But when the boys were declared illegitimate, would it not have gone to George of Clarence-or was it whoever parliament decided on?

george had already been dropped into a vat of malmsey by then- allegedly. Now that I can imagine Richard having a hand in .

So it would be Richard next. Then George's son possibly?

"So it would be Richard next. Then George's son possibly?"

What, in the vat of malmsey??

Thought some of you on this thread might be interested in this in the Kindle sale

I think that if Edward's sons had lived they would have had a claim to the throne. They may have been declared illegitiate, but Henry VII is proof of how easy it was to make an illegitimate claim legitate. He claimed the throne (despite the illegitimacy of his ancestors) and made Elizabeth of York legitimate so he could marry her (thus linking the Lancaster and York claims) The princes were not much of a threat to Richard while they were boys, although there was always a risk that someone else would launch a claim in their name. But once they became men, then they would be a big threat to Richard. If they could get a faction and army behind them then they could challenge Richard for the throne and having disposed of Richard they could legitimise their claim as easily as Henry VII did.

They disappeared during Rchard's reign. it seems likely to me that he disposed of them.

Thanks for the link Rusty :)

A minor point, but would "Izzy" really have been the short form of Isobel in those days? Would it not have been "Belle"?

And Teddy for Edward?

Ye olde regrowth! Elizabeth needs to dye her hair lol

So who killed Izzy?