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.

Exactly triggles, I don't mind liberties with history/a novel, but I hate it when characters completely change, not following a dramatic development, but just in order to move the plot along, iyswim.

I guess I just find it a shame that what is supposed to be a female-focused drama has fallen into the typical 'blame it on the pushy woman' trap.

Amanda Hale as Margaret Beaufort has done a wonderful job of balancing the scheming ambition of her character while remaining sympathetic, albeit mental - possibly because she has clear motives that haven't changed inexplicably throughout.

Yes, definitely. And also agree about Amanda Hale. I find myself liking the character grudgingly, because she has portrayed her with distinct motives, even if she wavers here and there showing sympathy. She's more realistic in that she's not just one dimensional - she is not just the "traitor" - she has other things going on as well.

I don't mind liberties with history either but Philippa Gregory bangs on and on and on about how accurate she is.
I don't know if she's ultimately doing this cynically or if she totally deludes herself.

I find it quite easy to forgive The Tudors because they made no pretence at being accurate, and in the process they got a few things right that other versions got wrong (eg an Anne Boleyn who discusses theology, supposedly because the actress playing her insisted).

I watched the last 2 episodes and my DS watched them also. While not accurate we had a good discussion on the wars of the roses, Richard and Henry Tudor and also discussed hangings and beheadings. Apparently they have done it at school last year and he could keep up with all the Richard, Edwards and Elizabeth's better than I could.

Goodness me, she claims accuracy? Heavens preserve us. Shakespeare didn't try and claim accuracy, and I'd hazard he still creates a better and more narratively coherent story in Richard III with all his composite characters and time-hopping.

That said I'm not looking for Shakespeare, just real characters, natural dialogue and a bit of fun.

Also, hate to say it while still harbouring an enormous crush on him, but does anyone else find themselves bursting out laughing at the lad playing Richard and his brooding panto-villain looks to camera? When he did his whole "Fetch my horses and best men!" bit, I nearly fell off my chair.

'does anyone else find themselves bursting out laughing at the lad playing Richard and his brooding panto-villain looks to camera?'

Yes.
They could have got away with the brooding actor if they'd toned down his style (brush your hair fgs!) and the way they filmed him. As it is, hard to take seriously.

Ok, so I've caught up with all of them on iplayer. What I have never understood is how Richard could claim the throne - even with the 2 princes illegitimate or dead, George's son edward would have been next in line as the son of the next eldest York brother. So what happened to him? Have googled but he just seems to be ignored ( maybe that's what happened then too...). It's driving me a bit mad though...

George was attainted so perhaps the act of attainder took the succession away from his heirs?
Attainders in the 16th c often removed nobility from the heirs so perhaps they can remove their place in the succession as well.

He was killed off by the Tudors. I think he had been held in the Tower most of his life.

I agree about Amanda Hale as Beaufort, she and Rupert Graves as Lord Stanley are an inspired bit of casting, I love watching them together.

Tunip - do you mean that Anne Boleyn did or didn't discuss theology in rl? (I thought she was interested in the new fangled Protestantism of the cool crowd).

She did in real life but it's very unusual to see in portrayals of her in films/tv; The Tudors is unusual in that respect.

This, from Wiki about Edward of Warwick:

After King Richard's death in 1485, Warwick, only ten years old, was kept as prisoner in the Tower of London by Henry VII. His claim, albeit tarnished, remained a potential threat to Henry, particularly after the appearance of the pretender Lambert Simnel in 1487. In 1490, he was confirmed in his title of Earl of Warwick despite his father's attainder (his claim to the earldom of Warwick being through his mother). But he remained a prisoner until 1499, when the pretender Perkin Warbeck appeared. A plot between Warwick and Warbeck for Warwick's escape was alleged.

On 21 November 1499, Warwick appeared at Westminster for a trial before his peers, presided over by John de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He pleaded guilty. A week later, Warwick was beheaded for treason on Tower Hill. Henry VII paid for his body and head to be taken for Bisham Abbey in Berkshire for burial.[6] It was thought at the time that Warwick was executed in response to pressure from Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, whose daughter, Catherine of Aragon, was to marry Henry's heir, Arthur. Catherine was said to feel very guilty about Warwick's death, and that her trials in later life were punishment for it.[7]

A number of historians have claimed that Warwick was mentally retarded. As Hazel Pierce points out, however, this surmise is based entirely on a statement by the chronicler Edward Hall that Warwick had been kept imprisoned for so long "out of all company of men, and sight of beasts, in so much that he could not discern a Goose from a Capon."[8] It seems likely that Hall simply meant that long imprisonment had made Warwick naive and unworldly.

Upon Warwick's death, the House of Plantagenet became extinct in the legitimate male line.

I assume also that George's execution as a traitor removed his son's right to ascension.

Then I read that Richard iii had made him his heir when his own son died.

So....George's son for King anyone?

Richard III claimed that the attainder on George Duke of Clarence also barred his son from the throne -but he was allowed to keep the title of Earl of Warwick because that came to him through his mother. He was kept in the Tower until Henry VII became nervous about all the plots that were going on (Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, and the Duke of Suffolk among others and finally had him executed.

x-post Saggy

Richard's heir-apparent at the time of Bosworth was John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, son of Edward IV's sister Elizabeth. After Bosworth he swore allegiance to Henry VII, but later rebelled and was killed at the Battle of Stoke. His younger brother Edmund, the Duke of Suffolk, also later rebelled, was captured and later executed by Henry VIII

George was attainted so perhaps the act of attainder took the succession away from his heirs?

I believe that is the case.

According to Wiki (however accurate it may be, I don't know)... His potential claim to the throne following the deposition of his cousin Edward V in 1483 was overlooked because of the argument that the attainder of his father also barred Warwick from the succession (although that could have been reversed by an Act of Parliament). Despite this, he was knighted at York by Richard III in September 1483

But also interesting regarding him.... (again, Wiki but it seems to correlate with other stuff I've read)

After King Richard's death in 1485, Warwick, only ten years old, was kept as prisoner in the Tower of London by Henry VII. His claim, albeit tarnished, remained a potential threat to Henry, particularly after the appearance of the pretender Lambert Simnel in 1487. In 1490, he was confirmed in his title of Earl of Warwick despite his father's attainder (his claim to the earldom of Warwick being through his mother). But he remained a prisoner until 1499, when the pretender Perkin Warbeck appeared. A plot between Warwick and Warbeck for Warwick's escape was alleged.

Ah, I see, that makes sense. I suppose a parliament could have reversed the attainder for him (as they seem to have been able to declare and reverse legitimacy) but as he was only 10 and an orphan he didn't have anyone likely to fight for him against his uncle.

On the swapping of the younger Prince for a servant boy- isn't that rather unlikely? He'd lived his life at court with his mother, so was probably more recognisable to the court, Richard III and Londoners in general than his brother who'd lived almost totally at Ludlow. I think Richard spent rather more time in the north than the TV show suggests but he'd have been at court often enough to recognise his nephew. I guess we'll never know until they allow more tests on the bones they dug up in the tower that could have been the princes. I know you can't keep disturbing bones for historical curiosity but I do wish they would now they have tests that could tell us so much more than the ones they ran in the 1930s!

I'm also likely the Margaret Beaufort and Stanley pairing - it's keeping me watching at the moment!

I watched this last night, and really enjoyed it, even though it was a bit grim at times. It was also really good to see Rory again, though it took me a while to recognise him, and I wonder who he left in charge of that big Pandora's Box he was meant to be minding.........

My understanding is a big part of the reason they don't want to test the bones is that the church wouldn't know specifically what to do with the bones if, in fact, it turns out that they are not the princes. And think of the uproar if one was one the of princes and one was not.

Was it really necessary for Henry VII for the princes to be dead? Or more so than for Richard III? For both there was the risk that if alive they had a claim to the crown - and as their illegitimacy was so easily overturned by Henry VII ( as easily as Henry VII"s own ancestors far more undisputed illegitimacy!) they were a threat to anyone else who claimed the throne.

Richard III declared them illegitimate. Henry could have left them so. He only declared them legitimate because he wanted to marry their sister. But he didn't have to marry their sister. he could have made a foreign allaince or maybe another English woman with royal blood to strengthen his claim. And in any case Henry's claim to the throne rested on his descent from John of Gaunt. He believed this to be the true line. Even if the princes were legitimate he would have believed his own claim to be greater than theirs.

I can't see Margaret Beaufort as the murderer, mainly because I think that's giving her credit for more power than she actually had. This program is told from the womens point of view and is making all the women seem more powerful than they actually were. Undoubtably they were all remarkable women, but I really don't think Richard III claimed the throne on the say so of his wife and mother!

Buckingham remains a possibility, but I wonder why he'd do it. Maybe to put either King (Richard or Henry) in his debt. Or maybe he had his own ambitions. But I know he didn't do it because there's no way Rory would murder two little boys

It would certainly cause a stir if they tested the bones and found that they weren't the princes or even boys or far older/younger than the princes!

Edward needed to marry Elizabeth to strengthen his claim. His claim on the throne was tenuous in the extreme. And all of the girls were in direct line. He united the warring families and united the country. If he had married a foreigner, the Yorks would have used Edward Warwick to continue the war.
In general, women probably had little power, but these royal women were different. Margaret married Stanley for power and position. It was a business arrangement. It was Stanley's betrayal that won the crown for Henry. I'd imagine that Margaret's influence had a lot to do with that.
Look at how Elizabeth Woodville used her power to put her own family members into positions of power and fantastic marriages.
I think that MB comes across, whatever you read, as fanatically behind her son. She was a very clever woman who insinuated herself into whichever situation aided her cause most. It was her work that that put Henry on the throne. A man with very little claim.
As for the Princes, Stanley was Constable of England under Richard, responsible for Tower Prisoners. He would have had the chance to kill or order their killing, and the motive. His wife wanted the throne for her own son. The princes deaths moved Henry much closer to the throne, so I think there is a good chance that she was involved.

Asheth, when they did a bit of work on the children's bones I think there was some doubt that they were siblings.

Perhaps this is what The Philippa is nailing this on!

Stanley was Constable of England under Richard, responsible for Tower Prisoners.

Do you mean Constable of the Tower Saggy? I've heard of that, but not sure what it means. Also, I thought the Constable of the tower was...Lord Brackenbury?
help!