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.

He was Constable of England. He was responsible for who went in or out of the Tower prison. The constable of the tower was responsible for the actual Tower in the absence of the King. Prison Governor.

Right. thanks for clearing that up for me . So Beaufort and Stanley had proper legal access then to the tower and princes.

Yes.

The fact that the princes disappeared IMO is one of the main reasons why I think Richard had nothing to do with it. He'd already had them declared illegitimate. And far easier to simply suffocate them in their sleep or poison them and have it look like they'd died of fever or something, being able to produce the bodies. It would have looked like a natural death, and with fevers and such being much more deadly back then, nobody would have questioned it if the boys died within days of each other and it was claimed it was illness. With the bodies gone, all suspicion automatically turned to Richard.

Buckingham also had a rather tenuous claim to the throne (IIRC it was actually slightly better than Henry's - I must go look that up again), so he too would have wanted the princes dead.

As Margaret Beaufort and Buckingham were working together with Elizabeth to get Richard ousted, and they all had their own agendas from that. Margaret wanted her son on the throne, Elizabeth wanted her son on the throne, and Buckingham wanted the throne for himself. It's certainly no stretch to think that Margaret and Buckingham colluded (without Elizabeth's knowledge) to get rid of the princes - as they were both obstacles to their plans.

Yes, Buckingham had a claim as a descendant of Edward III's youngest son (York and Lancaster from older sons of Edward). He was legitimate although through the female line, so yes I think a better claim than Henry. I can't remember if his family had been deprived of some land/position after backing the wrong side at some point during the wars. I think that's why Buckingham was scheming initially at least with Richard in order to restore this, and later turned on him when he didn't get enough. Will have to check the details.

Stanley was the Constable of England and so in charge of the army. Richard III was clearly not suspicious of him, although he was suspicious Margaret and ordered Stanley to keep her isolated at home and gave Stanley her lands! If Stanley had any hand in murdering the princes then it seems likely that he felt it would put any King in his debt - Stanley was the ultimate turncoat - supporting whichever King seemed best in a position to reward him! It is unlikely that as early as 1483 he would do anything that would tie him solely to Henry Tudor, although he no doubt turned a blind eye to Margaret's plotting while making sure nothing could be attached to him if she was found out!

The Constable of the Tower was Robert Brackenbury - a close associate of Richard III. He had served in his household when Richard was the Duke of Gloucester. Could something as significant as a murder of two important residents happen without his knowledge?

But Buckingham was outwardly supportive of Richard III, so his access to the Tower would likely not have aroused suspicion from Brackenbury (or Richard III for that matter) until things had played out a bit further.

Ah, just read that Margaret's earlier husband Henry Stafford was the second son of the elder Duke of Buckingham, so she would have known the family well. The new Duke (Rory) was the old Duke's grandson and so Margaret's sometime nephew-in-law. The Buckinghams had been fervent Lancastrians which would explain their fall from favour under Edward IV

I like the WQ/DW cross-over references in this thread.

I don't really understand how attainders work. Can the king just issue them without any proof or reasoning? And can they be revoked just like that as well?

From what I understand, Parliament has to pass an Act of Attainder, so it's not just the king doing it, but Parliament generally does what they are told at that point and there isn't the same burden of proof there is supposed to be in a proper trial.

Thanks Tunip that way you could get anyone out of your way if you are king. Scary.

So what year are we up to in the programme? About 1483 or 1484? Just trying to get my bearings for next week!

Just caught up with last weeks. Think it said 1483 at the start, hence all the men have gone beardy. This was obviously either a major fashion in 1483 or is to show them aging.

I think the Sri

Just caught up with last weeks. Think it said 1483 at the start, hence all the men have gone beardy. This was obviously either a major fashion in 1483 or is to show them aging.

I think the series has got better now less about insipid Elizabeth and insipid Edward. I think TJ

Post

Sorry phone going mad!

I was going to say think they would have been really vibrant, strong and charismatic in real life to achieve all they did and a shame they were so dull here.

I quite like Anne's imperiousness and see it less of character inconsistency but more the product of a child of her upbringing and circumstances.

I find it hard to believe noone could recognise the swapped Prince. He would have to be so alike for this to happen.

I did chortle a bit at the coronation. There was hardly anyone there. Not exactly the King's Speech!

I don't think the swapped prince would have been spotted, how likely is it that any of the key players had seen him much? Richard lived in Warwick castle busyin himself basically running the north, dcs were a woman's job, I even wondered if the brothers would know each other as Edward was sent to live in wales at the age of 2. Would any of the people who had been close to Elizabeth w been allowed near the boys? If you were presented with a child roughly the right age and colouring who you last saw as a baby, would you just accept it?

yes I watched last 2 episodes on catchup. shame no one did circle time then ao they could talk about their differences . the violence is shocking.

felt sorry for antony woodville and particularly tom grey who was only looking after his
half brother , no trial. how come only the women had to do penance walk for being lose.

reading kingmaker dd. don't think anne was in court half the time. so overly obsessed with witchcraft whereas magaret beaufort isnt and stands firm in her christian faith even thogh she is a bit ott. clever use of bible to avoid letter being detected.

the Stanley's are intereating the way they get away with being neutral but rupert g very lord melchett.

Ah yes I liked MB's "that Bible has only been held by the Pope, and everyone knows that I am fanatical, so hands off!"

Finally got around to watching it.

So, all Elizabeth's children are illegitimate & not in in line for the throne.

So, why weren't they & Elizabeth sent off in exile somewhere?

After the boy Edward was taken to the Tower, did Elizabeth ever get to see him again?

I think in exile there was too much risk that those unhappy with Richard would rally round them and raise an army to invade, possibly with the backing of France or Burgundy (as henry tudor would in fact do). Better to keep them effectively locked up under close supervision.

Sadly, I don't think Elizabeth will have seen the boys again, certainly not if they were both dead before bosworth field.

So it was in Richard's interest to have them dead-as much as Henry Tudor?

Well I think so, although plenty would disagree with me! Edward IV showed how hard it was to rule with an alternative king available to discontented nobles. The princes may have been declared illegitimate but this was an easy matter to reverse by parliament (as Henry Tudor did) so the boys would always have been a threat to Richard. His hold on the throne was not an easy one, and more tolerated by most of the nobility than actively supported.

My view is he had as much reason as Henry to need the princes out of the way, and possibly more / Henry claimed the throne by right of conquest - although he married the York princess he was very careful not to base his claim on her descent.

It was certainly easier for Richard if the boys were dead. His motive as great as Henry Tudor's I would say. But given his apparent steadfast loyalty to Edward iv and his dying wish that Richard protect his young nephews must have given him pause for thought... Also, he could have planned a much better 'death' for them than any of the others.

I'm interested in the bodies found under the stairs. Shakespeare knew of this rumour, and I wonder how? I think because the Tudors knew the location of the bodies and this information was leaked.

I'm assuming the bodies found by Charles ii in the Tower are the princes btw.