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.

Even though he had declared them illegitimate, I dont think that EW would have ever stopped campaigning. I think killing the boys he could have stopped her dead, but he didn't want to kill them, so he killed her support instead. The boys were York princes, Rivers and Grey were just commoners. I think that it was a strong Hold on the throne for York that Richard was after.
EW plotted with MB after she had been told by Buckingham that her Sons were dead.

Richards son did die during his reign.

Elizabeth didn't marry because she would have had to hand her power to her husband. By playing the field she kept every other single royal hopeful. Kept them hanging, thinking she might take them as a husband. And she kept absolute power over England. She played the game well.
She also had her fathers terrible marriage history and the murder of her mother as baggage, and I think, that she was in love with Dudley and couldn't have him.
She had an heir, James of Scotland, the throne stayed in the family.
There is no proof that she couldn't reproduce. I just don't think she wanted to.

diddl you're right, Edward of Middleham died in 1484.

Personally, I think there is an element of panic in Richard's actions based on fear of the Woodville family/faction and what they might do if they could rule through Edward V. The Woodvilles were a large family and had done very well in land, titles and position under Edward IV but they were were not liked by the more traditional noble families. The difficulty in 1483 was that Edward V was 12 and so close to the age when he could in medieval terms have ruled independently. Richard II for example had effectively thrown off his minority council when he was 14. So in a short couple of years he would rule himself but it was reasonable to assume that his mother's family could still have a significant influence over him and his decisions as he had grown up with them (personally think this was an error of Edward IV).

I think Richard panicked, feared losing a lot of his position in the north. Yes, he was technically lord protector but an annointed king Edward V (in Richard's fears prompted by his mother) could have declared himself ready to rule and there wasn't any custom or precedent for a noble or council to seek to extend a minority contrary to the king's own wishes. And, the Woodvilles were urging an immediate coronation to eliminate the need for a protector. They would then have been able to dominate the king through his coucil and court. Richard, I think, acted believing the Woodvilles threatened his political and possibly personal survival.
Having taken the throne, I think Richard had the princes killed as they would always be a focus for rebellions - there was at least one in the summer of 1483 which I think would have prompted his hand.

[scurries off to re-read The Sunne in Splendour and will doubtless return a firm Ricardian]

Yes, that makes sense to me also.

I can see either Richard or Henry as likely as each other to have been behind the Princes deaths.

I think it's hard for us to imagine such violence & against ones own family.

George killed by Edward-& the plotting he did against Edward!

Is it such a step to think that Richard had the Princes killed?

diddl I put a as an understatement of the awfulness of killing anyone who happened to get in the way. Did it look like I was being sarky? sorry if so .

OK-I get it now!

Yes, life didn't seem to mean much to them!

Anne (Neville) going on about wanting revenge for her father's death-which she blames Elizabeth for(?)-yet her father had Elizabeth's father & oldest brother(?) killed!

It's the hypocrisy of it all.

I suppose Anne thinks her father's death mattered more, though because of who he was.

yes people didnt live long and the violence seemed commonplace so were they more immune to it?

I don't know about immune to it, as much as maybe realistic about the possibility? In this day and age, we have so much information available to us, but back then things were so different. No immediate communication to verify things, conflicting information and histories depending on who you spoke to, and suspicion and superstition. I can see why people sometimes reacted in a way that to us seems way OTT or hostile in order to protect themselves.

Yes, I thought the hypocrisy of Anne Neville wanting revenge for her father's death was interesting. But then, there's always differing view points, I suppose. It does seem as though her life, in particular, was always careening out of her control. I would imagine she probably didn't feel as if she had any control over her life until she married Richard.

Funnily enough, if it had been Clarence that was alive and not Richard, I wouldn't have doubted for an instant that he would put the princes to death. But Richard seems to be of a stricter moral compass - which again is a bit iffy when you consider the death of Henry VI.

I wish there was some way to find out the truth. I would love for them to unearth some documentation of some sort that clarified it once and for all.

Is this attack on the tower one of PG's "this is how it could have happened" bits or did this actually happen?

He basically had got fat and greedy and got a fever and died of not much.

In the programme last week it was explicitly shown that Elizabeth substituted a servant boy and sent her you get child away before he was taken away

Ooh this silly curse bit is clever, because of course both Henry and Richard's first born sons died, and Henry vii's did too. Hence Richard predicting the curse could rebound on Elizabeth woodville. Tripe but clever tripe.

I've just read the white princess.
Philippa Gregory runs with the idea that Elizabeth substituted Richard and that perkin warbeck was probably Richard. She also has the curse rebound on Henry VII as he kills warbeck/Richard and of course the curse is that they will lose a son and a grandson in infancy and the line will die out with a woman - Elizabeth I. As you say, tripe!

Although the way she writes Elizabeth woodville is more subtle and clever than the way the series portrays her. There is a big deal made that she never tells anybody that Richard is alive, even her daughter. She wasn't supposed to be blabbing it here there and everywhere.

I won't bother to finish reading that then Ehric! Thanks.

The deaths in these books are a matter of historical record. It's hardly ruining a historical fiction book for you to know that perkin warbeck claimed to be the younger son of Edward iv.

mmm, Richard iii is looking like a younger professor Snape, I can live with that

Oh I enjoyed it! Don't misunderstand me, but it's all nonsense :)

Oops I misread your post...I didn't think it was really possible to spoiler a historical novel? Everything I mentioned has been discussed up thread already too.

Ehric I think she meant you have in some way given away the plot of a book she is reading

Yes I'm quite aware of that. However, I refrained from commenting on the content of the book here, in case mention of PGs style of writing and individual plot twists spoiled it for everyone else.

That's nice. But I'm afraid this thread is about a tv series based on several books (none if which I have read actually) and reading this thread is quite likely to comment on those books and how the series has adapted them. So if you're going to get upset about that, it's probably better not to read it.

Oh stick it up yer jumper!

I can't get over how young they all were. Anne Neville was 28 when she died. Richard only 32. Edward 40, with 10 children. I guess life expectancy was much shorter but still.

Yes unusually most of the actors are much too old for the characters they are playing (certainly the ages they were in the early episodes). I suppose a 25 year old then wouldn't have looked as fresh as a modern 25 year old though.