I did enjoy that moment in the programme in which Gregory discussed how it was entirely possible that Anne committed incest with Rochford, before a cut to serious and respected historian Greg Walker addressing the camera and explaining (in nice terms) how ridiculous the theory that Anne was guilty actually is!
I noticed too. Mantel did something similar, referring to 'romantic novelists' or something like that. It was a blatant slap down!
I've said this before on other threads but philipa Gregory is known for getting basic facts wrong. As for Anne sleeping with her broth...it's been proven that they weren't on the same place as the conception.
I've also heard she tries to implement Henry V11 as Edward V murder, when in reality he never thought of the thrown until the last part of Richard 111 reign
I've said this before on other threads but philipa Gregory is known for getting basic facts wrong. As for Anne sleeping with her broth...it's been proven that they weren't on the same place as the conception.
I've also heard she tries to implement Henry V11 as Edward V murder, when in reality he never thought of the thrown until the last part of Richard 111 reign
I didn't know there were so many Richards.:eek:...;)
I've said this before on other threads but philipa Gregory is known for getting basic facts wrong. As for Anne sleeping with her broth...it's been proven that they weren't on the same place as the conception.
I've also heard she tries to implement Henry V11 as Edward V murder, when in reality he never thought of the thrown until the last part of Richard 111 reign
Henry VII's mother had been angling for the throne for her son since way before the end of Richard III's reign. There were also rumours Henry was also implicated in the deaths of the Princes in the Tower in his own lifetime.
There are plenty of historians who've considered either Margaret Beaufort or Henry VII as a prime suspect in the death of Edward V, the same as there are historians who believe Richard was responsible or someone from his retinue did it on his behalf but without his knowledge. A lot of them also subscribe to the theory that Richard, the young Duke of York, did escape the Tower.
There is very little evidence dating from that period of time so a definite answer on what happened to the sons of Edward IV is unlikely to ever be found.
Henry VII's mother had been angling for the throne for her son since way before the end of Richard III's reign. There were also rumours Henry was also implicated in the deaths of the Princes in the Tower in his own lifetime.
There are plenty of historians who've considered either Margaret Beaufort or Henry VII as a prime suspect in the death of Edward V, the same as there are historians who believe Richard was responsible or someone from his retinue did it on his behalf but without his knowledge. A lot of them also subscribe to the theory that Richard, the young Duke of York, did escape the Tower.
There is very little evidence dating from that period of time so a definite answer on what happened to the sons of Edward IV is unlikely to ever be found.
Who did you get that information from? The great historian Philipa Gregory? The only person who has the best motive for Edward V death is Hastings and Richard III simply let him off as it put him in a better position than Hastings for the thrown. RICHARD ONLY had Hastings killed when he accused the king of the murder. I still believe that Henry had no involvement in the death, as he had nothing to gain.
Who did you get that information from? The great historian Philipa Gregory? The only person who has the best motive for Edward V death is Hastings and Richard III simply let him off as it put him in a better position than Hastings for the thrown. RICHARD ONLY had Hastings killed when he accused the king of the murder. I still believe that Henry had no involvement in the death, as he had nothing to gain.
Don't be idiotic, Philippa Gregory isn't a historian.
However, actual historians including Paul Murray Kendall, David Loades, Eric Ives, Ian Mortimer, David Starkey, Derek Wilson, Thomas Penn, Antonia Fraser, Alison Weir and Geoffrey Elton among others have hypothesised on whether Henry VII or his mother Margaret Beaufort had not only the motive but the opportunity. There is no definite proof or conclusive contemporaneous evidence to put the finger on anyone without any shadow of doubt.
Also Hastings' didn't have a claim to the Throne at all. If there was one, it was spurious at best and came via his father's second wife, Elizabeth Percy, who was the great-granddaughter of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III so I'm not sure why he'd be any kind of a prime candidate to kill the son of the man he served faithfully for more than three decades (Edward IV).
Richard had Hastings executed because he believed he was conspiring with the Woodville faction as he shared the same mistress (Jane Shore, the late King's mistress) with Elizabeth Woodville's son Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset, and they were seeking to overthrow Edward IV's appointment of Richard as Protector. Which in itself was somewhat bizarre as Hastings and Grey were feuding over lands and rights in Leicestershire.
Perhaps the person with the most motive to get rid of the two young Princes that you meant was Henry Stafford, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham not Hastings?
He is generally considered the prime candidate for the disappearance of the two princes. He did have legitimate claim to the Throne, albeit via daughters or second sons, as three of his four grandparents were directly descended from Edward III and he fell out quite drastically with Richard III not long after the two boys disappeared.
As for motive, Henry VII had one of the biggest, he had repealed the Titus Regulus which had made all of Edward IV's children illegitimate when he married Elizabeth of York as a means of securing his claim to the Throne. Legitimising Elizabeth also legitimised both the Princes in the Tower therefore making Edward V the recognised successor and made Henry's claim null, especially considering that the Beaufort line had been specifically bared from inheriting the Throne when they were legitimised by Henry VI.
But, as I said before, there is no contemporaneous evidence to prove or disprove who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of Edward V and Richard of Gloucester (if he did indeed die in the Tower).
Who did you get that information from? The great historian Philipa Gregory? The only person who has the best motive for Edward V death is Hastings and Richard III simply let him off as it put him in a better position than Hastings for the thrown. RICHARD ONLY had Hastings killed when he accused the king of the murder. I still believe that Henry had no involvement in the death, as he had nothing to gain.
I fear your historical accuracy is as bad as your spelling. "Throne" please not "thrown".
Don't be idiotic, Philippa Gregory isn't a historian.
However, actual historians including Paul Murray Kendall, David Loades, Eric Ives, Ian Mortimer, David Starkey, Derek Wilson, Thomas Penn, Antonia Fraser, Alison Weir and Geoffrey Elton among others have hypothesised on whether Henry VII or his mother Margaret Beaufort had not only the motive but the opportunity. There is no definite proof or conclusive contemporaneous evidence to put the finger on anyone without any shadow of doubt.
Also Hastings' didn't have a claim to the Throne at all. If there was one, it was spurious at best and came via his father's second wife, Elizabeth Percy, who was the great-granddaughter of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III so I'm not sure why he'd be any kind of a prime candidate to kill the son of the man he served faithfully for more than three decades (Edward IV).
Richard had Hastings executed because he believed he was conspiring with the Woodville faction as he shared the same mistress (Jane Shore, the late King's mistress) with Elizabeth Woodville's son Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset, and they were seeking to overthrow Edward IV's appointment of Richard as Protector. Which in itself was somewhat bizarre as Hastings and Grey were feuding over lands and rights in Leicestershire.
Perhaps the person with the most motive to get rid of the two young Princes that you meant was Henry Stafford, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham. He is generally considered the prime candidate for the disappearance of the two princes. He did have legitimate claim to the Throne, albeit via daughters or second sons but three of his four grandparents were directly descended from Edward III and he fell out quite drastically with Richard III not long after the two boys disappeared.
You're right I meant Buckingham. And I was being sarcastic about philipa Gregory. but I still think both Henry and Richard didn't kill the king
I fear your historical accuracy is as bad as your spelling. "Throne" please not "thrown".
I was auto correct and I have read many books about the death of Edward v. I think Henry killing Edward is fantasy just like Richard killing Edward. I do believe both knew who did though
You're right I meant Buckingham. And I was being sarcastic about philipa Gregory. but I still think both Henry and Richard didn't kill the king
Of all the potential candidates the most likely one is Henry Stafford, probably on his own initiative and thinking that he could pin it on either Richard or Henry and strengthen his own claim to the Throne. The fact he fell out with Richard and then joined forces with Henry in the inaccurately titled Buckingham's Rebellion where he subsequently got utterly defeated and executed for treason seems, to me anyway, to be an indication that there'd been some reason for Richard to turn on him considering how much he'd relied and rewarded Buckingham over the years.
Of all the potential candidates the most likely one is Henry Stafford, probably on his own initiative and thinking that he could pin it on either Richard or Henry and strengthen his own claim to the Throne. The fact he fell out with Richard and then joined forces with Henry in the inaccurately titled Buckingham's Rebellion where he subsequently got utterly defeated and executed for treason seems, to me anyway, to be an indication that there'd been some reason for Richard to turn on him considering how much he'd relied and rewarded Buckingham over the years.
I agree with that. I'm always getting Hastings and Buckingham mixed up. I think Buckingham pushed it when he tried to blame Richard. Do you think Edward and his brother died together? It would of been very difficult for them to escape or remain alive to Henry's Reign.
EDWARD v brother was Richard of York.... his uncle is Gloucester
Yes, what I was supposed to put was Edward V's brother was Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, named after his place of birth and the title he was given as second son of Edward IV. I was typing and reading something else at the same time in my previous post.
I agree with that. I'm always getting Hastings and Buckingham mixed up. I think Buckingham pushed it when he tried to blame Richard. Do you think Edward and his brother died together? It would of been very difficult for them to escape or remain alive to Henry's Reign.
No I believe Richard escaped and either lived in obscurity in England or he went to the Low Countries and lived with his Aunt Margaret in Burgundy. I think Edward V died of natural causes in the Tower of London as he was, by some contemporary accounts, not a very healthy child. I think there is also a very slim possibility that he was Perkin Warbeck as well, although only a very slim one. Although he was dismissed as an imposter, Henry VII didn't have him executed until 1499 when he tried to escape the Tower alongside Edward Plantagenet, Duke of Warwick, son of the Duke of Clarence.
I think Edward V's death in the Tower was known to Henry VII and the wider court at the time because there was never a claim to the Throne by a "pretender" done in his name. The two main pretenders claimed to be either Richard, Duke of York or to be the Duke of Warwick (even though he was in the Tower!)
Simmnell the lad sent to the kitchens seems to be a better possibility than Warbeck, who kept changing his mind who he was supposed to be. If Edward died, by rights Richard of York would become rightful king, making it still impossible for him to escape. I think it's highly likely Richard was killed in the tower and Edward died of illness.
I also dispute the fact Richard had a changeling because his uncle had nothing against his mother. In fact Elizabeth trusted the uncle until the death of their elder brother. By which time both were in the tower
Simmnell the lad sent to the kitchens seems to be a better possibility than Warbeck, who kept changing his mind who he was supposed to be. If Edward died, by rights Richard of York would become rightful king, making it still impossible for him to escape. I think it's highly likely Richard was killed in the tower and Edward died of illness.
I also dispute the fact Richard had a changeling because his uncle had nothing against his mother. In fact Elizabeth trusted the uncle until the death of their elder brother. By which time both were in the tower
It was Simnell who changed who he was supposed to be, at first they tried to claim him as Edward V himself but then then decided that he would pretend to be Edward Plantagenet, Duke of Warwick.
Internet Movie Database suggests the first episode of this isn't due to air until Saturday 10th August. Mind you, this could well be wrong. As they said Series 7(2013) of Law and Order UK aired in May, and in fact it's still yet to be aired!
Looking forward to this, but based on my experience of reading histories of the period, I'll be downloading a few family trees so I can remember who's related to whom and which side they're on!
Sherlock, The Borgias, Being Human, Misfits, Parade's End, The Crimson Petal and The White, Ripper Street, Monroe, Secret State, We'll Take Manhattan.. to name a few.
Whose post are you replying to?
I don't understand why you've just listed those TV programmes.
People saying 'oh the cast is wonderful'. Really? Apart from Arthur Darvill I've not heard of a single one of them. What else have they appeared in? Hollyoaks? Emmerdale? Eastenders?
Comments
I noticed too. Mantel did something similar, referring to 'romantic novelists' or something like that. It was a blatant slap down!
I've also heard she tries to implement Henry V11 as Edward V murder, when in reality he never thought of the thrown until the last part of Richard 111 reign
The characters will be exclaiming "By Jupiter's cock!" a lot.:D
Henry VII's mother had been angling for the throne for her son since way before the end of Richard III's reign. There were also rumours Henry was also implicated in the deaths of the Princes in the Tower in his own lifetime.
There are plenty of historians who've considered either Margaret Beaufort or Henry VII as a prime suspect in the death of Edward V, the same as there are historians who believe Richard was responsible or someone from his retinue did it on his behalf but without his knowledge. A lot of them also subscribe to the theory that Richard, the young Duke of York, did escape the Tower.
There is very little evidence dating from that period of time so a definite answer on what happened to the sons of Edward IV is unlikely to ever be found.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/jun/02/why-were-watching-rebecca-ferguson
Don't be idiotic, Philippa Gregory isn't a historian.
However, actual historians including Paul Murray Kendall, David Loades, Eric Ives, Ian Mortimer, David Starkey, Derek Wilson, Thomas Penn, Antonia Fraser, Alison Weir and Geoffrey Elton among others have hypothesised on whether Henry VII or his mother Margaret Beaufort had not only the motive but the opportunity. There is no definite proof or conclusive contemporaneous evidence to put the finger on anyone without any shadow of doubt.
Also Hastings' didn't have a claim to the Throne at all. If there was one, it was spurious at best and came via his father's second wife, Elizabeth Percy, who was the great-granddaughter of Lionel of Antwerp, the second son of Edward III so I'm not sure why he'd be any kind of a prime candidate to kill the son of the man he served faithfully for more than three decades (Edward IV).
Richard had Hastings executed because he believed he was conspiring with the Woodville faction as he shared the same mistress (Jane Shore, the late King's mistress) with Elizabeth Woodville's son Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset, and they were seeking to overthrow Edward IV's appointment of Richard as Protector. Which in itself was somewhat bizarre as Hastings and Grey were feuding over lands and rights in Leicestershire.
Perhaps the person with the most motive to get rid of the two young Princes that you meant was Henry Stafford, the 2nd Duke of Buckingham not Hastings?
He is generally considered the prime candidate for the disappearance of the two princes. He did have legitimate claim to the Throne, albeit via daughters or second sons, as three of his four grandparents were directly descended from Edward III and he fell out quite drastically with Richard III not long after the two boys disappeared.
As for motive, Henry VII had one of the biggest, he had repealed the Titus Regulus which had made all of Edward IV's children illegitimate when he married Elizabeth of York as a means of securing his claim to the Throne. Legitimising Elizabeth also legitimised both the Princes in the Tower therefore making Edward V the recognised successor and made Henry's claim null, especially considering that the Beaufort line had been specifically bared from inheriting the Throne when they were legitimised by Henry VI.
But, as I said before, there is no contemporaneous evidence to prove or disprove who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of Edward V and Richard of Gloucester (if he did indeed die in the Tower).
I fear your historical accuracy is as bad as your spelling. "Throne" please not "thrown".
You're right I meant Buckingham. And I was being sarcastic about philipa Gregory. but I still think both Henry and Richard didn't kill the king
I was auto correct and I have read many books about the death of Edward v. I think Henry killing Edward is fantasy just like Richard killing Edward. I do believe both knew who did though
Of all the potential candidates the most likely one is Henry Stafford, probably on his own initiative and thinking that he could pin it on either Richard or Henry and strengthen his own claim to the Throne. The fact he fell out with Richard and then joined forces with Henry in the inaccurately titled Buckingham's Rebellion where he subsequently got utterly defeated and executed for treason seems, to me anyway, to be an indication that there'd been some reason for Richard to turn on him considering how much he'd relied and rewarded Buckingham over the years.
Yes, what I was supposed to put was Edward V's brother was Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, named after his place of birth and the title he was given as second son of Edward IV. I was typing and reading something else at the same time in my previous post.
No I believe Richard escaped and either lived in obscurity in England or he went to the Low Countries and lived with his Aunt Margaret in Burgundy. I think Edward V died of natural causes in the Tower of London as he was, by some contemporary accounts, not a very healthy child. I think there is also a very slim possibility that he was Perkin Warbeck as well, although only a very slim one. Although he was dismissed as an imposter, Henry VII didn't have him executed until 1499 when he tried to escape the Tower alongside Edward Plantagenet, Duke of Warwick, son of the Duke of Clarence.
I think Edward V's death in the Tower was known to Henry VII and the wider court at the time because there was never a claim to the Throne by a "pretender" done in his name. The two main pretenders claimed to be either Richard, Duke of York or to be the Duke of Warwick (even though he was in the Tower!)
I also dispute the fact Richard had a changeling because his uncle had nothing against his mother. In fact Elizabeth trusted the uncle until the death of their elder brother. By which time both were in the tower
It was Simnell who changed who he was supposed to be, at first they tried to claim him as Edward V himself but then then decided that he would pretend to be Edward Plantagenet, Duke of Warwick.
BBC White Queen Facebook page
https://twitter.com/BBCOne/status/341507400999792640
Whose post are you replying to?
I don't understand why you've just listed those TV programmes.
Oops - apologies, I was replying to this!