Richard 111 seemed to really love Anne Neville, and it's hard to imagine him poisoning her. I'm so pleased Claire does not believe an affair with Richard's niece, Elizabeth, took place.
Richard III was actually in negotiations for a double Portuguese match - a marriage with Joanna of Portugal and a marriage for his niece Elizabeth of York with Joanna's cousin, the future Manuel I. That is the match Elizabeth was probably writing about.
The “updated” letter doesn’t sound like something any sensible young woman of her station would write, and from everything I’ve heard about Elizabeth, she was a very sensible young woman.
The "She feared the queen would never die" part is particularly ludicrous to me. Wasn't it considered treason to say you were hoping for a monarch's death? Wasn't this literally one of the things Anne Boleyn was accused of at her trial, on far more flimsy evidence? And yet we're supposed to believe Elizabeth of York would have put *in writing* that she was rooting for the Queen to die? It's impossible to believe she would have written that unless you also believe she was a complete idiot.
You nailed it. Even a 17-year-old of the time, had she wanted the queen to die, would never have put such a thought in writing. Especially such a young woman in Elizabeth's still unsure position. Even if one could subscribe to the idea that Elizabeth and Richard planned to marry, they would have been working hard to keep the Nevilles loyal if possible, not angering them by wishing the queen dead. John Howard was intensely loyal to Richard, but would he have hidden evidence of treason against the queen from her powerful family? Doubtful.
Particularly a young woman who had just come out of sanctuary, who surely had noticed that her bothers were nowhere to be seen and knew that her position was politically precarious. After all, in just a few months, she had gone from being a royal princess and betrothed at one point to the dauphin of France (Louis XI reneged) to being considered the illegitimate daughter of a king--a huge fall in political status that left her quite vulnerable.
@@Luanna801 My thoughts exactly - if you really wanted to marry your uncle (was that even legal?), and possibly kill off your aunt to achieve it, I dont believe that a woman brought up following the War of the Roses (and still in troubled times), and in a royal household would have been so foolish to write it down in a letter, even if she was confident in the recipient of the letter. It could so easily have ended up in the wrong hands.
I read A Rose for the Crown by Anne Easter Smith and totally accepted her version of Richard and Anne. Richard's motto was 'Loyalty binds me' and he was very religious so I doubt that he would have an affair with any niece. His first love, according to the novel, was Katherine to whom he was honest, fair and loyal. Gregory's assertion of an affair with his niece has irked me.
@@margarettaft7362 Indeed she is fictional character based in a donation that Richard did around the year 1475 to a girl called Katherine Haute, a historian found the record and another donation to a girl called Alice Burg, so she considered that perhaps they are the mother of his children the thing is that the donation for Katherine was very low seriously low more a donation than a pension , in the rose for the crown he even gets a house for her and all but the fact is that there is just a donation for this woman , and was common of him and nobles in general to make this type of donations to widows, Alice Burg was a nurse for his nephew so is just a theory without evidence the same historian point this , Anne Easter also has a novel called this son of York where Richard III is the main character, and she added in this novel that he used to like his sister in law Isabel Neville then he loved Katherine this fictional character but at the end he loved his wife and he stayed loyal to her because she gave him the most happy moments in his life , entertaining her books but very very fictional like Philippa Gregory she herself said that has not evidence for what she writes.
Richard and Anne were crowned in a dual ceremony, the first time such had occurred in 175 years. Richard and Anne were raised together, like Richard's father (also a Richard) and mother (also a Neville). By contrast, it was a full two years before Elizabeth of York was crowned queen - not in Westminster but in Winchester. Henry VII didn't even attend the ceremony. The marriage of the roses was political. Odd that Elizabeth Woodville, who arranged the match, decided to wed her daughter to the enemy of her husband's house. Elizabeth profited naught by her daughter's marriage, and Henry VII had her placed in Bermondsey Abbey for most of the remainder of her life.
@@mattwilson50 yes, but she became the mother and grandmother and ggreatgrandmother, etc, of Kings and Queens of England. She committed treason with Margaret Beaufort to put Beaufort's son on the throne and he would marry EoY which happened. It's interesting that even though she and Margaret committed treason that Richard took Beaufort's many lands and fortune ( which she inherited from her father) and gave them to her husband, Thomas Stanley who betrayed Richard at Bosworth. Richard killed the Duke of Buckingham along with one with one or two more men ( I'm writing this from memory so please excuse my lack of memory) but not the instigators.
What a FASCINATING video!! Oh dear!! People do like putting two and two together and getting 10, don't they??!! Mind you, embellishing stories tend to make them more sensational and thus sell more books!! Oh well, the only people that know the truth about this matter are Richard 111 and Elizabeth of York herself, but unfortunately, they're not here to spill the beans, so we'll never really know the truth!! Thanks so much for sharing this, Claire!! XXXX
@@anneboleynfiles however, there was a Tudor faction active at the time--it wasn't like Henry VII just sprang up out of nowhere on the 21 of August 1485 to challenge Richard III. His challenge started as soon as Richard III claimed the throne. It was greatly to Henry Tudor's advantage to feed the rumour mill going about Richard III, see what could stick and see how much discontent could be stirred up. If not Henry Tudor or his mother Margaret, then one or more of their allies.
@@GrainneDhu it's interesting that even after Henry usurped the throne by having his men butcher Richard (whilst Henry sat in the back away from the fighting like a coward) and then stripping his clothes off and throwing him over a horse for the town of Leicester (where he's buried and who are profiting from his name) to see and heckle and hanging his naked body for hours in the August sun for all to see, but never blamed Richard for his nephews death. Come to think of it neither did Elizabeth Woodville. At least he like Richard had loving marriage and never a hint of adultrey.
@@l.plantagenet2539 I've always wondered if it wasn't a case of one of Richard's nobles who thought he was doing Richard such a good turn that he would earn the king's favour for life and Richard knew nothing of the deed until afterwards. An argument in favour of that theory are that Elizabeth Woodville never did denounce Richard III.
@@GrainneDhu I've never thought of that. This whole situation is complex because there's quite a few people that would have benefited from the Princes death. There's also no proof that the boys died in the Tower. There's a good chance he could have sent them away maybe one or both to his sister Margaret who was Duchess of Burgundy. We'll probably never know but I still don't believe Richard murdered them.
I think Elizabeth had a natural affection for her uncle because she kept some of his books and wrote her name in one of them. There is no proof that Elizabeth and Richard had anything more than a familial love towards each other.
I read somewhere that Richard III was trying to arrange a marriage with a Portuguese princess, as the Portuguese royal family had a superior line of descent from the House of Lancaster than Henry Tudor [ being descended from King Henry IV's full sister Phillipa, rather than his illegitamate Beaufort half brother. this would be his way of uniting York and Lancaster.
That is true and there are documents from the time which show this to be the case. The Portuguese princess was Joana of Portugal, born in 1452, the same year as Richard. She was an intelligent and highly devout woman, who, though she served as a regent while her brother and father were in Africa, wanted to join the church, which she did, dying in 1492 and later canonized.
@@melenatorr : later King Philip II felipe II of spain, was king consort of england and king of Portugal... his ancestor was King Henry II of england...., there are many connections via france, england, scotland, portugal....... check out usefull charts here on youtube...
@@jardon8636 I love Useful Charts and always tune in as soon as I can when a new video posts. Lovely and nicely researched. Yes, the various European royal lines are extremely tangled with each other. Going back a little further, Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Isabel, who was the daughter of Juan II of Castile, who was the son of Catherine of Lancaster, who was the daughter of John of Gaunt....
John of Ghent married Katherine Swynford after his 2nd wife, the Queen of Castile died. At the time of John & Katherine’s marriage their children were grown. John had the Pope legitimize them.
@@bonnieabrs1003 Yep, that queen of Castile was the mother of Catherine of Lancaster, queen of Castile. This was Constaza of Castile, the daughter of Pedro the Cruel. Her sister, Isabel, married Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. Their father Pedro had been deposed and killed by his half brother, Enrique de Trastamara, and with the marriage, John was backing a horse that might land him on the Castilian throne. This, of course, never happened, and the Trastamara line continued, in Castile as: Enrique II. Juan I. Enrique III. Juan II (husband of Catherine of Lancaster. I always call him "Juan Two".). Enrique IV (known as "The Impotent. His daughter Juana may have been his, or may have been the daughter of don Beltran de la Cueva, hence her rather cruel moniker, Juana la Beltraneja). Isabel. In Aragon, the line went: Fernando of Antequera. Alfonso V. His brother Juan II (not the Juan II of Castile). Fernando, who married Isabel. Jointly from Isabel and Fernando: Juana of Castile (aka "la Loca", but I contest the title). She was the elder sister of Catherine of Aragon. Her son, Charles was the first Hapsburg king of Spain. Maddeningly, for him (and one of Juana's few triumphs), she lived till 1555, the very year that Charles abdicated. Throughout his entire reign, Charles had to acknowledge his mother as his co-ruler, even though she was never allowed any power. In any event, John of Gaunt never did get to be king of Castile.
Kudos for not simply saying "No. Goodnight." It sounds preposterous. Surely there would have been opposition for a man to marry his niece? Also, he was supposed to have great affection for his wife. Sigh. Fiction is fine and all but I don't think Phillipa Gregory should be stating it as fact.
england was still catholic in those times and the pope could grant a dispensation between family members like cousins or aunt/nephew or niece/uncle, like in the case of the austrias though to be fair they got their endogamy to a whole new level but i believe that before that started (with charles I of spain) those dispensations have to be obtained even for second or third cousins.... also around the time elizabeth's father died and richard was king, suposedly when the ''relationship'' could have happened the popes were sixto IV (1472-1484) and inocence viii (1484-1492) who were not scandalous enough like rodrigo borgia, the pope who followed inocence, and by the time he was in charge richard was already dead. and also richard suposedly cared a lot for his wife
A possible solution to Henry VIII's succession problems was to marry his daughter Mary (later Mary I) to his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy. If I remember correctly, the Pope was on board with giving dispensation for this, but only if Henry dropped his suit and returned to Katherine of Aragon. Henry, of course, refused and the matter was dropped. I'm sure there would have been stout opposition to the idea, but the fact that both England and the Church even considered a marriage of half-siblings as a viable solution really says something about might be tolerated then. Especially when a marriage of former in-laws was considered incest!
@@VeracityLH I had forgotten about that! Goes to show that even divine rules can be ignored for money and politics, I think. I imagine Fitzroy and Mary would have been horrified!
This is what drew me to the ABF long ago. Claire always finds that balance between what we know, what we don't know, and what the sources are for her facts. 👍❤
The matching dresses to me are more an indication that Queen Anne may have been something of a mother figure to the young Elizabeth. Queen Anne had no daughters of her own and her only son had died, while Elizabeth had lost her father and become separated from her mother, so it’s not unlikely that a childless parent and a parentless child would find comfort in each other. The matching dresses may have been a way for Queen Anne to display her favor and affection towards Elizabeth, as well as potentially just being a cute thing for the two to do together.
I love reading Gregory's novels as 'what if?' versions of history. I love that this channel exists to explain why fictions like this relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York have come up to get included in books like Gregory's and to find out the fuller truths behind them.
Even when I think I've read quite a bit about a subject, Claire illuminates so many aspects of it that I did not know. I've hardly watched any video on this channel that didn't include some juicy tidbit or even an entire restructuring of view! And *always* carefully referenced. So grateful for this resource. Edit: thank you to the viewer for a really great question indeed!
Something that I love about Claire is that she is honest and direct about what is known and what is not known, she doesn't force any idea of her as many other historians, thanks for clearing this many people go with the wrong idea of what appears in a TV series just because two actors look good on TV, don't forget that Philippa writes functions and lives add incest to her novels, ,Richard III pointed the infidelity as a huge sin even before being king and he always show uncomfortable about this particular sin, his own bastards seem be born before his marriage and recognized, but the most important thing as Claire well say he would be complicating his own claim to the throne marrying Elizabeth, and by the way the chronicle of Croyland mixed personal opinions with facts so it's needed to take it very carefully.
Just have to say this again: I dislike Phillipa Gregory and any "historian" who drastically fictionalizes history and it's people. History, REAL history, is far more intriguing than some made up BS. Thank you Claire for speaking actual truth and shining light on what really happened in Tudor times. You're a real historian with real epicness
I like her books, but I do realise her books are Historical Fiction! I enjoy reading and I use books as an escape...so I enjoy popping off to some other world for an hour or two. But I understand, although I love Philippa Gregory's books, her works are romamticised and have things added to make the lives of the women we're hearing from, maybe slightly more scandalous than they probably were...
@@RoseTylerxx Yes I do find Historical Fiction books such as Gregory's great for escapism. I think they are great for introducing us to little known historical figures and inspire us to do factual research on them after
But she argues on her website that it's probable, like she also states in the author's notes of The Other Boleyn Girl that Anne was guilty of at least one murder, for example. When a novelist tells readers that what she is writing is based on fact and is either true or highly probable, then people will believe that.
@@anneboleynfiles Exactly! Whatever I may think of her inventing vile stuff about real historical people (especially women), it's fiction. When she says it's true tho, & claims there's evidence for it, but the "evidence" is deeply & deliberately innacurate (that letter!!), that's crossing a line.
We can speculate all we want ,for we do not know for sure what really was going thru his mind! But I do love your stories as I'm also very interested in the history! Thank you very much Claire!
Brilliant! Thankyou for a great answer to a great question, telling us what the actual evidence is! I already thought "zero evidence, 100% gossip, slander & invention", & as soon as you mentioned philippa gregory... Ugh. Fiction is fine (tho I HATE how she slanders almost all her female characters), but claiming it's real based on more-or-less made-up "evidence"- that letter, OMG!- is crossing the line.
Yes it was indeed a great question. Claire definitely hung Philippa Gregory and her theories out to dry in this video. Don't mess with the Ridgeway!!! 😂😅
Phillipa Gregory's work should be taken on at face value and appreciated as fun ( but inaccurate) fiction. Not taking away from her work or her ability to write a juicy novel but one does not put phillipa and the word "truth" in the same sentence when discussing her books.
You have to wonder how it got to the point where Richard was advised to publicly deny the rumours? What happened? Perhaps he considered the marriage for a short time and word got out? Having said that we are still talking about it today so I imagine it did not take much for the rumours like that to take off.
I think courts of the time were a hotbed of gossip and the jungle drums would have been rumbling loud with a salacious rumour like that. Also, Richards card was marked with many of the nobility by that point so they were probably spreading that tale to all and sundry.
This is a really awful assassination of both Elizabeth’s and Richard’s reputations. He most likely had her brothers killed, he called her mother a whore, and declared her and her siblings bastards. In reality, Richard was disgusted when these rumors came around. After Anne Neville died, Richard was looking into arranging a Portuguese marital alliance for himself and “a daughter of King Edward” (most likely Elizabeth). Additionally, they would have needed dispensations galore for such a union, which can still be heavily disputed. I wish Gregory would stop maligning historical figures like this.
Hi Claire! Good video as always ~~ and a very good question from a lady from Turkey with excellent English! The fact that Richard III would need a legitimate queen could not be questioned. But, like you said, if Elizabeth is legitimate, then so are her brothers, which blows Richard right out of the water. As to the burned book, I have to discount it as much of a source because of the multiple (many!) ellipses. I just don't like guesswork. Thanks for the video!
Richard III had watched his brother get away with marrying Elizabeth Woodville, the daughter of a knight and a widow with two children. Because the English public had accepted that unsuitable marriage, Richard might have felt that it would accept his own "unsuitable" marriage". The fact that the subject even came up proved that Elizabeth of York did not believe her uncle killed her brothers. I think that Elizabeth would definitely have married Richard III if he asked because she was anxious to be Queen of England.
@@Orphen42O Elizabeth Woodville was legitimate though. Her parents were married lawfully so although her marriage to the King was frowned upon it was still valid. It wasn’t so much the English public who disliked the marriage rather it was the nobles who viewed her family as upstarts. It was considered a ‘bad match’ because she wasn’t considered noble enough and her family had supported the Lancastrian cause, the court had wanted Edward to marry a foreign Princess to buy England a potential ally. It’s quite different from the King marrying a girl that he and parliament had declared illegitimate, he would have to declare her (and therefore her brothers) as legitimate which would undermine his claims - which is how he became King in the first place - and would basically be seen as confirmation that he had deceived the court. His popularity had already suffered greatly, the last thing he needed was to give people a reason to believe the rumours. There’s also nothing to suggest that Elizabeth was anxious to become Queen.
In recent history we have seen politically-motivated character assassinations (and attempted character assassinations) here in the U.S. that have given me a window into what was going on in the late 1400's when Henry VII lucked and blustered his way into kingship. I do believe that while Richard III is hard for us to understand from a modern standpoint (yes he may have had his nephews killed, for instance, but his brother killed his other brother), he wasn't any worse than any other king of the era. Henry had to make him look that way to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the public, and this has been passed down to us through the centuries. I'm still fascinated with the Tudors, though :)
If you go by possibilities, well I suppose anything is possible. Arguing from silence is a baseless argument. Thanks for putting this into perspective.
I agree with her about historical fiction. Phillipa Gregory's are so WRONG about the Tudors that I can't stand to read them. I reviewed on of her Tudor lies for Amazon, and when I gave it a bad review, someone who had the same response wrote in. Part of Gregory's York books are a little more closer to the truth.
I find it so strange that Elizabeth of York would be on such good terms with her uncle if she believed he had murdered her brothers. Maybe they weren't dead at that point yet or maybe she was keen on staying in Richard's good graces. At any rate, with the death of her father, Richard became the head of the house of York and perhaps she simply pledged her allegiance to him for that reason. At most, she might have had a crush on him as he was, contrary to how he is often depicted and how we usually picture him, a fairly young man during his reign.
Whatever she might have privately thought of him, it would've been extremely stupid of her to claim to be anything BUT loyal to him while he was king and in a tremendous position of power over her. If she in fact thought he murdered her younger brothers (and he had *definitely* had her older half-brother, Richard Grey, executed - that part isn't in question), she would likely have been far too afraid to say what she really thought in public, or where the wrong people might hear it.
Richard and Elizabeth were only 11 years apart - fewer than Margaret Tudor and her husband, James IV, King of Scots (who was once originally betrothed to Elizabeth's sister, Cecily).
Finally viewed this interesting video properly. A brilliant question. It was something I too had once wondered about but considering we know very little about Elizabeth, I did not expect it to be true. Probably unfair of Gregory to try and blemish the clean rep of Elizabeth. Out of all Historical Fiction books, Gregory's are the most far fetched. They are entertaining easy reads but it's wrong of Gregory to promote such false stories as fact in her notes and on her website. Claire certainly hung Gregory and her theories out to dry here. Don't mess with historical fact or you'll have Claire to answer to!!! 😂
🇭🇲🦘 In no way would King Henry VII ever agree to have married Elizabeth of York if she had previously had an affair with her uncle, King Richard III .... or anyone else, for that matter! I just don't believe it! So very pleased this myth is 'put to bed'. Although there were affairs during these times (and throughout the centuries) both Elizabeth and Henry were devout Catholics, and religion was a huge part of their lives. cont... I also very much doubt that Henry would have married Elizabeth if the rumours/gossip were true. No way, as he needed his new Tudor dynasty to be beyond reproach, thus his bride had to be a virgin. cont... FASCINATING VIDEO - I found out a lot that I didn't know before. Always do! Great question Sebnem - and Wonderful explanation Claire. "Thank you" both 💓👑👍
A great question indeed. I don't think being a devout Catholic would've stopped anyone having affairs but Henry and Elizabeth seemed very happy and devoted to one another. Quite sweet to think that Henry never took a mistress, mourned his wife deeply upon her untimely death and never remarried.
@@Shane-Flanagan Hello Shane. I never said being a devout Catholic (during these times) would have stopped Anyone having affairs. Of course there would have been affairs. I'm not that naive. cont... After all, look at ALL of the affairs that we know of (and may not no of) that Henry VIII had. Elizabeth Blount and Mary Boleyn to name Only Two. Unable to say "no" to this king, and then both of these women 'married off' to men he chose, when he was 'done with them'. It was very much a man's world. Even women of distinction and well raised, succumbed to the pressures of men (religious or not). They often had little choice in the matter. cont.... However, I Do believe that given all that Henry Tudor went through to gain the crown, and to begin the Tudor dynasty, that he would Not have married Elizabeth of York had she not been a virgin. His plan was for his marriage to be long lasting and as perfect as possible. His bride had to be of high status to 'unite' the country, but also she Had to be a virgin (and a devout Catholic). cont... I've seen other documentaries about who this man - Henry Tudor, the future King Henry VII, was. He was highly intelligent, brave and meticulous in his plans for his future AND the future of England. He was also very careful! cont... He knew that he had to ensure that who ever he did marry would help him to unite the country behind him. Any potential scandal, that Elizabeth of York 'may' have been King Richard III's mistress (let alone his next wife) would Not have 'sat well' with Henry, hence I do Not believe that such a scandal Ever happened. cont... I had tried to be more brief in my 'comment' about this Q&A video topic, but I obviously didn't explain myself very well. There have been affairs throughout the centuries and there are affairs now - whether you are religious or not! ... Bye for now Shane. I hope you are well! 👋
@@Lyndell-P Yes Claire is a true crusader for the truth. So good at separating fact from fiction and dispelling myth. BTW if I may enquire, how's your husband doing? A while back you mentioned he wasn't well
You are very right in suggesting that Henry Tudor had no qualms in marrying Edward's IV's daughter. Had she been having an affair with her uncle or worse had she been secretly married to him ( a conjecture which in the very least is absolutely preposterous ) Henry must have known about it and the roses would never have been united. Her letter to her uncle, which opened up a Pandora's box of controversies were , in all probability, an innocent urging to her uncle to expedite her betrothal , could be to the royal house of Portugal ( as has been suggested ) or to someone else. However , your meticulous research on the subject will have to be praised . All your videos are backed by a very well researched matter and flawless text . These days I long for seeing your cat in your videos . I have been lately reading Philipa Gregory's ' The Red Queen ' The story is interesting no doubt but everything in it mustn't be taken at face value. Kindly give your opinion on the mystery of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower . Can the guilt be pinpointed ? Thanks.
Follow up question. Why didn’t Richard III arrange a marriage for Elizabeth of York to someone loyal to him? Especially when he heard of the arrangement with Henry Tudor. Stop that alliance completely
@@isobelduncan Yes, and just think how convenient such a marriage would be. Elizabeth of York would have spent her life in Portugal, far away from England's shores. Richard, with a Portuguese Infanta for a bride, would have gained access to the wealth of Portugal. Truly, it was a Cunning Plan....
Richard had to make an embarrassing public statement in the Guildhall that he had not murdered his wife and did not seek to marry his niece. Whatever the actual facts of the issue, too many of his northern affinity did believe it and made a public denial necessary. The Nevilles, even in death, still had power. Anne Neville's death, reputedly during an eclipse, would have caused comment in a superstitious time (much like our own) no matter what the factual cause, which was probably tuberculosis. Much of Richard's power was from his Neville connections/affinity.
I think he definitely floated the idea of marrying his niece. There was far too much noise for it to have been a fabrication. Whether she was agreeable to such a match is the question but what choice did she have? She was in no position to say no to him or Tudor when he took the throne. I think what we can safely deduce is that they were definitely not lovers, she wasnt stupid and Henry VII would of had her in a convent, not mother to his children.
I love historical fiction in general and Gregory's books in particular. I never forget they're fiction, though, so I don't expect them to be historically accurate. We consume art for entertainment mostly, and if it helps to spark an interest in real events, we can study the sources, which historical fiction is not.
More importantly, and I’m surprised this wasn’t addressed, all those later “historical texts” were made by those employed by Tudors and Stuarts. You know, the descendants of the dude who beat Richard iii and was thus crowned king. So OF COURSE, such salacious crap came out for the purpose of denigrating the loser and rubbing the egos of Tudors descendants. Shakespeare’s take on Richards reign is the most egregious of all. Making him a hunchbacked and evil man who plotted his brothers death and killed his nephews in cold blood. When the truth was, he was a good leader and loved his brother.
I do not see how Richard III could have married Elizabeth of York (were he ever to have such an intention) without a dispensation from the Pope?? If sleeping with your future wife's sister was considered consanguinity (example Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn) then surely marrying your niece by blood would be an utter 'no-no'. Would love your opinion, Claire.
Kings who wanted dispensations usually got them, In the sixteenth century, Philip II of Spain took Ana of Austria, his niece, as his fourth wife. No one seemed appalled by this marriage,
@@michellerhodes9910 by blood. Maria’s mother was Phillip’s sister. There’s a few times that the Habsburg kings of Spain marry their nieces. And if I remember correctly, the kings of Portugal who’s nieces were often Spanish princesses!
There’s a list of orders for Christmas gifts like jewelry and cloth. Anne had a dress made or made a dress herself similar to her own as a gift for Elizabeth of York
I don,t believe that Richard poisoned his wife. He is not above slaughtering rivals and supporters of the young Princes such as Hastings or Antony Woodville, but when he strikes he tends to do it suddenly and without warning. Poison, I think, is beneath him as a man at arms and would take too long to kill a victim. Elizabeth of York has a good reputation as regards conduct and virtue. I can't see her wishing away Anne's life to marry Richard who after all had Anthony Woodville, her uncle, kille
Hi Claire, I used to enjoy Phillipa Gregory’s books until she began to go quite wacky doodle with the truth. A certain bit of ‘creative license’ is quite often used in books or tv programs but, out and out porky pies , is not acceptable. Thank you for a interesting video 🥶🥶🥶🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Actually, that's not true, Shane. If you read the author's notes of her books, read her website etc. then she does make claims about some of her questionable ideas being true, being based on real history.
@@anneboleynfiles She does indeed proclaim to base her books on historical research and not her fictional accounts. It's more like history according to P Gregory.
Richard and all of the people around this particular event are (as so many Historians will tell you were products of their time,) Greedy, Ambitious, Ruthless, Duplicitous and for the most part Amoral, High politics at this particular time was Obscene and deadly in its double dealing and standards. Don't for one minute think the people involved had any scruples at all. It would appear that Richard loved Anne and when there first son died (Edward of Middleham) both where reported to be distraught with grief, She had brought Richard much land and wealth and being a part of the Neville family much influence as her father was as is well known a very important part of this whole saga.(and managed to stay on cordial relations with Richard throughout Edwards and his father in laws troubles) The Problem with Richard and Henry Tudor marrying Elizabeth is she came with no real great advantage to both men, Richard had cast doubt on his brothers paternity and nor would the pre contract story stand up to scrutiny which made Elizabeth herself a bastard, and once Crowned it was a fait accompli for Richard, the same for Henry Tudor, once he had killed and beaten Richard he was king by right of conquest. The only use for Elizabeth was to add legitimacy to both men's claim to the throne and bring the country and certain factions together. As Richard's dynastic situation became worse, I think he was very determined to marry Elizabeth but was warned of by certain members of his council against the idea, I quote "The king was obliged ,having called a council together,to excuse himself with many words and to assert that such a thing(the marriage to Elizabeth) had never entered his mind, There were some persons ,how ever "who very well knew the contrary".Those in especial who were unwilling that this marriage should take place, and to whose opinions the king hardly ever Offered any opposition,were Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby,esquire of his body," In short Richard was told that before the mayor and commons of the city of London that opposition would not only be offered by words, but all the people of the North on whom Richard relied on the most would also be told , and would rise in rebellion against him and impute to him the death of his queen, daughter and one of the heirs to the Earl of Warwick, through whom he had first gained his present high position ,in order that he might, to the extreme abhorrence of the Almighty ,gratify an incestuous passion for his said niece. This is taken from Croyland and is interesting in that it shows even those closest to him and his main support base (the North) thought that he was capable of killing his wife and were suspicious of his character . this seems to be a recurring thing with Tudors ie Elizabeth I and Dudley perhaps. The question Did Richard have an affair with Elizabeth is a hard one to Answer, but I suspect Richard could have been persuaded if the opportunity arose, and he had always said he wanted to marry Elizabeth, The fact that she was in sanctuary must play apart as Richard must have seen her(perhaps lusted after her) and while in sanctuary she could have been forcibly removed if Richard wanted her close, but while she was there she was safe. An interesting question indeed.
Drama, drama, drama but unlikely to be true for all the reasons you enumerated. I've considered it highly unlikely that Elizabeth of York wanted to marry her uncle, Richard III. It seems much more likely to be malicious rumours that were being said about a far from universally liked king. And certainly, by the time Shakespeare wrote his plays, saying anything nice about Richard III was not exactly a politically wise move nor a commercially lucrative one under a fairly well liked Elizabeth I. Plus, it adds yet more shade to Shakespeare's outline of an incredibly evil character--from courting Anne Neville literally over the dead body of her first husband, it was a natural progression to lining up the next wife while Anne was ailing but still alive.
Very good answer to a very good question. You've done well Claire. Thank you for clarifying. I believe personally that especially a young girl would not sleep with her uncle whether he be king or not king. I enjoy your videos I do love history although England's history can be horrifying at times it is most interesting.
@@christopherbrown5409 yes I know that incest was common in that family. That's why Charles II look so odd with those legs. I had an uncle who married his niece. I have cousins who married one another including my own half sister. But Claire states that there is no evidence there was an affair
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this, I couldn't see Henry VII taking on his rivals cast off, and Richard was devoted to his wife. As usual P.G. is exagerating
Eh, nope. Don't buy it. Now I could see Elizabeth wanting her uncle, the King to arrange a marriage for her. I also could understand Richard wanting to marry Elizabeth of York to gain support, she was young, fertile, and she was the York heir with her brothers dead. However, I still don't think anything went on.
Right, Elizabeth of York falls in love with the man who stole the throne from her brother and possibly murdered both her brothers. Oh and killed her half brother.
I think Elizabeth had an embarressing teenage crush on Richard, richard was probably embarrassed by it...Rubbish that Richard would murder his wife...TB was killing millions.
I'm confused. As Ms Ridgway stated, Richard could have married off his niece in order to prevent Henry Tudor from wedding her to strengthen his claim to the throne. But, he did not. His actions, or lack of them is completely mysterious, unless you consider that he was prepared to marry her once his sickly wife passed on.
Actually, Richard 3rd purposed to a Portugese Princess, who accepted, but unfortunately found out that he was killed shortly after. If I remember correctly, she never did get married.
I think in that lost letter Elizabeth of York was asking Richard to promote her, Elizabeth's marriage to Manuel of Portugal. Let's remember that Richard murdered her maternal uncle Anthony Wydville and her half brother Sir Richard Grey. They were executed without a trial. I don't think she would of wanted to marry him. I would believe that Elizabeth had it in her to lead Richard on so she could escape England, if she had to.
No. Not just because she was his niece. (Such marriages had been given Papal dispensation). But Richard himself declared her illegitimate. I can believe he got rid of her brothers. Clare, have you ever read "The Murders of Richard III" by Elizabeth Peters? A mystery novel set in an English country house with a gathering of Ricardians. Wacky hijinks ensue. But I did end up reading about the Princes in the Tower. Also, have you seen Elizabeth R with Glenda Jackson.
Why should she have an affair with the man who killed her 2 brothers? I have heard that Richard III and his wife had a decent marriage and Elizabeth's marriage to Henry VII was a very happy one.
@@berenwarrior6276 Perhaps not and we should keep an open mind,but why did Elizabeth Woodville suggest to her daughter that she marry Richard , when if the two princes where still alive, they would be in line for the throne?
@@berenwarrior6276 Please read my comments at the top of the page and you will understand my point better, Also Which Elizabeth are we talking about, Woodville or York, I know it's tedious but it makes things clearer.
Guess again. Google avunculate marriage. There’s a long list on wiki. A.O; philip 2 of spain and his niece/ wife Anna of Austria, Maximilian 1 and Maria Anna of Austria , the parents of Adolf Hitler where uncle and niece
alison weir and amy license both historians, says def not .... the perspective is princess elizabeth of york was made a *royal Lady , no longer a princess by act of parliment under King Richard III her own uncle., the same act that claimed King Edward V was deposed and the marriage between Queen Elizabeth woodville and King Edward IV was illegal... later events of the death of his son and heir Prince Edward of middleham and his wife Queen Ann, but no actual evidence, also a possible papal dispensation, a new act of parliment to restore Elizabeth of York as valid..., as none of these actually happened, then its simply rummours, enough so that king richard II would publicly aknowledge them.... it seems nothing more than rummours,and fiction by philippa gregory..., also after the famous battle of bosworth, the subsequent marriage by proxy then in person with King Henry Tudor, and the dating of the monarch before the actual battle..., even later the new act of parliment to revoke nearly all of King Richard III acts of parliments and restoring the validty of Elizabeth of York, the subsequent delay.... of making Elizabeth of York Queen Consort directly.... the delay would make sense, to countess magaret beaufort mater rex, mother of the king, also to queen dowager elizabeth woodville..., otherwise... it would mean, a king by conquest of battle with a dubious welsh blood line, let alone distant royal lancastrian english blood line, marries a invalidated royal lady* who has no legitmate claims by act of parliment to even be a Queen Consort*... all of this was to invalidate King Richard III and any of his *yorkist successors, except elizabeth of york and her tudor children,,,,, despite the act of parliment yorkists were mostly loyal in york alone, Queen Elizabeth of york aunty Duchess Magaret of burgundy* York hosted and financed many campaigns against King Henry VII.... also quite what, Queen Dowager * Elizabeth Woodville and Duchess Cecily of York actually thought of all of these events..., no one , really knows... the mystery of the 2 princes in the tower? hangs like a shadow, of pretty much everything else....
The marriage of Edward and Elizabeth had lasted for twenty years and no one questioned it and parliament essentially said it was a matter for the church to judge. And Cecily was quite keen to prove her loyalty to her husband (which in turn, turned out to be a lie.) The fact that Henry Tudor won the battle of Bosworth Field and hence the crown by right of conquest was a legitimate act of succession and has been recognised before and since. The delay in the crowning Elizabeth of York may have been to ensure that nothing had happened to hear to invalidate the marriage (ie she was pregnant by another man). It didn't really matter about Richards successors, as he had named John de la Pole (The Earl of Lincoln) as his natural successor.
@@johnfisher697 : good overview john fisher, the war of the cousins or roses, is not very english, it was during the hundred years war.... also the civil war between the french royal houses- dynasties of capet & valois and the cadet branches.. as for queen consorts of england, most were french, queen magaret-isabella 1299-1358 from the capet royal dynasty related to King Henry I... Queen Philipa of hainauaut, Queen Isabella of valois, Queen Catherine of Valois, Queen magaret of Anjou up to 1471, french royal blood ran through both the kings and queens of england.... Queen Elizabeth Woodville from the house of luxembourg & woodville must have come as a almighty shock, that she was not french, same goes for queen anne of nevile 1483-1485... also King Henry VII not only had* welsh but also valois, visconti & witteslbach royal ancestors via Queen Dowager Catherine of Valois ... shakespeare was not only popular, but a royal *propagandist... find out more... @Brittainshiddenhistory ross... then new unkown and hidden history project...
This is a lie. Elizabeth of York was never intimate with her Uncle Richard. Think about it, Henry VII would never have taken the leavings of Richard III. Elizabeth was close to her Aunt Anne Neville. Also, as a Catholic nation, the Pope would NEVER give dispensation for a marriage between Uncle and Niece, who by the way was under an attainder.
I enjoy Philippa Gregory's books, but her historical stories are classified as Historical FICTION and should be taken as such. The only thing that is certain is Richard III's body was found under a car park in Leicester many centuries after he died and according to modern legend went on to lead the football team to glory!!!!! (Lol). LOVE the statue on your fascinating book shelves.
Richard 111 seemed to really love Anne Neville, and it's hard to imagine him poisoning her. I'm so pleased Claire does not believe an affair with Richard's niece, Elizabeth, took place.
Richard III was actually in negotiations for a double Portuguese match - a marriage with Joanna of Portugal and a marriage for his niece Elizabeth of York with Joanna's cousin, the future Manuel I. That is the match Elizabeth was probably writing about.
Exactly!
Yes! I agree.
yes!!!
I always take Philippa Gregory with a grain of salt. Like you said it does make good for a tv series, movie or a historical fiction novel.
Same, like the tudors and rein, I’ll watch or read and then do my own research x
Most of the fictionalized history productions need an entire salt mine!
The “updated” letter doesn’t sound like something any sensible young woman of her station would write, and from everything I’ve heard about Elizabeth, she was a very sensible young woman.
Poetic licence was definitely used!
The "She feared the queen would never die" part is particularly ludicrous to me. Wasn't it considered treason to say you were hoping for a monarch's death? Wasn't this literally one of the things Anne Boleyn was accused of at her trial, on far more flimsy evidence? And yet we're supposed to believe Elizabeth of York would have put *in writing* that she was rooting for the Queen to die? It's impossible to believe she would have written that unless you also believe she was a complete idiot.
You nailed it. Even a 17-year-old of the time, had she wanted the queen to die, would never have put such a thought in writing. Especially such a young woman in Elizabeth's still unsure position. Even if one could subscribe to the idea that Elizabeth and Richard planned to marry, they would have been working hard to keep the Nevilles loyal if possible, not angering them by wishing the queen dead. John Howard was intensely loyal to Richard, but would he have hidden evidence of treason against the queen from her powerful family? Doubtful.
Particularly a young woman who had just come out of sanctuary, who surely had noticed that her bothers were nowhere to be seen and knew that her position was politically precarious. After all, in just a few months, she had gone from being a royal princess and betrothed at one point to the dauphin of France (Louis XI reneged) to being considered the illegitimate daughter of a king--a huge fall in political status that left her quite vulnerable.
@@Luanna801 My thoughts exactly - if you really wanted to marry your uncle (was that even legal?), and possibly kill off your aunt to achieve it, I dont believe that a woman brought up following the War of the Roses (and still in troubled times), and in a royal household would have been so foolish to write it down in a letter, even if she was confident in the recipient of the letter. It could so easily have ended up in the wrong hands.
I read A Rose for the Crown by Anne Easter Smith and totally accepted her version of Richard and Anne. Richard's motto was 'Loyalty binds me' and he was very religious so I doubt that he would have an affair with any niece. His first love, according to the novel, was Katherine to whom he was honest, fair and loyal. Gregory's assertion of an affair with his niece has irked me.
Richard married Anne Neville With whom he grew up. And with whom he got along very well.
So who is this Katherine? Probably some fiction character.
@@margarettaft7362 Indeed she is fictional character based in a donation that Richard did around the year 1475 to a girl called Katherine Haute, a historian found the record and another donation to a girl called Alice Burg, so she considered that perhaps they are the mother of his children the thing is that the donation for Katherine was very low seriously low more a donation than a pension , in the rose for the crown he even gets a house for her and all but the fact is that there is just a donation for this woman , and was common of him and nobles in general to make this type of donations to widows, Alice Burg was a nurse for his nephew so is just a theory without evidence the same historian point this , Anne Easter also has a novel called this son of York where Richard III is the main character, and she added in this novel that he used to like his sister in law Isabel Neville then he loved Katherine this fictional character but at the end he loved his wife and he stayed loyal to her because she gave him the most happy moments in his life , entertaining her books but very very fictional like Philippa Gregory she herself said that has not evidence for what she writes.
Richard and Anne were crowned in a dual ceremony, the first time such had occurred in 175 years. Richard and Anne were raised together, like Richard's father (also a Richard) and mother (also a Neville). By contrast, it was a full two years before Elizabeth of York was crowned queen - not in Westminster but in Winchester. Henry VII didn't even attend the ceremony. The marriage of the roses was political. Odd that Elizabeth Woodville, who arranged the match, decided to wed her daughter to the enemy of her husband's house. Elizabeth profited naught by her daughter's marriage, and Henry VII had her placed in Bermondsey Abbey for most of the remainder of her life.
@@mattwilson50 yes, but she became the mother and grandmother and ggreatgrandmother, etc, of Kings and Queens of England. She committed treason with Margaret Beaufort to put Beaufort's son on the throne and he would marry EoY which happened. It's interesting that even though she and Margaret committed treason that Richard took Beaufort's many lands and fortune ( which she inherited from her father) and gave them to her husband, Thomas Stanley who betrayed Richard at Bosworth. Richard killed the Duke of Buckingham along with one with one or two more men ( I'm writing this from memory so please excuse my lack of memory) but not the instigators.
He had a daughter named Katherine and a son named John both illegitimate before his marriage to Anne.
What a FASCINATING video!! Oh dear!! People do like putting two and two together and getting 10, don't they??!! Mind you, embellishing stories tend to make them more sensational and thus sell more books!! Oh well, the only people that know the truth about this matter are Richard 111 and Elizabeth of York herself, but unfortunately, they're not here to spill the beans, so we'll never really know the truth!!
Thanks so much for sharing this, Claire!! XXXX
Thank you so much for that question! I have wondered about that, too. And, thank you, Claire, for putting the matter right!!
Ah Phillipa Gregory. Every Tudor historian's worst nightmare.
It was very popular to assasinate Richards character at the time.
This was during his reign, this wasn't a Tudor invention.
@@anneboleynfiles however, there was a Tudor faction active at the time--it wasn't like Henry VII just sprang up out of nowhere on the 21 of August 1485 to challenge Richard III. His challenge started as soon as Richard III claimed the throne.
It was greatly to Henry Tudor's advantage to feed the rumour mill going about Richard III, see what could stick and see how much discontent could be stirred up. If not Henry Tudor or his mother Margaret, then one or more of their allies.
@@GrainneDhu it's interesting that even after Henry usurped the throne by having his men butcher Richard (whilst Henry sat in the back away from the fighting like a coward) and then stripping his clothes off and throwing him over a horse for the town of Leicester (where he's buried and who are profiting from his name) to see and heckle and hanging his naked body for hours in the August sun for all to see, but never blamed Richard for his nephews death. Come to think of it neither did Elizabeth Woodville. At least he like Richard had loving marriage and never a hint of adultrey.
@@l.plantagenet2539 I've always wondered if it wasn't a case of one of Richard's nobles who thought he was doing Richard such a good turn that he would earn the king's favour for life and Richard knew nothing of the deed until afterwards.
An argument in favour of that theory are that Elizabeth Woodville never did denounce Richard III.
@@GrainneDhu I've never thought of that. This whole situation is complex because there's quite a few people that would have benefited from the Princes death. There's also no proof that the boys died in the Tower. There's a good chance he could have sent them away maybe one or both to his sister Margaret who was Duchess of Burgundy. We'll probably never know but I still don't believe Richard murdered them.
I think Elizabeth had a natural affection for her uncle because she kept some of his books and wrote her name in one of them. There is no proof that Elizabeth and Richard had anything more than a familial love towards each other.
Or she simply liked those books. Maybe she was bookworm, or those books were especially valuable.
Thank you for sorting that out.
I read somewhere that Richard III was trying to arrange a marriage with a Portuguese princess, as the Portuguese royal family had a superior line of descent from the House of Lancaster than Henry Tudor [ being descended from King Henry IV's full sister Phillipa, rather than his illegitamate Beaufort half brother. this would be his way of uniting York and Lancaster.
That is true and there are documents from the time which show this to be the case. The Portuguese princess was Joana of Portugal, born in 1452, the same year as Richard. She was an intelligent and highly devout woman, who, though she served as a regent while her brother and father were in Africa, wanted to join the church, which she did, dying in 1492 and later canonized.
@@melenatorr : later King Philip II felipe II of spain, was king consort of england and king of Portugal...
his ancestor was King Henry II of england...., there are many connections via france, england, scotland, portugal.......
check out usefull charts here on youtube...
@@jardon8636 I love Useful Charts and always tune in as soon as I can when a new video posts. Lovely and nicely researched.
Yes, the various European royal lines are extremely tangled with each other. Going back a little further, Catherine of Aragon, daughter of Isabel, who was the daughter of Juan II of Castile, who was the son of Catherine of Lancaster, who was the daughter of John of Gaunt....
John of Ghent married Katherine Swynford after his 2nd wife, the Queen of Castile died. At the time of John & Katherine’s marriage their children were grown. John had the Pope legitimize them.
@@bonnieabrs1003 Yep, that queen of Castile was the mother of Catherine of Lancaster, queen of Castile. This was Constaza of Castile, the daughter of Pedro the Cruel. Her sister, Isabel, married Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. Their father Pedro had been deposed and killed by his half brother, Enrique de Trastamara, and with the marriage, John was backing a horse that might land him on the Castilian throne. This, of course, never happened, and the Trastamara line continued, in Castile as:
Enrique II. Juan I. Enrique III. Juan II (husband of Catherine of Lancaster. I always call him "Juan Two".). Enrique IV (known as "The Impotent. His daughter Juana may have been his, or may have been the daughter of don Beltran de la Cueva, hence her rather cruel moniker, Juana la Beltraneja). Isabel.
In Aragon, the line went:
Fernando of Antequera. Alfonso V. His brother Juan II (not the Juan II of Castile). Fernando, who married Isabel.
Jointly from Isabel and Fernando: Juana of Castile (aka "la Loca", but I contest the title). She was the elder sister of Catherine of Aragon. Her son, Charles was the first Hapsburg king of Spain. Maddeningly, for him (and one of Juana's few triumphs), she lived till 1555, the very year that Charles abdicated. Throughout his entire reign, Charles had to acknowledge his mother as his co-ruler, even though she was never allowed any power.
In any event, John of Gaunt never did get to be king of Castile.
Great question and an equally great response! Thank you.
Kudos for not simply saying "No. Goodnight." It sounds preposterous. Surely there would have been opposition for a man to marry his niece? Also, he was supposed to have great affection for his wife. Sigh. Fiction is fine and all but I don't think Phillipa Gregory should be stating it as fact.
Sometimes I am tempted to say just that!
She's either delusional or has a huge ego complex.
england was still catholic in those times and the pope could grant a dispensation between family members like cousins or aunt/nephew or niece/uncle, like in the case of the austrias though to be fair they got their endogamy to a whole new level but i believe that before that started (with charles I of spain) those dispensations have to be obtained even for second or third cousins.... also around the time elizabeth's father died and richard was king, suposedly when the ''relationship'' could have happened the popes were sixto IV (1472-1484) and inocence viii (1484-1492) who were not scandalous enough like rodrigo borgia, the pope who followed inocence, and by the time he was in charge richard was already dead. and also richard suposedly cared a lot for his wife
A possible solution to Henry VIII's succession problems was to marry his daughter Mary (later Mary I) to his illegitimate son Henry Fitzroy. If I remember correctly, the Pope was on board with giving dispensation for this, but only if Henry dropped his suit and returned to Katherine of Aragon. Henry, of course, refused and the matter was dropped.
I'm sure there would have been stout opposition to the idea, but the fact that both England and the Church even considered a marriage of half-siblings as a viable solution really says something about might be tolerated then. Especially when a marriage of former in-laws was considered incest!
@@VeracityLH I had forgotten about that! Goes to show that even divine rules can be ignored for money and politics, I think. I imagine Fitzroy and Mary would have been horrified!
Your Tudor history is really the most accurate and most well researched I’ve seen.❤️😊🇬🇧
Thank you so much.
I agree
This is what drew me to the ABF long ago. Claire always finds that balance between what we know, what we don't know, and what the sources are for her facts. 👍❤
@@VeracityLH thank you! I do indeed try!
#respect 🙌
The matching dresses to me are more an indication that Queen Anne may have been something of a mother figure to the young Elizabeth. Queen Anne had no daughters of her own and her only son had died, while Elizabeth had lost her father and become separated from her mother, so it’s not unlikely that a childless parent and a parentless child would find comfort in each other. The matching dresses may have been a way for Queen Anne to display her favor and affection towards Elizabeth, as well as potentially just being a cute thing for the two to do together.
Tellement vrai et en plus, elles n’avaient que 10 ans d’écart, Anne devait aussi s’ennuyer de présence féminine
I love reading Gregory's novels as 'what if?' versions of history. I love that this channel exists to explain why fictions like this relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York have come up to get included in books like Gregory's and to find out the fuller truths behind them.
Even when I think I've read quite a bit about a subject, Claire illuminates so many aspects of it that I did not know.
I've hardly watched any video on this channel that didn't include some juicy tidbit or even an entire restructuring of view! And *always* carefully referenced.
So grateful for this resource.
Edit: thank you to the viewer for a really great question indeed!
Thank you!
Interesting. Thank you for asking the question and the answer.
Thank you Clare for providing solid historical facts!
thank you Claire for your reply, it seemed unlikely anyway but your reply with historical evidence clarifies the matter. Love from ankara :)
What a great question and answer!
Something that I love about Claire is that she is honest and direct about what is known and what is not known, she doesn't force any idea of her as many other historians, thanks for clearing this many people go with the wrong idea of what appears in a TV series just because two actors look good on TV, don't forget that Philippa writes functions and lives add incest to her novels, ,Richard III pointed the infidelity as a huge sin even before being king and he always show uncomfortable about this particular sin, his own bastards seem be born before his marriage and recognized, but the most important thing as Claire well say he would be complicating his own claim to the throne marrying Elizabeth, and by the way the chronicle of Croyland mixed personal opinions with facts so it's needed to take it very carefully.
This is an awesome video! Also I have to agree- Claire your videos are so helpful.
Just have to say this again: I dislike Phillipa Gregory and any "historian" who drastically fictionalizes history and it's people. History, REAL history, is far more intriguing than some made up BS. Thank you Claire for speaking actual truth and shining light on what really happened in Tudor times. You're a real historian with real epicness
I like her books, but I do realise her books are Historical Fiction! I enjoy reading and I use books as an escape...so I enjoy popping off to some other world for an hour or two. But I understand, although I love Philippa Gregory's books, her works are romamticised and have things added to make the lives of the women we're hearing from, maybe slightly more scandalous than they probably were...
@@RoseTylerxx Yes I do find Historical Fiction books such as Gregory's great for escapism. I think they are great for introducing us to little known historical figures and inspire us to do factual research on them after
@@Shane-Flanagan she wrote her novel wildcare is about terrible incest
I LOVE her books! Phillipa Gregory's books are how I became completely besotted with Tudor History! I know her books are FICTIONAL!!
@@joeamysmith4433 Yep the clue is in the name of the genre, Historical Fiction. Her books are what inspired me to research the Wars of the Roses
When the source is Phillipa Gregory that tells you all you need to know 🤣
But she argues on her website that it's probable, like she also states in the author's notes of The Other Boleyn Girl that Anne was guilty of at least one murder, for example. When a novelist tells readers that what she is writing is based on fact and is either true or highly probable, then people will believe that.
@@anneboleynfiles Exactly! Whatever I may think of her inventing vile stuff about real historical people (especially women), it's fiction. When she says it's true tho, & claims there's evidence for it, but the "evidence" is deeply & deliberately innacurate (that letter!!), that's crossing a line.
Gregory is a good novelist, but not a good historian. She not only blurs the line between history and historical fiction, at times she obliterates it.
Exactly. Can’t stand Gregory
@@anneboleynfiles what murder oh my god, when will she stop
Great question! Thank you for the book recommendation and all research Claire.
We can speculate all we want ,for we do not know for sure what really was going thru his mind! But I do love your stories as I'm also very interested in the history!
Thank you very much Claire!
Thank you Claire, I don’t mind most historical fiction but my reaction to the Richard Elizabeth had an affair is 🙄
Brilliant! Thankyou for a great answer to a great question, telling us what the actual evidence is! I already thought "zero evidence, 100% gossip, slander & invention", & as soon as you mentioned philippa gregory... Ugh. Fiction is fine (tho I HATE how she slanders almost all her female characters), but claiming it's real based on more-or-less made-up "evidence"- that letter, OMG!- is crossing the line.
Yes it was indeed a great question.
Claire definitely hung Philippa Gregory and her theories out to dry in this video. Don't mess with the Ridgeway!!! 😂😅
Thank you! So interesting💜
Phillipa Gregory's work should be taken on at face value and appreciated as fun ( but inaccurate) fiction. Not taking away from her work or her ability to write a juicy novel but one does not put phillipa and the word "truth" in the same sentence when discussing her books.
You have to wonder how it got to the point where Richard was advised to publicly deny the rumours? What happened? Perhaps he considered the marriage for a short time and word got out? Having said that we are still talking about it today so I imagine it did not take much for the rumours like that to take off.
I think there must have been quite a rumour mill.
I think courts of the time were a hotbed of gossip and the jungle drums would have been rumbling loud with a salacious rumour like that. Also, Richards card was marked with many of the nobility by that point so they were probably spreading that tale to all and sundry.
Impeccable research as always, Claire. Thank you. Really enjoy your work. My favorite channel for Tudor history.
This is a really awful assassination of both Elizabeth’s and Richard’s reputations. He most likely had her brothers killed, he called her mother a whore, and declared her and her siblings bastards. In reality, Richard was disgusted when these rumors came around. After Anne Neville died, Richard was looking into arranging a Portuguese marital alliance for himself and “a daughter of King Edward” (most likely Elizabeth). Additionally, they would have needed dispensations galore for such a union, which can still be heavily disputed. I wish Gregory would stop maligning historical figures like this.
I wonder if Richard forced Elizabeth married foreign prince
@@aparnarajesh Well, not a prince, as he had declared her to be a bastard, but he likely would have wanted her to marry as soon as possible.
Hi Claire! Good video as always ~~ and a very good question from a lady from Turkey with excellent English! The fact that Richard III would need a legitimate queen could not be questioned. But, like you said, if Elizabeth is legitimate, then so are her brothers, which blows Richard right out of the water. As to the burned book, I have to discount it as much of a source because of the multiple (many!) ellipses. I just don't like guesswork. Thanks for the video!
thanks
Richard III had watched his brother get away with marrying Elizabeth Woodville, the daughter of a knight and a widow with two children. Because the English public had accepted that unsuitable marriage, Richard might have felt that it would accept his own "unsuitable" marriage". The fact that the subject even came up proved that Elizabeth of York did not believe her uncle killed her brothers. I think that Elizabeth would definitely have married Richard III if he asked because she was anxious to be Queen of England.
@@Orphen42O Elizabeth Woodville was legitimate though. Her parents were married lawfully so although her marriage to the King was frowned upon it was still valid. It wasn’t so much the English public who disliked the marriage rather it was the nobles who viewed her family as upstarts. It was considered a ‘bad match’ because she wasn’t considered noble enough and her family had supported the Lancastrian cause, the court had wanted Edward to marry a foreign Princess to buy England a potential ally. It’s quite different from the King marrying a girl that he and parliament had declared illegitimate, he would have to declare her (and therefore her brothers) as legitimate which would undermine his claims - which is how he became King in the first place - and would basically be seen as confirmation that he had deceived the court. His popularity had already suffered greatly, the last thing he needed was to give people a reason to believe the rumours. There’s also nothing to suggest that Elizabeth was anxious to become Queen.
In recent history we have seen politically-motivated character assassinations (and attempted character assassinations) here in the U.S. that have given me a window into what was going on in the late 1400's when Henry VII lucked and blustered his way into kingship. I do believe that while Richard III is hard for us to understand from a modern standpoint (yes he may have had his nephews killed, for instance, but his brother killed his other brother), he wasn't any worse than any other king of the era. Henry had to make him look that way to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the public, and this has been passed down to us through the centuries. I'm still fascinated with the Tudors, though :)
If you go by possibilities, well I suppose anything is possible. Arguing from silence is a baseless argument. Thanks for putting this into perspective.
I agree with her about historical fiction. Phillipa Gregory's are so WRONG about the Tudors that I can't stand to read them. I reviewed on of her Tudor lies for Amazon, and when I gave it a bad review, someone who had the same response wrote in.
Part of Gregory's York books are a little more closer to the truth.
I find it so strange that Elizabeth of York would be on such good terms with her uncle if she believed he had murdered her brothers. Maybe they weren't dead at that point yet or maybe she was keen on staying in Richard's good graces. At any rate, with the death of her father, Richard became the head of the house of York and perhaps she simply pledged her allegiance to him for that reason. At most, she might have had a crush on him as he was, contrary to how he is often depicted and how we usually picture him, a fairly young man during his reign.
Whatever she might have privately thought of him, it would've been extremely stupid of her to claim to be anything BUT loyal to him while he was king and in a tremendous position of power over her. If she in fact thought he murdered her younger brothers (and he had *definitely* had her older half-brother, Richard Grey, executed - that part isn't in question), she would likely have been far too afraid to say what she really thought in public, or where the wrong people might hear it.
Yes, whatever he personal thoughts, she would have had to have shown loyalty to him.
Richard and Elizabeth were only 11 years apart - fewer than Margaret Tudor and her husband, James IV, King of Scots (who was once originally betrothed to Elizabeth's sister, Cecily).
Finally viewed this interesting video properly. A brilliant question. It was something I too had once wondered about but considering we know very little about Elizabeth, I did not expect it to be true. Probably unfair of Gregory to try and blemish the clean rep of Elizabeth. Out of all Historical Fiction books, Gregory's are the most far fetched. They are entertaining easy reads but it's wrong of Gregory to promote such false stories as fact in her notes and on her website. Claire certainly hung Gregory and her theories out to dry here. Don't mess with historical fact or you'll have Claire to answer to!!! 😂
Claire, the epitome of accuracy! ❤
🇭🇲🦘 In no way would King Henry VII ever agree to have married Elizabeth of York if she had previously had an affair with her uncle, King Richard III
.... or anyone else, for that matter! I just don't believe it! So very pleased this myth is 'put to bed'. Although there were affairs during these times (and throughout the centuries) both Elizabeth and Henry were devout Catholics, and religion was a huge part of their lives. cont...
I also very much doubt that Henry would have married Elizabeth if the rumours/gossip were true. No way, as he needed his new Tudor dynasty to be beyond reproach, thus his bride had to be a virgin. cont...
FASCINATING VIDEO - I found out a lot that I didn't know before. Always do!
Great question Sebnem - and Wonderful explanation Claire. "Thank you" both 💓👑👍
A great question indeed.
I don't think being a devout Catholic would've stopped anyone having affairs but Henry and Elizabeth seemed very happy and devoted to one another. Quite sweet to think that Henry never took a mistress, mourned his wife deeply upon her untimely death and never remarried.
@@Shane-Flanagan Hello Shane. I never said being a devout Catholic (during these times) would have stopped Anyone having affairs. Of course there would have been affairs. I'm not that naive. cont...
After all, look at ALL of the affairs that we know of (and may not no of) that Henry VIII had. Elizabeth Blount and Mary Boleyn to name Only Two. Unable to say "no" to this king, and then both of these women 'married off' to men he chose, when he was 'done with them'. It was very much a man's world. Even women of distinction and well raised, succumbed to the pressures of men (religious or not). They often had little choice in the matter. cont....
However, I Do believe that given all that Henry Tudor went through to gain the crown, and to begin the Tudor dynasty, that he would Not have married Elizabeth of York had she not been a virgin. His plan was for his marriage to be long lasting and as perfect as possible. His bride had to be of high status to 'unite' the country, but also she Had to be a virgin (and a devout Catholic). cont...
I've seen other documentaries about who this man - Henry Tudor, the future King Henry VII, was. He was highly intelligent, brave and meticulous in his plans for his future AND the future of England. He was also very careful! cont...
He knew that he had to ensure that who ever he did marry would help him to unite the country behind him. Any potential scandal, that Elizabeth of York 'may' have been King Richard III's mistress (let alone his next wife) would Not have 'sat well' with Henry, hence I do Not believe that such a scandal Ever happened. cont...
I had tried to be more brief in my 'comment' about this Q&A video topic, but I obviously didn't explain myself very well. There have been affairs throughout the centuries and there are affairs now - whether you are religious or not! ... Bye for now Shane. I hope you are well! 👋
@@Lyndell-P Oh no you explained yourself fine Lyndell, don't take my words seriously 🙏👍
@@Shane-Flanagan Oh, by the way Shane. I did enjoy reading your comment and agree totally. 👍
@@Lyndell-P Yes Claire is a true crusader for the truth. So good at separating fact from fiction and dispelling myth.
BTW if I may enquire, how's your husband doing? A while back you mentioned he wasn't well
Your conclusion "feels so right! Excellent research!
You are very right in suggesting that Henry Tudor had no qualms in marrying Edward's IV's daughter. Had she been having an affair with her uncle or worse had she been secretly married to him ( a conjecture which in the very least is absolutely preposterous ) Henry must have known about it and the roses would never have been united. Her letter to her uncle, which opened up a Pandora's box of controversies were , in all probability, an innocent urging to her uncle to expedite her betrothal , could be to the royal house of Portugal ( as has been suggested ) or to someone else. However , your meticulous research on the subject will have to be praised . All your videos are backed by a very well researched matter and flawless text . These days I long for seeing your cat in your videos . I have been lately reading Philipa Gregory's ' The Red Queen ' The story is interesting no doubt but everything in it mustn't be taken at face value. Kindly give your opinion on the mystery of the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower . Can the guilt be pinpointed ? Thanks.
Great, prefer answer based on facts. I have been away but happily catching up, thank you so much.
Follow up question. Why didn’t Richard III arrange a marriage for Elizabeth of York to someone loyal to him? Especially when he heard of the arrangement with Henry Tudor. Stop that alliance completely
He may well have done given time.
There are some accounts of Richard negotiating a marriage between Elizabeth and Manuel I (Johanna of Portugal's cousin).
@@isobelduncan Yes, and just think how convenient such a marriage would be. Elizabeth of York would have spent her life in Portugal, far away from England's shores. Richard, with a Portuguese Infanta for a bride, would have gained access to the wealth of Portugal. Truly, it was a Cunning Plan....
Maybe there was no one of suitable rank who was a) available or b) loyal.
Thank you. Your presentation was wonderful. I have no doubts about Richard and Elizabeth being lovers.
Richard had to make an embarrassing public statement in the Guildhall that he had not murdered his wife and did not seek to marry his niece.
Whatever the actual facts of the issue, too many of his northern affinity did believe it and made a public denial necessary. The Nevilles, even in death, still had power. Anne Neville's death, reputedly during an eclipse, would have caused comment in a superstitious time
(much like our own) no matter what the factual cause, which was probably tuberculosis. Much of Richard's power was from his Neville connections/affinity.
I think he definitely floated the idea of marrying his niece. There was far too much noise for it to have been a fabrication. Whether she was agreeable to such a match is the question but what choice did she have? She was in no position to say no to him or Tudor when he took the throne. I think what we can safely deduce is that they were definitely not lovers, she wasnt stupid and Henry VII would of had her in a convent, not mother to his children.
I love historical fiction in general and Gregory's books in particular. I never forget they're fiction, though, so I don't expect them to be historically accurate. We consume art for entertainment mostly, and if it helps to spark an interest in real events, we can study the sources, which historical fiction is not.
Enjoy her books too .but take them with a grain of salt 🧂
Another fantastic video x
More importantly, and I’m surprised this wasn’t addressed, all those later “historical texts” were made by those employed by Tudors and Stuarts. You know, the descendants of the dude who beat Richard iii and was thus crowned king. So OF COURSE, such salacious crap came out for the purpose of denigrating the loser and rubbing the egos of Tudors descendants. Shakespeare’s take on Richards reign is the most egregious of all. Making him a hunchbacked and evil man who plotted his brothers death and killed his nephews in cold blood. When the truth was, he was a good leader and loved his brother.
I do not see how Richard III could have married Elizabeth of York (were he ever to have such an intention) without a dispensation from the Pope?? If sleeping with your future wife's sister was considered consanguinity (example Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn) then surely marrying your niece by blood would be an utter 'no-no'. Would love your opinion, Claire.
Yes, a dispensation would definitely have been required.
Kings who wanted dispensations usually got them, In the sixteenth century, Philip II of Spain took Ana of Austria, his niece, as his fourth wife. No one seemed appalled by this marriage,
@@Orphen42O Thank you, that is interesting to hear. Was this a niece by blood or by marriage? I am only asking for information.
@@michellerhodes9910 by blood. Maria’s mother was Phillip’s sister. There’s a few times that the Habsburg kings of Spain marry their nieces. And if I remember correctly, the kings of Portugal who’s nieces were often Spanish princesses!
@@xoxoJoyce Oh my goodness well thank you for telling me.
Has any one thought about the need for a papal dispensation being needed to marry a niece? It would be more incestuous than marrying a cousin.
I wonder if Claire supports the theory that Richard was trying to protect his young nephews by locking them up in the Tower of London?
There’s a list of orders for Christmas gifts like jewelry and cloth. Anne had a dress made or made a dress herself similar to her own as a gift for Elizabeth of York
Excellent question!
Always well done Claire
I don,t believe that Richard poisoned his wife. He is not above slaughtering rivals and supporters of the young Princes such as Hastings or Antony Woodville, but when he strikes he tends to do it suddenly and without warning. Poison, I think, is beneath him as a man at arms and would take too long to kill a victim.
Elizabeth of York has a good reputation as regards conduct and virtue. I can't see her wishing away Anne's life to marry Richard who after all had Anthony Woodville, her uncle, kille
Hi Claire, I used to enjoy Phillipa Gregory’s books until she began to go quite wacky doodle with the truth. A certain bit of ‘creative license’ is quite often used in books or tv programs but, out and out porky pies , is not acceptable. Thank you for a interesting video 🥶🥶🥶🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Her books are quite far fetched compared with other authors but she has never pretended to write anything other than Historical Fiction
Actually, that's not true, Shane. If you read the author's notes of her books, read her website etc. then she does make claims about some of her questionable ideas being true, being based on real history.
@@anneboleynfiles Oops I do feel a tad silly now 🥺
I was just thinking of the book excluding the authors notes.
@@Shane-Flanagan oh don't worry.
@@anneboleynfiles She does indeed proclaim to base her books on historical research and not her fictional accounts. It's more like history according to P Gregory.
Sorry, how I can send a short video with a question for the Tudor Fan Q&A? I know you've explained this before, but I really cannot remember now.
I never thought Elizabeth would have an affair with the man most likely to have killed her young brothers.
This why I hate Gregory books
Looking at this from my own point of view, the mere thought of getting it on with any of my uncles is revolting beyond all measure. Ewww.
What a great video! I do not think she had anything to do with her uncle. Especially the mom knew he killed her two boys no way.
Richard and all of the people around this particular event are (as so many Historians will tell you were products of their time,) Greedy, Ambitious, Ruthless, Duplicitous and for the most part Amoral, High politics at this particular time was Obscene and deadly in its double dealing and standards. Don't for one minute think the people involved had any scruples at all.
It would appear that Richard loved Anne and when there first son died (Edward of Middleham) both where reported to be distraught with grief, She had brought Richard much land and wealth and being a part of the Neville family much influence as her father was as is well known a very important part of this whole saga.(and managed to stay on cordial relations with Richard throughout Edwards and his father in laws troubles)
The Problem with Richard and Henry Tudor marrying Elizabeth is she came with no real great advantage to both men, Richard had cast doubt on his brothers paternity and nor would the pre contract story stand up to scrutiny which made Elizabeth herself a bastard, and once Crowned it was a fait accompli for Richard, the same for Henry Tudor, once he had killed and beaten Richard he was king by right of conquest. The only use for Elizabeth was to add legitimacy to both men's claim to the throne and bring the country and certain factions together.
As Richard's dynastic situation became worse, I think he was very determined to marry Elizabeth but was warned of by certain members of his council against the idea, I quote
"The king was obliged ,having called a council together,to excuse himself with many words and to assert that such a thing(the marriage to Elizabeth) had never entered his mind, There were some persons ,how ever "who very well knew the contrary".Those in especial who were unwilling that this marriage should take place, and to whose opinions the king hardly ever Offered any opposition,were Sir Richard Ratcliffe and William Catesby,esquire of his body," In short Richard was told that before the mayor and commons of the city of London that opposition would not only be offered by words, but all the people of the North on whom Richard relied on the most would also be told , and would rise in rebellion against him and impute to him the death of his queen, daughter and one of the heirs to the Earl of Warwick, through whom he had first gained his present high position ,in order that he might, to the extreme abhorrence of the Almighty ,gratify an incestuous passion for his said niece.
This is taken from Croyland and is interesting in that it shows even those closest to him and his main support base (the North) thought that he was capable of killing his wife and were suspicious of his character . this seems to be a recurring thing with Tudors ie Elizabeth I and Dudley perhaps.
The question Did Richard have an affair with Elizabeth is a hard one to Answer, but I suspect Richard could have been persuaded if the opportunity arose, and he had always said he wanted to marry Elizabeth,
The fact that she was in sanctuary must play apart as Richard must have seen her(perhaps lusted after her) and while in sanctuary she could have been forcibly removed if Richard wanted her close, but while she was there she was safe.
An interesting question indeed.
Drama, drama, drama but unlikely to be true for all the reasons you enumerated.
I've considered it highly unlikely that Elizabeth of York wanted to marry her uncle, Richard III. It seems much more likely to be malicious rumours that were being said about a far from universally liked king. And certainly, by the time Shakespeare wrote his plays, saying anything nice about Richard III was not exactly a politically wise move nor a commercially lucrative one under a fairly well liked Elizabeth I. Plus, it adds yet more shade to Shakespeare's outline of an incredibly evil character--from courting Anne Neville literally over the dead body of her first husband, it was a natural progression to lining up the next wife while Anne was ailing but still alive.
Very good answer to a very good question. You've done well Claire. Thank you for clarifying. I believe personally that especially a young girl would not sleep with her uncle whether he be king or not king. I enjoy your videos I do love history although England's history can be horrifying at times it is most interesting.
All history is horrifying at times. It seems to be our unfortunate nature.
If you think English history is bad at this time period look to the eastern European nations
Philip II, Mary I's widower, married his own niece, as did his son and successor Philip IV... Uncle-niece relations weren't unheard of in that time
@@christopherbrown5409 yes I know that incest was common in that family. That's why Charles II look so odd with those legs. I had an uncle who married his niece. I have cousins who married one another including my own half sister. But Claire states that there is no evidence there was an affair
I thought this was a great question.
Me too!
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this, I couldn't see Henry VII taking on his rivals cast off, and Richard was devoted to his wife. As usual P.G. is exagerating
Eh, nope. Don't buy it. Now I could see Elizabeth wanting her uncle, the King to arrange a marriage for her.
I also could understand Richard wanting to marry Elizabeth of York to gain support, she was young, fertile, and she was the York heir with her brothers dead. However, I still don't think anything went on.
Right, Elizabeth of York falls in love with the man who stole the throne from her brother and possibly murdered both her brothers. Oh and killed her half brother.
Can’t believe anything Phillipa Gregory says
Excellent!
I think Elizabeth had an embarressing teenage crush on Richard, richard was probably embarrassed by it...Rubbish that Richard would murder his wife...TB was killing millions.
Of course, she didn’t! Oh puleeze
God thanks you
I'm confused. As Ms Ridgway stated, Richard could have married off his niece in order to prevent Henry Tudor from wedding her to strengthen his claim to the throne. But, he did not. His actions, or lack of them is completely mysterious, unless you consider that he was prepared to marry her once his sickly wife passed on.
Actually, Richard 3rd purposed to a Portugese Princess, who accepted, but unfortunately found out that he was killed shortly after. If I remember correctly, she never did get married.
I’m constantly correcting my daughter on Phillipa Gregory’s movies. She has done more damage to Tudor history then Shakespeare.
I think in that lost letter Elizabeth of York was asking Richard to promote her, Elizabeth's marriage to Manuel of Portugal. Let's remember that Richard murdered her maternal uncle Anthony Wydville and her half brother Sir Richard Grey. They were executed without a trial. I don't think she would of wanted to marry him. I would believe that Elizabeth had it in her to lead Richard on so she could escape England, if she had to.
Far too problematical for a relationship! Henry V11 would have known and rejected Elizabeth of York!
Is that Riu Chiu playing?
I was wondering the same thing!
Love your glasses!
Oh God,not Phillipa Gregory again!😲
The worst enemy of historians everywhere.
I think it could have been Richard trying to get men on his side and not to Tudor.
Of course not!
No. Not just because she was his niece. (Such marriages had been given Papal dispensation). But Richard himself declared her illegitimate.
I can believe he got rid of her brothers.
Clare, have you ever read "The Murders of Richard III" by Elizabeth Peters? A mystery novel set in an English country house with a gathering of Ricardians. Wacky hijinks ensue. But I did end up reading about the Princes in the Tower.
Also, have you seen Elizabeth R with Glenda Jackson.
Why should she have an affair with the man who killed her 2 brothers? I have heard that Richard III and his wife had a decent marriage and Elizabeth's marriage to Henry VII was a very happy one.
There is no evidence Richard killed his nephews .
@@berenwarrior6276 Perhaps not and we should keep an open mind,but why did Elizabeth Woodville suggest to her daughter that she marry Richard , when if the two princes where still alive, they would be in line for the throne?
@@johnfisher697 Elisabeth never did that , and Richard had to publicly disavow any attempt to marry his nice .
@@berenwarrior6276 Please read my comments at the top of the page and you will understand my point better, Also Which Elizabeth are we talking about, Woodville or York, I know it's tedious but it makes things clearer.
@@johnfisher697 York
I dont think so
Marry her Uncle? That would like Prince Charles marrying Princess Beatrice. Would it not?
Phillipa Gregory also wrote that Anne Boleyn slept with her brother George, so her opinion is worth precisely nothing.
Yet one of the official Charges against Anne Boleyn was that she consorted with her brother George. not saying it was true but none the less a fact.
Oh, crappola……
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but we can't argue a point properly without evidence and we could apply that to anything we wanted to put forward.
I don't believe this ?? Her uncle?? Do not believe this would happen even back then . 😕. Plus her brothers. Would have been in lime for king 🤴
Guess again. Google avunculate marriage. There’s a long list on wiki. A.O; philip 2 of spain and his niece/ wife Anna of Austria, Maximilian 1 and Maria Anna of Austria , the parents of Adolf Hitler where uncle and niece
Nope
alison weir and amy license both historians, says def not ....
the perspective is princess elizabeth of york was made a *royal Lady , no longer a princess by act of parliment under King Richard III her own uncle.,
the same act that claimed King Edward V was deposed and the marriage between Queen Elizabeth woodville and King Edward IV was illegal...
later events of the death of his son and heir Prince Edward of middleham and his wife Queen Ann, but no actual evidence, also a possible papal dispensation, a new act of parliment to restore Elizabeth of York as valid...,
as none of these actually happened, then its simply rummours, enough so that king richard II would publicly aknowledge them....
it seems nothing more than rummours,and fiction by philippa gregory..., also after the famous battle of bosworth, the subsequent marriage by proxy then in person with King Henry Tudor, and the dating of the monarch before the actual battle...,
even later the new act of parliment to revoke nearly all of King Richard III acts of parliments and restoring the validty of Elizabeth of York, the subsequent delay.... of making Elizabeth of York Queen Consort directly....
the delay would make sense, to countess magaret beaufort mater rex, mother of the king, also to queen dowager elizabeth woodville...,
otherwise...
it would mean, a king by conquest of battle with a dubious welsh blood line, let alone distant royal lancastrian english blood line, marries a invalidated royal lady* who has no legitmate claims by act of parliment to even be a Queen Consort*...
all of this was to invalidate King Richard III and any of his *yorkist successors, except elizabeth of york and her tudor children,,,,,
despite the act of parliment yorkists were mostly loyal in york alone,
Queen Elizabeth of york aunty Duchess Magaret of burgundy* York hosted and financed many campaigns against King Henry VII....
also quite what, Queen Dowager * Elizabeth Woodville and Duchess Cecily of York actually thought of all of these events..., no one , really knows...
the mystery of the 2 princes in the tower? hangs like a shadow, of pretty much everything else....
The marriage of Edward and Elizabeth had lasted for twenty years and no one questioned it and parliament essentially said it was a matter for the church to judge. And Cecily was quite keen to prove her loyalty to her husband (which in turn, turned out to be a lie.)
The fact that Henry Tudor won the battle of Bosworth Field and hence the crown by right of conquest was a legitimate act of succession and has been recognised before and since.
The delay in the crowning Elizabeth of York may have been to ensure that nothing had happened to hear to invalidate the marriage (ie she was pregnant by another man).
It didn't really matter about Richards successors, as he had named John de la Pole (The Earl of Lincoln) as his natural successor.
@@johnfisher697 : good overview john fisher, the war of the cousins or roses, is not very english,
it was during the hundred years war.... also the civil war between the french royal houses- dynasties of capet & valois and the cadet branches..
as for queen consorts of england,
most were french, queen magaret-isabella 1299-1358
from the capet royal dynasty related to King Henry I...
Queen Philipa of hainauaut, Queen Isabella of valois, Queen Catherine of Valois, Queen magaret of Anjou up to 1471, french royal blood ran through both the kings and queens of england....
Queen Elizabeth Woodville from the house of luxembourg & woodville must have come as a almighty shock, that she was not french, same goes for queen anne of nevile 1483-1485...
also King Henry VII not only had* welsh but also valois, visconti & witteslbach royal ancestors via Queen Dowager Catherine of Valois ...
shakespeare was not only popular, but a royal *propagandist...
find out more...
@Brittainshiddenhistory ross... then new unkown and hidden history project...
You mean Shakespeare is not to be blindly trusted on historical accuracy? I am shocked! Shocked I say!😄
Excellent, thank you, clair. Would this be incest??
Not incest, but a dispensation would have been required.
Would've been wrong for an uncle to get with his niece though..Too close a connection
This is a lie. Elizabeth of York was never intimate with her Uncle Richard. Think about it, Henry VII would never have taken the leavings of Richard III. Elizabeth was close to her Aunt Anne Neville. Also, as a Catholic nation, the Pope would NEVER give dispensation for a marriage between Uncle and Niece, who by the way was under an attainder.
I enjoy Philippa Gregory's books, but her historical stories are classified as Historical FICTION and should be taken as such. The only thing that is certain is Richard III's body was found under a car park in Leicester many centuries after he died and according to modern legend went on to lead the football team to glory!!!!! (Lol). LOVE the statue on your fascinating book shelves.
Trouble is, she claims a lot of her ideas are actual fact when in reality they're just her own conspiracy theories.