The Plantagenets (1154-1399)

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

She must have been one of the great characters of the Wars of the Roses. I've read several times that the role of Margaret is one of the most prized roles for women in any of the Shakespeare history plays, which are almost exclusively masculine.

I wonder what on earth her son would have turned out like, had he lived longer - with a father who was mostly off in another universe a lot of the time and a mother as forceful as Margaret, he would have been a psychologist's dream patient!

Margaret of Anjou was unusual for her time. Strong, outspoken women were not at all prevalent. She was the complete antithesis of her husband Henry VI. Henry was mentally unbalanced and weak. Margaret was strong, cunning, and prepared to fight for the birthright of her husband and her son. This woman even made peace with a former enemy, the Earl of Warwick (father of Anne Neville who I have posted information about) in order to fight for her husband's rights over Edward IV. The Earl of Warwick was widely known as the "Kingmaker". He was the most powerful nobleman in England at this time and his support meant you would win the battle. Warwick became disenchanted with Edward IV and decided to throw his lot in with Margaret of Anjou. He betrothed his daughter to Margaret's son, Edward, Prince of Wales.

The Earl of Warwick and Margaret lost. The Earl was killed and so was Edward, Prince of Wales. Anne Neville lost her father and her husband in one stroke. Margaret lost her husband, son, and any hope of being Queen Consort of England ever again.

[Elspeth]

There are some women who would have been so much better off if they'd lived now!

It must have been terribly hard for her to be married to such an otherworldly - I don't want to call Henry a weakling, but it's a bit hard not to - especially when she had a son to protect and when there were charismatic people like Edward of York waiting in the wings.

This to my mind has always been one of the problems of a monarchy where the king ruled rather than reigning and where women were so marginalised. You only needed someone like Edward II or Henry VI, or a minor like Richard II or Edward V, and you had real trouble. Predatory and powerful nobles would come out of the woodwork, and there was very little that a king's wife or mother could do to defuse things.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

William de Tracy. He must have been a brute.

Pretty much went with the territory back then.

Allegedly, Tracy was overcome with guilt (as he should have been) and tossed away his sword. And there was a curse that the family line would come to an end (and apparently the direct male line did die out in the 17th/18th centuries - a long time to wait for revenge!). I have also read on the internet about a ghost too.

Do you know whose curse it was? Surely Becket didn't curse the knights while he was dying, did he?

William may have been an illegitimate grandchild of Henry I.

No surprise there, then. Weren't most of them related to the royal family like that?

And what does that make me? A poor member of the Royal Forums!

That's a lot better than being a brute with a curse, though, even if it's less exciting.:)

[iowabelle]

I think William was an exceptionally nasty knight. (And he must have been one of king's toadies IMO.)

I don't know who uttered the curse. Apparently Becket said something to the effect that he was ready to go to God.

I'm not sure how many of the inner circle were royal illegitimates or their descendants, I'm sure, though, most of them were Normans and had probably been a close brotherhood since childhood.

Could I be a member of the Royal Forums and not be poor? That would be the best!

[Elspeth]

So this is the guy?

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....66/f726616.htm

Means you're related to both Prince William and Winston Churchill. Doesn't that make up for being poor?

[iowabelle]

That's him.

And Madonna (the singer, not the Virgin) and the Duchess of Cornwall, and Crown Princess Pavlos and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Still poor.

[tiaraprin]

In my ongoing effort to discuss the Plantagenet line, I bring another member of the line for everyone to read about and discuss.

Philippa of Hainault is the only Queen of England to come from what is today Belgium. She was a truly remarkable lady who loved her husband and was the mother of Edward, The Black Prince of fabled legend. It is in hers and Edward's many children that the scene was set for The Wars of the Roses, albeit neither Philippa or her husband knew this was going to be one of their legacies.

I hope reading this snippet will encourage you to learn more about a remarkable lady and Queen.

http://www.aritek.com/hartgen/htm/d...nes.htm#name606

. Queen Philippa of Hainault was born about 1314, lived in Mons,Hainaut,Belgium and died on 14 Aug 1369 in Windsor Castle,Windsor,Berkshire,England .
Queen Philippa married King Edward III of England on 24 Jan 1327 in York, England. King Edward was born on 13 Nov 1312 in Windsor Castle,Windsor,Berkshire,England. He was the son of King Edward II of England and Queen Isabella of France. He died on 21 Jun 1377 in Sheen Palace,Surrey,England .

Queen Philippa - Philippa is remembered by history as a tender-hearted woman, who interceded with her husband and persuaded him to spare the lives of the six burghers of Calais, whom he had planned to execute as an example to the townspeople.

Michael Packe in his book King Edward III gives us a delightful description of the king and queen's first meeting:

"He spied on the unwitting sisters, and pounced on the youngest of them, Philippa by name', at the time eight years old and nearest in age to Edward, who was nearly seven years. He had then subjected her to a minute and terrifying scrutiny. Apart from some criticism of her remaining baby teeth (they were 'not so white', he had found little fault with her solid physiognomy. Her hair betwixt blue-black and brown and not uncomely', her forehead large; her eyes blackish brown and deep, her nose though 'somewhat broad at the tip and also flattened', was 'yet no snub-nose'; her mouth was wide and generous, her ears and chin were 'comely enough', her mouth was wide and generous, she was of middle height for her age, well taught, and of 'fair carriage'.

'Her neck, shoulders, and all her body and lower limbs are reasonably well shapen; all her limbs are well set and unmaimed; and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father; and in all things she is pleasant enough to look at it seems to us.'

The Flemish master, Jean de Leige, worked in France and he influenced the English sculpture. Among his most important and representative tomb monuments is that of the queen of England, made in London in 1367. It can be seen, still in an excellent state of preservation, in the choir of the Westminster Abbey. It shows the recumbent figure of Philippa of Hainaut, wife of Edward Iii, who died in 1369. Her features as represented on the tomb give the impression of an individual likeness. The rather pudgy face with its thick neck and double chins suggests a basis in a life-mask.




from "Queens of England" -1894 - provided by Cindy Jackola.


Westminster Abbey, London

[tiaraprin]

Edward III, one of England's longest ruling Kings, was a successful monarch with a beautiful consort and many children. Those many children, however, would cause the monarchy much trouble for the next few generations to come:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England

Edward III (13 November 1312 – 21 June 1377) was one of the most successful English kings of medieval times. His fifty-year reign began when his father Edward II of England was deposed on 25 January 1327, and lasted until 1377. Among his immediate predecessors, only Henry III ruled as long, and it would be over 400 years before another monarch would occupy the throne for that duration. Edward's reign was marked by an expansion of English territory through wars in Scotland and France. Edward's parentage and his prodigious offspring provided the basis for two lengthy and significant events in British and European history, the Hundred Years' War and the Wars of the Roses, respectively.


Poster's note: It was Edward III who founded the Order of the Garter in 1348. The oft told fable story of its founding goes like this:

Edward was dancing with his future daughter-in-law, Joan of Kent. Ladies' Garters in those days were tied around their leg. Joan's garter loosened and fell to the floor while she danced with the King. Everyone laughed at her embarassment and disgrace. At this point, Edward tied the Garter to his leg and said "Honi soit qui mal y pense"--Evil to him that thinks evil of this. Some say the lady in question was actually Joan's first mother-in-law. I guess we will never know the entire story.

[Elspeth]

He certainly outlived himself; it's a shame that his eldest son predeceased him and that there was such infighting among his other sons and their descendants.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

He certainly outlived himself; it's a shame that his eldest son predeceased him and that there was such infighting among his other sons and their descendants.

I believe England would have taken a better turn if the Black Prince hadn't died. Perhaps he could have taken Richard II in hand and teach him to be a proper monarch before passing the crown to him. It is another one of those great Royal "What if's".

The Black Prince's wife, Joan (aka The Fair Maid of Kent), was in no position to educate her young son. She lost her husband and elder son in such a short period. She had no one to advise and help her do what was best for Richard. Edward III didn't step in. He was old and increasingly feeble at this time having lost his wife, his eldest son (the Black Prince), and elder grandson who was the heir apparent (eldest son to the Black Prince). He was also enamoured of a greedy mistress, Alice Perrers. She only wanted power and money. When Edward III died in 1377, she pried the gold rings from his hands before she left with the rest of her accumulated fortune.

[tiaraprin]

If the Black Prince hadn't died, perhaps there would not have been the War of the Roses:
Edward the Black Prince (1330-1376)

Born: 15th June 1330 at Woodstock, Oxfordshire
Prince of Wales
Died: 8th June 1376 at Westminster Palace, Middlesex

Prince Edward, the eldest son of King Edward III and Queen Philippa of Hainault, was born at the Royal Palace of Woodstock in Oxfordshire, on the 15th June 1330. In his third year, he was created Earl of Chester; four years afterwards Duke of Cornwall; and, in 1343, Prince of Wales.

At the institution of the Order of the Garter, Prince Edward had not completed his fourteenth year; and, although included amongst the Founders, in accordance with the design of his royal father that the eldest son of the Sovereign should be always a constituent ember of the Order, the honour of knighthood was reserved for the moment when he should be armed and thereby qualified to enter upon his warlike course. This occasion presented itself when, accompanying the King on his memorable expedition against France, he landed at La Hogue on the 12th July 1346.....

At the Battle of Crécy, which was fought on the 26th August following, King Edward, desirous that his noble son should "win his spurs," gave him the command of the van, with the counsel and assistance of the Earl of Warwick and Sir John Chandos. The tradition near the spot is, that the King had ordered the Prince to wear, on that day, a black cuirass, richly ornamented; and that, from this incident, he retained the surname attributed to him in history. The defeat of the enemy is known to have been complete; and the delighted father, embracing his son on the field of victory, eulogised his valour and pronounced him worthy of empire......


http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/blackprince.html

[Warren]

For Australian Members...


Tonight - Thursday 3 November - ABC TV at 8.30pm

Fact or Fiction: RICHARD III

Blurb: "... gets to the bottom of the legend of Richard III"

[Elspeth]

Fact or fiction? They surely aren't trying to say he might be fictional are they? Don't they know Shakespeare wrote a play about him? That means he must be real - just like Romeo and Hamlet...

[tiaraprin]

If one refers back to posts 22-28 and posts 53-55 of this thread, one will find out more information about the real Richard III and those of his family, namely his wife and only child. One will also discover why many people say fact or fiction in relation to him. There is also the website for the Richard III society http://www.richardiii.net/ which defends Richard from the accusations that have been lain at his feet for centuries, i.e. the murder of the Princes in the Tower, sons of Edward IV (his nephews though he disputed their legitimacy from his brother to take the Crown).

Here are some facts from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page50.asp

RICHARD III (r. 1483-1485)

Richard III usurped the throne from the young Edward V, who disappeared with his younger brother while under their ambitious uncle's supposed protection.
On becoming king, Richard attempted genuine reconciliation with the Yorkists by showing consideration to Lancastrians purged from office by Edward IV, and moved Henry VI's body to St George's Chapel at Windsor. The first laws written entirely in English were passed during his reign. In 1484, Richard's only legitimate son Edward predeceased him.

Before becoming king, Richard had had a strong power base in the north, and his reliance on northerners during his reign was to increase resentment in the south. Richard concluded a truce with Scotland to reduce his commitments in the north. Nevertheless, resentment against Richard grew.

On 7 August 1485, Henry Tudor (a direct descendant through his mother Margaret Beaufort, of John of Gaunt, one of Edward III's younger sons) landed at Milford Haven in Wales to claim the throne.

On 22 August, in a two-hour battle at Bosworth, Henry's forces (assisted by Lord Stanley's private army of around 7,000 which was deliberately posted so that he could join the winning side) defeated Richard's larger army and Richard was killed. Buried without a monument in Leicester, Richard's bones were scattered during the English Reformation.




Other links:

Richard III Foundation: Supports historical scholarship on Richard III
http://www.richard111.com/



Sir Thomas More's writings about Richard III and the allegations made:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/r3.html

[tiaraprin]

Did anyone in Australia watch the show about Richard III?? I am curious for what was said!!

[Warren]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Did anyone in Australia watch the show about Richard III?? I am curious for what was said!!

Yes, it was better than expected.
The first half gave us a rundown of what is known about the character of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester. He was an educated and learned man who bought books to read, not to collect. He was charming, smart, clever, and had a keen appreciation of the consequences of a misplaced lust for power. The program had Art Historians who showed how the official portraits of Richard III had been altered to give the now well-known hump, and how his face and chin had been altered to make them more angular and sinister. They produced a portrait which the Tudors had not found which showed the "real" Richard as Duke of Gloucester: no hump, no sinister look. So at this stage I thought they were setting it up for an anti-Richard Tudor conspiracy.

However... following the death of Edward IV, the accession of the boy-King Edward V, and Richard's becoming Lord Protector, his character changed. No more Mr Nice Guy, instead, a ruthless and hungry power-seeker. He lured the boys' tutor to a convivial meeting, left the room, and when he returned he was followed by soldiers who seized the tutor and beheaded him within hours. The die was cast, the pattern set.

The program then examined the possible motives of those who may have had something to gain from Edward V and his younger brothers' deaths (eg Margaret Beaufort, Henry Tudor, and others). Based on original documents, logic, location, ability to access the Princes in the Tower, and timing, there was only one conclusion: Richard had his two young nephews, one of whom was the righful King of England, murdered. Richard III was revealed as a nasty piece of work, and evil.
.

[tiaraprin]

That sounds like quite an interesting show Warren. I wish I could see it for myself.

[Ithil]

I'm very ambivalent about all the Yorkists and Lancastrians in general because I'm a fan of Margaret of Anjou, HATE Elizabeth Woodville, pity Anne Neville, am fascinated with the Earl of Warwick the "Kingmaker", and am NOT a fan of the early rulers of the Tudor Dynasty who made their claim from the Lancastrian side.

Based on all this stuff though about Richard III, I'm ambivalent about him too. It's basically fact that he murdered his nephews, but I can't help but think that he was vilified by his enemies, the Tudors and many traitorous people of the old Yorkist party.

[Polly]

Ithil,

I agree with you insofar as Richard III was vilified by his enemies. I do not agree that he murdered his little nephews.

I've mentioned before that much of the world's opinion is based on Shakespeare's play, and we know that Shakespeare was writing for the Tudor and early Stuart court, i.e. there was a political-interest component to the play.

[Ithil]

Well, the part about him murdering his nephews is one of the great mysteries in English history. People just have different views. I think that he murdered his nephews, but he might have had a good reason, or what was considered one in those days. I still sympathize with him because he has been treated the worst, I think, than all the past monarchs of England put together. I have heard about how the majority of people base their opinion on Shakespeare's Richard III.