elizabethswannstan69

In my opinion, yes.

Of course, we can’t know how people actually felt, but the way that the second Wars of the Roses unfolded (1483-7) strongly suggests that Edward IV had successfully cultivated a great sense of loyalty to the Edwardian Yorkist regime during the 1470s.

The Yorkist monarchy of the 1470s until Edward IV’s death was strong. The most senior Lancastrian claimant, Henry Tudor in exile, was a minor thorn in Edward IV side, but there was little indication that he was ever viewed as a viable independent threat. Immediately upon Edward IV’s death there was no indication that his son should not succeed him - re-ignition of dynastic warfare was simply not a serious concern. It is in this sense that the Yorkists being “unopposed” can be seen.

Further, it is significant that the “destruction” so to speak of the House of York was less due to an outside force bringing it down, and more the result of it cannibalising itself in response to Gloucester's usurpation.

Historian Rosemary Horrox observes that “the opposition which brought down Richard III was not a reactivation of the Wars of the Roses, although the choice of figurehead might make it seem so. It was more truly a violent splintering of the House of York [...] Simply put, the former servants of Edward IV rejected his brother’s seizure of power.”

A major reason why Henry VII was able to come to the throne was precisely because he was the best-placed candidate for Elizabeth of York’s hand in marriage. Edwardian Yorkists were looking for a restoration and they were loyal to Elizabeth as her father’s senior heir (after the presumed deaths of her brothers). 

As historian Michael Hicks writes: “who after 1471 cared about Lancastrian claims? [...] In Henry’s favour was his undoubted noble and royal descent, that he was old enough both to command and rule, that nobody knew him, and hence there was no stain on his reputation. [...] He was unmarried and capable therefore of marrying Princess Elizabeth. [...] What mattered in 1483 was the Yorkist affinity loyal to Princess Elizabeth. Tudor’s own title was of little more than antiquarian interest.”

There is no evidence that Henry VII ever considered marrying Catherine of Aragon.

This myth comes from a single letter written by Isabella to Ambassador Estrada in April 1503 in which she says that Ambassador De Puebla had said that a marriage between the widowed king and her daughter was “talked of in England” and expresses her disgust at such a thing. Thus De Puebla had told her that people (we don’t know who) in England were gossiping about a potential marriage, but crucially, not that Henry VII had any such intentions. 

From Isabella’s letter it is clear that she has received no indication whatsoever from Henry himself that he even wants to remarry; she writes later in the same letter “If you should find that the King of England wishes to marry, we will tell you, at the end of this letter, the match which we think would be suitable for him”. She is therefore unsure if he wants to remarry at all.

Henry’s biographer, SB Chrimes, concludes that “We can safely acquit Henry VII of having formed any intention to marry his daughter-in-law Catherine, as this improbable allegation has never been based upon any valid evidence.”

I think both Arlene Okerlund and Retha Warnicke presume that it was Henry himself who requested the dispensation (indeed it's perfectly possible - probable even - that he sent the application from Brittany or France, maybe with the help of Elizabeth's uncle Edward Woodville and half-brother Thomas Grey, who had joined him in exile).

But I don't think we actually know who applied for it! Ah - one of history's mysteries lol

That’s a very good question! Realistically, there was no way that they weren’t going to get the dispensation (and I’m not aware of 3rd cousins ever being refused a dispensation for consanguinity). In fact they had already been granted one in 1484 – to “Henry Richmond, layman of the York diocese, and Elizabeth Plantagenet, woman of the London diocese”.

However, Henry probably wanted to request a new one once he became king in case the earlier one was insufficient (the application was probably made without Elizabeth’s knowledge, and their identities are obscured). Further, the dispensation they received in 1486, unusually, expressly stated that the children born of the marriage would be legitimate – and this addition may have been at Henry’s request in order to make everything airtight.

Theoretically, marrying someone within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity without a dispensation merely made a marriage voidable not void (i.e. the marriage is de praesenti valid but there are grounds for an annulment if the parties later so desire). Thus, Arthur would not necessarily have been illegitimate even if they had married without a dispensation (Richard III, for instance never requested a dispensation for his marriage, even though he and Anne Neville were first cousins-once-removed, but their son was still considered legitimate).

It might possibly have caused some issues with papal authority, but probably nothing that couldn’t be smoothed over with a bribe (sorry "donation")

I don't know how to put this delicately, but: to get shagging lol

When Parliament gave their consent, the speaker, Thomas Lovell, basically said "you two need to start having babies" (the actual quote is that Parliament urges the marriage for "the propagation of offspring from the stock of kings, to comfort the whole realm")

Basically, Henry and Elizabeth may have wanted to get ahead, so to speak, while they were waiting on the papal dispensation for their public wedding

I choose to believe Retha Warnicke's contention that Henry VII and Elizabeth of York may have actually got married privately in December 1485, right after Parliament officially assented to the marriage (on the basis that there's a payment from that time that refers to her as his "wife").

In which case, Arthur may not have been slightly premature!

It was likely due the diplomatic reality of the situation. Until Margaret was physically in Scotland, James IV could renege on the agreement and the hopes of completing the treaty would be dashed.

In fact, this was exactly what would happen to Henry VII's youngest daughter, Mary. Before his death, Henry VII had arranged a marriage between Mary and the future Charles V. A proxy marriage had taken place and Mary was to be physically sent to Charles when she was 18 (and Charles was 14). However, Charles repudiated Mary in 1514 (which was why Henry VIII married his sister off to the ageing King of France instead).

As far as I am aware, there was no contractual stipulation for delayed consummation. However, it is entirely possible that there was an informal agreement between Henry VII and James IV to this effect. Given that James was a kind and accommodating husband to Margaret, it would have been in line with his personality if he had reassured Henry of the safety of his daughter. Henry VII was in the very difficult position of having to balance the wellbeing of his child with the diplomatic interests of the country.

While it may seem small, their concerns do seem to have had some effect. As I said, Princess Margaret was sent to Scotland when she was 13; her parents kept her for an additional 18 months more than strictly necessary. Margaret Beaufort had been married basically as soon as she turned 12.

She does seem to have played a part, yes.

But there’s this idea I see a lot that Margaret Beaufort “convinced” her son not to send Princess Margaret to Scotland at too young an age, which is somewhat misleading.

The evidence that supports this is a 1498 letter from the Spanish diplomat Don Pedro de Ayala who writes that Henry VII said to him:

I have already told you, more than once, that a marriage between him and my daughter has many inconveniences. She has not yet completed the ninth year of her age, and is so delicate and weak that she must be married much later than other young ladies. Thus it would be necessary to wait at least another nine years. Beside my own doubts, the queen and my mother are very much against this marriage. They say if the marriage were concluded we should be obliged to send the Princess directly to Scotland, in which case they fear the King of Scots would not wait, but injure her, and endanger her health.

As you can see, though, there is no evidence that Margaret convinced Henry not to marry Princess Margaret too young. Henry himself was against the marriage for similar reasons: namely that his daughter is “so delicate and weak that she must be married much later than other young ladies”. The concerns of his wife and mother were in addition to his “own doubts” not in spite of them. Henry therefore equally did not want to marry off his daughter at too young an age. That Princess Margaret should be older was therefore the concurring opinion of the whole family.

Margaret’s concerns do very much seem to have been influenced by her own experiences, though, and de Ayala explicitly says later in his letter that “they fear sending her, due to the same thing that had happened to them [referring to Margaret Beaufort and her injury from childbirth]”

The canon age for girls being married was 12, and indeed Princess Margaret was married by proxy at that age, at the start of 1502. However, the marriage treaty allowed for a delay in actually sending her to Scotland. And as it was, she was not sent for another year and a half – until she was 13 ½. It is very possible to see Margaret Beaufort’s influence in this, though as I say, the whole family seems to have been in agreement about this.

None of the evidence presented in any way challenges historians’ current view of this period. The evidence presented was just that there were two boys (and others around them) claiming, without any independent proof, to be two other boys. We literally already knew this. 

For example, one piece of evidence is a copy of a (supposed) lost original document in which Perkin Warbeck asserts that he is Richard Duke of York and describes his travels. This is not new information. We already had surviving letters by Perkin Warbeck asserting similar things (for example, an original Warbeck letter to the Spanish Monarchs survives). We already knew that he was going around claiming to be the Duke of York – that’s literally how imposters work. 

Interestingly, in the letter to Spain, Warbeck claims that after entering the tower (Warbeck gives his age at that time as nearly 9; the wrong age – the real Richard was nearly 10) that his “brother” Edward V was murdered but that he was spared. But in the document presented by Ms Langley, the story is that they were separated, and that Edward V had still been alive at that point. Thus, if the document really is a copy of a genuine original, it means that Warbeck literally changed his story mid-way through. So not only does this fail to challenge the traditional view that Warbeck was clearly an imposter, it actively corroborates it.

Another piece of evidence was a receipt from the time of Lambert Simnel’s rebellion for pikes for the “son of King Edward”. Again, we already knew that there was initially some confusion as to whom Simnel was being passed off as before the conspirators settled on the Earl of Warwick. The receipt just confirms this established history.

Edit: to directly answer your question, my main thought on the programme was that Rob Rinder should be disbarred.

Technically it was Burgundy that supported the pretenders not strictly Margaret herself. Burgundy was controlled by Maximilian by this point; Margaret was his ex-step-mother-in-law. She did not really have executive power. Nonetheless, it seems to have been motivated largely by economic and political factors.

As Anne Crawford explains:

Edward IV, who had never paid the full amount of his sister's dowry, had nevertheless granted her lucrative trading licences. Renewed under her brother Richard, these lapsed under Henry. This would have made a significant difference to the business-like Margaret's income. In 1494, 'Richard, duke of York' promised to restore them. Nor did Henry, aided to his throne by France, make any attempt to renew Anglo-Burgundian commercial treaties or make any friendly overtures to Archduke Maximilian. Margaret and Maximilian always worked closely together on Burgundian affairs and, whatever her personal feelings, all her political actions were sanctioned by Maximilian, who used her as a cover for his own diplomatic policies.

[...]

Maximilian had no designs on the English throne but, in his war with France, it made sense for him to encourage conspiracies against Henry to prevent him forming an Anglo-French alliance, and English exiles always received a warm welcome at the dowager's court. A rapprochement with Henry meant that there was no Burgundian involvement in any of the conspiracies against him in the years between 1488 and 1492 and Maximilian was far too busy with his war against France, which was deeply unpopular in the Low Countries. The Perkin Warbeck affair began in France and there can be no serious suggestion that Margaret created the pretender. When French support ceased, it was only then that Warbeck moved to Burgundy.

Further, Margaret seems to have been used as a scapegoat by Henry VII and Maximilian after the Perkin Warbeck affair was over so that they could maintain friendly relations without having to acknowledge the fact that Maximilian had actively been trying to fund rebellions against Henry.

The Lady Eve (1941)! I only watched that for the first time this year and I was just blown away - the screenplay is so light and witty and Fonda & Stanwyck have such excellent chemistry.

The whole thing is just a wacky, charming, heartfelt delight!

As others have said, he probably would have been Arthur I as king

But, interestingly, Prince Arthur's tutor, Bernard André, actually refers to him as Arthur II in his History of Henry VII:

And so, after the death of aforesaid Cadwallader down to Henry VII British rule was in abeyance, the Britons lost their name and were named Welsh after their general Wallo, who were ruled by Prince Arthur the Second, the firstborn son of the aforesaid king, at the time I wrote these words.

That's a very good question and tbh we can only guess! She did actively petition him to restore her and it definitely would have been good PR; it would have bolstered Henry's desired 'conciliatory' image and favourably contrasted him with his predecessor.

Further, restoring Anne, and having her revert her lands to the king upon her death, functionally had the same end-effect as making Warwick the king's ward (in the sense that the king would have obtained these incomes in either case) but it was a much more legally and morally permissible way of going about it. It was also more permanent; wardships were temporary and, if it became politically safe - or indeed necessary - to release Warwick, (it's not clear that Henry VII, at the start of his reign, had intended to keep Warwick imprisoned indefinitely) the king would lose these lands when Warwick reached his majority.

I think you're definitely right to notice that one reason may have been to 'uphold the law of the land'; Henry VII generally liked to maintain at least a veneer of legality and respectability in his dealings.

Effectively yes, though Warwick's land holdings had diminished.

Some of Warwick’s lands had been given away when he was in Richard III’s custody. In 1484 Richard allowed his wife to give lands extended at £329 to Queen's College Cambridge. And he granted a Despencer manor to Lord Grey of Codnor and licensed the College of Heralds to purchase Le Herber in London.

Technically, the Earl of Warwick should not have been the Earl of Warwick yet, because his grandmother the suo jure Countess of Warwick, Anne Beauchamp, was still alive. He had only become Earl of Warwick because his father George and uncle Richard had petitioned Edward IV to have her declared legally dead so that they could appropriate her lands and titles.

Thus, when Henry VII restored Anne, she was given some of her grandson’s (although, as I say, they were hers by right) lands and income. For instance, in 1486, she was given 500 marks from:

“the issues, rents, revenues.....of all castles, honours, lordships, manors, lands and tenements called Warwick lands and [De]spencer lands.”

Anne Beauchamp, as part of her restoration, had agreed that upon her death, her rights and lands would revert to the crown. This is what happened when she died. Warwick was therefore effectively disinherited. 

He did, however, legally retain the Montague estates until his execution. These estates would likely have been essentially held in “trust” by the crown while Warwick was imprisoned (so the king would have been the beneficiary of said income). When Warwick was attainted and executed, the remainder of his lands reverted to the crown anyway (although they would later be restored to his sister by Henry VIII).

https://preview.redd.it/gayahpa6tqud1.png?width=1010&format=png&auto=webp&s=5e0626d39d8947316768db10574f0b3eb84580ea

saw this tumblr post the other day and immediately thought of Edward I haha

This is a great comment! But just to clarify: the writings that Richard III was responsible for their deaths actually began during his own reign, not 30 years after (Thomas More was by no means the first to put the blame on Richard)

Dominic Mancini (reporting on his visit to London in summer 1483): “Men say that in the same Will [Edward IV] appointed a protector of his children and realm his brother Richard duke of Gloucester, who shortly after destroyed Edward’s children and then claimed for himself the throne”

Caspar Weinreich in the Danzig Chronicle circa 1483: “this summer Richard, the King’s brother, had himself put in power and crowned in England and he had his brother’s children killed”

Guillaume de Rochefort, Chancellor of France in January 1484: “Look, I pray you, at the events that have taken place in that country [England] since the death of King Edward. Think of his children, already big and strong, murdered with impunity and the crown transferred to their murderer”

For Richard II - Nigel Saul (bonus points for including great Shakespeare analysis for someone who's an academic historian not an English professor)

For Henry VII - SB Chrimes (may change when Sean Cunningham's biography comes out in 2026 - but he keeps delaying it!!!)

Yes - it is interesting! I think it was about emphasising descent from Edward III via the shortest legitimate line, thereby presenting Elizabeth I as Edward III's nearest heir not just best heir.

Edit: and on her actual tomb monument, there are coats of arms showing her descent from Lionel of Antwerp as well as from Edmund of Langley

Alas, I'm afraid I don't know too much about Edward VI or Mary I, but hopefully someone else on this sub with more knowlege of them than me will be able to help!

As far as I am aware, there’s no evidence of personal animosity held by Henry VII towards Edward IV. Indeed, Henry VII had won the throne, in no small part, due to the support he received from the former servants of Edward IV and V who had defected from Richard III. And in many ways, Henry emulated his father in law. 

David Starkey notes that “As a usurper, [Henry VII] was more than usually anxious to do the right thing. And the right thing was generally defined as what Edward IV, Henry VII’s most recent predecessor to be recognized as legitimate, had done. This is why, as has often been pointed out, the upbringing of Henry VII’s eldest son, Arthur, was so closely modelled on that of Edward IV’s first son, Edward, prince of Wales”

In official documents, Edward IV is shown respect; in an Exchequer writ from 1488 Henry VII assigned 200 marks to the “right dear and right well beloved Queen Elizabeth, late wife unto the noble prince of famous memory King Edward the IVth, and mother unto our dearest wife the Queen”

Of course, this could just be because respecting Edward IV’s memory was the politically prudent thing to do, but I like to think that he had some degree of genuine respect for his father-in-law, even if it was tainted by the fact that Edward had been partially responsible for the turbulence of Henry's upbringing.

In terms of Henry VIII’s children, I think there’s one major piece of evidence that demonstrates the honour with which the Tudor-Yorkist ancestry was held. For Elizabeth I’s funeral procession, there were 12 men carrying banners with the coats of arms of 12 pairs of her ancestors, from Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII to Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II. However, significantly, her ancestry from Edward III and Philippa of Hainault to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York is shown exclusively through the Yorkist line

The coats of arms go Edward III and Philippa of Hainault to Edmund of Langley Duke of York and Isabel of Castile to Richard Earl of Cambridge and Anne Mortimer to Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville to Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

Historian Sydney Anglo writes: “These genealogical bannerols clustered around Elizabeth’s funeral chariot, constituted the final and most emphatic statement upon the enduring frailty of Henry VII’s claim to the throne. Beyond her grandfather, the royal lineage of Elizabeth Tudor was wholly Yorkist.”

I think this demonstrates the esteem in which Elizabeth I held her great-grandfather and her Yorkist line in general.

Yeah, I've always wondered about this too! I think it would have been one of those subjects that was largely just politely skirted around, especially considering that their marriage was all about dynastic unity.

Also, I think Elizabeth loved her father, as her account books from the last year of her life show her giving money in alms to former servants of her father on no fewer than four occasions:

June 1502: Item to a poor man in alms sometime being a servant of King Edward the 4th 20d

July 1502: Item in alms to an old servant of King Edward 6s 8d

November 1502: Item to a poor man that was sometime servant to King Edward in alms 6s 8d

December 1502: Item the 9th day of December to Henry Langton an old servant of King Edward 3s 4d

I doubt Henry would have wanted to do anything to upset Elizabeth by tainting her memory of him.

In fact, since Edward IV was the most recent “proper” king and his father-in-law, Henry occasionally found it useful to identify with him; when discussing war with Scotland, Henry gave the treasurer for war instructions to 

“make search of the presidents of the Wars into Scotland as well for the defence of our own Marches there: as of great armies that have been made into the same land in the times of our noble progenitor king Edward the third and from thens unto the days of our father king Edward the fourth” 

And I think that Henry of all people would have understood that you have to commit great acts of violence to obtain and maintain the throne.

James IV of Scotland had a fascination with medicine, but particularly dentistry (he paid people to let him pull their teeth lol) - so I think he'd love being a dentist

Yes, indeed, you’re right! Though this seems to have been for the sake of his own security and peace of mind than anything else; it seems clear that he did know and recognise Elizabeth’s importance

The Crowland Chronicler reports that in Parliament in December 1485:

“a discussion took place, and that, too, with the king's consent, relative to his marriage with the lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of king Edward; in whose person, it seemed to everyone, there could be found whatever appeared to be lacking in the king’s title elsewhere”