Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower book. Happy reading Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower Pocket Guide.

Seller Inventory VIB Book Description The History Press. Seller Inventory NEW Seller Inventory M Ships with Tracking Number! Buy with confidence, excellent customer service!. Seller Inventory n. Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower.

Thank you for registering to HistoryExtra

David Baldwin. Publisher: The History Press , This specific ISBN edition is currently not available. View all copies of this ISBN edition:.

Edward IV's Controversial Queen

October 21, at am. Margaret Beaufort lived to 66 or 68 years old depending on whether she was born in or The life expectancy for a member of the peerage in late Medieval England was 30 with infant mortality factored in. David said:. September 20, at pm. Matt, you are right to point out that Margaret was not in the custody of her husband until after the rebellion, which itself occurred after the rumours of the deaths of the Princes. He was promoted by Richard after the rebellion and Margaret was entrusted to him because his actions during the rebellion assisted in its failure.

David Baldwin

Would he really risk everything to kill a king and then sit back and not take advantage of the uprising to promote his step son? However, it is in the area of motive that you have it completely wrong. Henry was in the custody of the Duke of Brittany who wanted a good deal in exchange for him. Their second child would rule Brittany. Having a Queen Anne of Brittany whom Henry knew well would also give him confidence after the attempted abduction. So in the summer of , everything was in place for Henry to submit to Edward IV and return home, but that plan depended on the survival of one of the Princes to fulfil the agreement with Brittany.

So the future wellbeing of Henry and his reunion with his mother depended on the survival of Edward V and his marriage to Anne of Brittany. October 21, at pm.

  • Dead Justice!
  • Princes in the Tower, Richard Duke of York and Edward V.
  • Product Information.
  • Environmental Winds: Making the Global in Southwest China.
  • The New Gilded Age: The Critical Inequality Debates of Our Time (Studies in Social Inequality)!
  • The Complete Idiots Guide to Vampires.

No the logic is sound and conclusive. You are using an event after the general belief that the Princes were dead to imply a motive prior to that belief. The news of the deaths changed everything. After all he was a prisoner, had no followers and no army. Margaret did not plot against Richard until after she heard of the deaths — Polydore Vergil.

You make an awful lot of assumptions in your post, and rely on an odd view of the timeline. Secondly, Buckingham was, at least, at first claiming to be preparing a rebellion in favor of restoring Edward V to the throne. Or planned it all in advance? Your entire scenario is based on knowledge that would not be available until — a full year after you state that Beaufort could have gone after the Princes to aid her sons plans. Margaret would have needed to be psychic to know what the following 1 to 2 years had in store.

Elizabeth Woodville: Mother of the Princes in the Tower - David Baldwin - كتب Google

October 25, at pm. Just read it again. What events from are you talking about? Please explain.

Elizabeth Woodville

That the rumors of the deaths of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury would benefit her son a great deal in his quest for the throne of England? Already happened in the summer of That Henry would promise to marry Elizabeth of York who would be the legitimate heir of Edward IV if one discounted Titulus Regius and if her brothers were dead or believed to be dead as a way to gain the York support and strengthen his claim to the throne? Happened in the summer of That Henry would mount an invasion with the goal to gain the throne?

Happened in the summer of … and Margaret Beaufort was one of the organizers of that operation. That was obviously not the case. What events from and are you talking about? What is your argument? Dianne Penn said:. If she did, what is to say she stopped at Edward? All speculation of course but perfectly possible.

Obviously Richard was killed openly on the battlefield but the eliminations previously? The Tudors made no bones about eliminating all Yorkists and Plantagenets post Bosworth so why not before? If he had still been alive when Henry became King, Henry would have probably proclaim Richard as usurper etc. Then spread rumors that Richard killed his wife?

Why not poison Richard? Anne would be seen as a traitor to Edward her late husband by marrying the enemy. It is said Richard ate little in public. Precautions against poison? Read Denings book Secret history. It has chapters on the poison if Edward IV. Excellent article.

Navigation menu

And then they call Ricardians extreme. Margaret Beaufort does, as well. December 8, at pm. These May — September marriages seldom work out! More likely Francis of Brittany was not sincere about any such marriage, or Henry believed he was not. And he was well-advised not to trust Francis, who sold him down the river to English agents. Eva Burian said:. December 18, at am. Simply because of what I claim on my richardiiiandallill-treated. If the boys were killed during his reign,he was driven into it. My special subject being Shakespeare and grotesque drama,I am trying to see all this differently,as the restored,not misinterpreted Shakespeare suggests.

As he was very near in time,he and his generation could still know for sure many things that were lost later. And his oeuvre also teaches us that the deeds of different people have to be judged taking into consideration their personalities. In the case of Tudor,the fact that he was obviously a villain, according to what he did after his victory,has never been taken into consideration by those who defend the establishment that goes back to him.

And this environment somehow confused us, Ricardians too.

The Princes In The Tower 1483

Shakespeare is a more important clue than it was previously acknowledged. We can discuss many details,but the fact that even Shakespeare was misinterpreted to favour Tudor, casts a different light on everything. February 14, at am. There is simply no evidence to prove any of your points. In fact, many of them have been disproved once and for all by the discovery of his body.

And then we found him……. Yep, sorry, folks, The Tudors were right, the paintings were correct, and Richard III did have one shoulder higher than the other.

He did have a curved spine. He was deformed. We think back on history as a done deal. I mean, how shocked was the entire media when Donald Trump won the presidency? To us, it was a foregone conclusion. And for such a long shot, getting rid of the princes may have been a start, but there were SO many men closer to the line of succession than Henry Tudor.

I mean, talk about a long shot.