What to Wear During the War of The Roses

"The White Queen"

I have always been a huge costume nut.  Great films and shows always are an excellent source of inspiration for me and anyone to create something fun, and eventually useful. Back in my college years, "Braveheart" helped me create an early medieval outfit for one of my medieval studies class, and lots of “Ohhhs and Awwws” from classmates.  Emma Thompson's and Ang Lee's adaptation of Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" resulted in half a wardrobe filled with Regency period dresses, which all got worn to various Gaskell’s Balls in the Bay Area.  Yet no Mr. Darcy was seen.  Le sigh.

Most recent in my period costume film quest, I have discovered “The White Queen” produced by Starz yet even though not 100% historically accurate; has inspired pattern makers and costume/period dress nuts like myself, now to have a reason to make some pretty festive and beautiful frocks.  I finally have a use for the pewter crushed velvet in my sewing fabric stash! YAY! 2014 Night at the Symphony Costume Contest/Event, here I come!

Elizabeth Woodville

 

Back on topic. Dress.  It’s the War of the Roses.  Edward IV is trying not to get his supply of cloth cut off from Flanders and strikes a deal with Burgundy and his sister Margaret of York is escorted by the Earl Warwick, Richard Neville, to Burgundy for her pending marriage to help keep this important relationship open, and trade to keep going, despite rising conflict lurking in the horizon.  With this political backdrop, what did ladies wear, mainly the ladies at court? Dress during this time was actually quite depended on region.

15th Cent Italian Dress

For example Italy was on its own wavelength in contrast to the rest of the continent, as seen in paintings during the times. The northern part of Europe dressed a bit more to climate.   

Patterned fabric of period

The century began with the gown called “cotehardie” which we refer to as the one with the large bell sleeves and fitted down through the waist. This style faded quickly with introduction of new designs.  Gowns were long of course, and trimmed with fur (ermine, mink etc.) on the cuff, around the collar and sometimes the hem. Fabric was available in various dyes at this time.

The darker colors, reds, blues, dark green, blacks with brocades or patterned in artichoke or oak leave patterns; were of significant cost, mainly worn by those who could afford it, meaning the nobility. This style of gown is most known by the name: “houppelandes” which refer to the long flowing dresses of the time.

Garments were displayed or worn with a style called “slashing” which meant it was opened to reveal an other bit of clothing underneath, like a kirtle or under gown in contrasting colors (most common white or black). A chemise was worn close to the skin.  As time went on, repairs in sleeves of both men and women also accentuated this method of style.

Sleeves were mostly cuffed with matching fur from the color yet could be transferred to other gowns, with ornamentation on the cuff with jewels or embroidery. Also at times, if fur wasn’t worn, patterned fabric was used on both collar and cuff, which became more fashionable later in the century.

So what have I done with all this wealth of inspiration and creativity? I have put it to some use. I have made some alterations and adaptations of my own, but here is a glimpse of my current sewing project.  Today, we are lucky, we have sewing machines, just imagine all this work was done by hand at one point in time.  Headpiece… don’t ask me if I am going to make a hennin, I am not there yet. 

Step one: cutting out the dress: 

Detail of the side of the bodice, before I finished bead work.

Where we are at as of Sunday: Black sash, bodice jeweled, sleeves work in progress.

And What of the Princes?

It’s a question that has eluded historians from day one. Did Richard III kill his nephews or was it something bigger or a carefully planned plot to continue to tarnish the young king’s reign and reputation?
There are as I discovered, many theories old and new, credited, and not credited, by scholars that surround this mystery. Yet 500 years later, we are nowhere near closer to solving this mystery than they were in 1485.  When rumor broke out the first words about it spread across England, and even to the continent quickly; but this could have been a result of many things. Including Mancini’s visit to court and what he thought he discovered, and took back home.  Croyland Chronicle, to some the gossip paper, definitely spread the information that the princes were not where they should have been.  Was their fate by the hand of Richard, propaganda or a carefully planned plot by his rivals?

We do not have many good accurate contemporary sources for what happened to the princes. Dates are not consistent, and I wonder about the records of the guards in the tower as well? Were they educated? There is no recorded death of the boys by either the people whom they were in the custody of, church or a doctor.  Knowing this, here is a list of what we have:

Dominic Mancini, who left England in July, 1483, his statement:

'He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear altogether. A Strasbourg doctor, the last of his attendants, whose services the King enjoyed, reported that the young King, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him. Already there was a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether however, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all discovered.'

The Croyland Chronicle, Spring of 1486, confirms these rumours:

'A rumour,' it states 'was spread that the sons of King Edward had died a violent death, but it was uncertain how'.

Robert Ricart, Recorder of Bristol made an entry in his 'Kalendar' for the year ending September, 1483:

'In this year the two sons of King Edward were put to silence in the Tower of London.'

Historical notes compiled by a citizen of London before the end of 1488 for the year ending November, 1483, record that:

'they were put to death in the Tower of London.'

(source: http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_13.htm 2/16/14)

Looking at these contemporary sources, almost all the notes with the exception of Ricart and Mancini are well after the time Richard died. But in who’s favor was Mancini and Ricart. Mancini was asked to go home, meaning he might have fallen out of favor with Richard and his court, an negative account of this would be justified as means to dirty his reputation.  Ricart, I am unsure of. Bristol is in the South-West of England, was this area where he was having political upheavals? Also noted this statement, it is made right before Buckingham’s rebellion. It is also mentioned that Buckingham had motivation to find an end to the princes as well. He had a son/heir and thought himself too, to be inline for the throne.  His biggest roadblock was Richard, which he tried to get ride of in October and hoping he had support from Henry Tudor to overthrow. His cause wasn’t very successful, as he lost his head.

Henry Tudor (Henry VII)

What about that guy from across the sea, Henry Tudor?  There are many interesting facts that you could possibly point the finger at him.  First, Henry did not announce that the boys had been “murdered” until July of 1486, nearly a year after Richard’s death. (source: http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/the-princes-in-the-tower  2/15/14). Henry also appealed quite quickly Titulus Regius, faster than paint could dry, and had all documents regarding this destroyed.  What if he had documents of what really happened to the princes, also, personal documents of Richards? Destroyed them, pointed the finger at Richard? Or even better yet; if he didn’t know what happened to them, or had no involvement; what was the point behind getting Titulus Regius appealed by Parliament, if the princes were still alive? If the princes were alive, and not illegitimate they would be a threat to the crown. He got Titulus Regius appealed so he could marry Elizabeth of York, but in order for him to think his crown was surely his he had to have known the princes were out of the picture.  So therefore, he had to have known something.  He also had Elizabeth Woodville put in a monastery later in life. Hypnotizing, she probably knew too much and was becoming a risk to his throne and reputation. It’s all very circumstantial, but it also shows the twists and the pull that a new king and those who are under him, can manipulate a situation to his favor. Perhaps he was doing just this.

Now another interesting twist, in 1502, Sir James Tyrrell, confessed to the boys murders, with the aid of two other accomplices.  Sir James Tyrrell was one of Richards’s men, with Brackenbury.   In Starz “The White Queen” Richard is seen as still in town when the boys disappeared. This is not historically accurate but to the viewer it adds guilt to Richard’s character.  But it is not what happened.  Richard was not in town at all, he was touring the country and gaining support for the problem of Henry Tudor, and trying to get funds for a campaign against him.   It is suggested that he gave orders and those orders were sent to London. This is one theory, if he was the one responsible.  This is what Tyrrell confessed to.  But his confession was drawn out by torture, meaning that the statements made about his involvement and who ordered the murders; Richard III, might not be entirely true. They were thwarted out of him by means of torture, questioning their validity.  He made the statements under duress, meaning force or threats were meant to make him do something. In a court of law this confession would have been thrown out, as it was made under these circumstances, and questioning again its validity. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tyrrell 2/15/14).  Even, despite further questioning, it was noted that he was unable to say where the bodies were, claiming that they had been moved, but by whom? (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/James_Tyrrell.html 2/15/14) Looking at the context of when and how the confessions where made, under torture/duress, and Tyrrell knew he was going to die, said what they wanted to hear suggesting it was not a genuine confession. The last thing Henry VII wanted to hear was that someone knew about his involvement in the princes’ unfortunate end. More questions can be raised by the means of how the message/orders were sent to Tyrrell, also raise an interesting question. It’s the Middle Ages; they did not have email or telephone. They relayed on foot solders or horseback, word of mouth, and paper to deliver a message. What if that message was intercepted? What if that message was changed, what if the message was totally illegible by the time it got to the tower? Did the receiver even know how to read?

-->

What if Margaret Beaufort had one of her “visions” and through lord Stanley who was more than likely in London at the time, paid the guards, or even tried to orchestrate the whole thing to look like Richard was responsible? Margaret had very strong motivations, as she wanted her son on the throne from day one.

As time went by, many have written accounts of Richard’s short reign and involvement with the princes, started with him being accused of the wrong doing, from accounts by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More, whom both were employed by the Tudors. It is now perceived that these accounts were Tudor propaganda, to glorify the reign of the Tudors and discredit the young king, and justify Henry VII success at Bosworth. Later accounts shifted to either defending Richard, or putting him out to dry.  One of the first to try to redeem him was Horace Walpole. He looked at the evidence that was available and carefully analyzed what or how it could be used in context to the disappearance of the princes and Richards involvement.  In his book, Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard the Third, he writes:

With regard to the elder, his disappearance is no kind of proof that he was murdered: he might die in the Tower. The queen pleaded to the archbishop of York that both princes were weak and unhealthy. I have insinuated that it is not impossible but Henry the Seventh might find him alive in the Tower. I mention that as a bare possibility - but we may be very sure that if he did find Edward alive there, he would not have notified his existence, to acquit Richard and hazard his own crown. The circumstances of the murder were evidently false, and invented by Henry to discredit Perkin ; and the time of the murder is absolutely a fiction, for it appears by the roll of parliament, which bastardized Edward the Fifth, that he was then -j- alive, which was seven months... (Walpole pg. 70)

Walpole looked at the evidence presented and basically exonerates Richard’s innocent to the murders.  There simply was no proof.  But he also points out the murders might have even been invented to discredit Perkin who was one of the famous impostors who threatened Henry VII’s reign and started a revolt.  This trend seemed to follow to present day and most historians either defend Richard, or flat out place the blame on him in regards to the princes’ outcome. If Richard had won that day at Bosworth it is hypothesized that we might have answered to what happened, but his time was cut short. Richard ruled too short of a period to fix problems that arose during his reign in a timely manner.  He suffered tragedies of his wife and son’s death, rebellions, and Henry Tudor attempting to invade multiple times.  Time was and has been his biggest enemy. 

Yes, he was stressed, Richard III (portrayed by Aneurin Barnard)

There are some who believe the princes may have survived. We have all heard of the impostors, Perkin Warbeck, Richard Plantagenet the mysterious bricklayer, and Lambert Simnel.  David Baldwin’s book The Lost Prince, the Survival of Richard of York, discusses these cases in depth.  It adds a very interesting twist to the mystery and provides a lot of information.  It also helps paint an interesting picture of Henry VII.  Its on my must read NOW! List.  An article published by “The Times” by Geraldine Norman in March 1983, raised a suggestion that according to art historian, Jack Leslau, the two sons of Edward IV were still alive throughout the reign of Richard III, and continued to live, under new assumed identities.  He does not mention the famous impostors.  Leslau’s claim is based off a painting by Hans Holbein, the Younger that depicts a portrait of Sir Thomas More and his family.  His analysis of all of the depictions in the painting is lengthy and complex. Through careful examination, and art theory, he concludes that Edward was said to become Sir Edward Guildford and Richard became Dr. John Clement. Clement it is also noted had gentile or noble birth and he came out of nowhere. He was married to More’s adopted daughter, Margaret. The analysis of the painting is over 100 pages long and goes into theory, clues, arrangement of symbols use of certain flowers, inscriptions, colors, use of gloves and other symbolism's in the painting that led to his conclusion. Some historians question the validity of his claim.

Do bones hold a story or an answer? Today, questions have been raised involving the bones that are in the urn in Westminster that were found during renovations in the Tower underneath a staircase in the 1600’s. This is the only physical evidence we have that could lead to clues, as to what happen, or not to the princes. But apparently, the ministry and the Queen have ruled they will not be DNA tested or examined as noted in an article from an article in The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under). Who the bones belong to, may never be known or what fate befell them.

In conclusion, but moving forward with all the data we have: accounts, literature, the pile of hearsay, and what we know of medieval society; as one who studies the period, it is difficult for me to place blame pretty much on anyone, specifically Richard.  But I really want to blame Henry Tudor out of revenge.  To me, even with a law background, and history background, there just is not enough evidence to sway someone, this way or another. Too much circumstantial and defiantly way to much libel and slander to go around. But, looking at his rivals, they could have been culprits as well and for good reason.  We now know what the Tudors were capable of.  The common medieval man, probably just as much if not worse. For it was the people who placed the blame on Henry VII for the sweating sickness in 1485, and said it was a “sign” that he was not the true king, haha! That simple statement alone demonstrates how misleading, and in what context information can be to the general populous of medieval society. It’s another reason why Shakespeare’s account of Richard III gets tossed out the window at my house. He was hired by the Tudors, and wanted to stay in favor, so he defamed Richard III the best he could with a pen, and wrote him into history as a complete monster. A monster, he was not.  Anxious maybe, nervous at times, stressed oh he more than likely was.  A murderer of little boys? That still remains in question.  After all, it was the Middle Ages.

Myers, A.R. “The Character of Richard III” published in www.historytoday.com. vol. 4, issue 8, 1954 accessed: 2/15/14

King Richard III and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, Friends or Foe?

“against the queen, her blood adherents and affinity, which have intended and daily doeth intend, to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousin, … by their damnable ways …”

~By Richard’s own hand, June 10, 1483 in an urgent message to York asking for help against the queen. [1]

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville (Wydevile) or also known as “Elizabeth Grey,” and King Richard III is one of complex study. It is questioned that their relationship changed numerous of times during Richard’s life. Most importantly, the impact of her favor with him or against him is what aided Henry Tudor’s rise to power.  It is a relationship that can be examined to come to some attempt at understanding the events of 1483 and other events of Richard’s life such as the death of his brother George, and the inevitable his fall from power.

Some believe that if there was a true rift between Richard and Elizabeth Woodville, it started long before he came to the throne. It might have been as early when Elizabeth came to court as his brother’s wife. The Woodville’s were a large family, but not one of noble birth. This was not very popular amongst those in court at the time. Also they were quite affluent in the local governments, creating uneasiness for many.  We know Richard was greatly affected when his brother George was executed in 1478.  It is noted, Richard was “so overcome with grief for his bother that he could not dissimulate so well, but that he was overheard to say he would one day avenge his brother’s death.”  Richard now seeks revenge, but not quite.  The Italian chronicler, Mancini also stated that Elizabeth strongly disliked George, but it might have been because George knew about the previous marriage of his brother Edward IV, and the illegitimacy of her children and George seemed to have talked a lot. (Location: 521 of Richard III, Return of the King) The animosity might have started then.  Never put a woman between two brothers, in this case, three, it doesn’t go down well.

When examining events previously to Richard sitting on the throne, it is well known the Woodville’s were of Lancastrian loyalty. In the rebellion of 1469, he did not join their cause, but fought with his brother. Thus showing loyalty to his brother Edward, which he continued to show this loyalty by having an acceptance of them at court.  It is also important to realize Richard spent quite some time in Warwick’s household. Warwick was not fond of the Woodville’s; hence the feeling may have become mutual. [2] The thought of a Woodville or Lancastrian king on the throne might have been enough for Richard to choose the actions he did.  There were also others in the realm that was uneasy with the thought of a Woodville dominated king. Nobles had been deprived of “due inheritance” and the council had voted against Woodville regency, meaning more than likely to make Elizabeth regent of her son, from statements made by Dorset.

Richard’s loyalty was to the Yorkist cause and rule, hence why accepted the position his brother gave him as Lord Protector of his son, Edward V.  This acceptance shows how loyal Richard was to his brother.  Right before Richard decided to reach for the throne, questionably pressured by others, and the thought of the risk of having the country ruled from the throne by a 12 year old prince, through his Woodville mother; whom her favor with the people was questionable; her likeness at court was constantly teetering.  This more than likely worried Richard greatly.

By January of 1484 Richard’s reign was pretty much locked tight. Richard went to Parliament and instituted Titulus Regius, that January of 1484; which made the widowed queen’s children and all her heirs to the throne illegitimate.  It is hypothesized that his mother, Cecily Neville, likely supported this. The path to the throne for Richard was now very clear and secure. The major point made to Parliament was that Edward IV his brother, was previously married, and not divorced, making his marriage to Elizabeth invalid therefore, her children all illegitimate.  Elizabeth was also accused of witchcraft and sorcery with her mother whom was deceased, as her accomplished. Why she was thought of a witch is a whole different story. That’s a study in the belief system and mind of the medieval man, and one of manipulation.

After Parliament had secured his title, and he had been successful in squashing previous rebellions earlier the year before (Buckingham’s Rebellion in the fall of 1483.); to the public eye, the young king was going to be ruling for quite some time.  Meanwhile in sanctuary, Elizabeth and her girls were facing a different fate.  They were living in poverty and off charity, with the grim outlook that she and her girls were facing a life living in poverty.  Elizabeth had to come to terms with Richard. This is where we see the queen negotiating a future for her daughters. That March in 1484, she came out of sanctuary and entrusting the care of her daughters to Richard by allowing them to be at court.  We don’t know if she had Woodville motive, but did this make Richard look like a Woodville or Lancastrian sympathizer? Not really, more than likely it helped his image and reputation that he wasn’t the insidious bastard or murderer that the Middle Ages “press” was making him out to be.  It was a smart move on Richard’s behalf to help save his reputation from being further tarnished over the incident with the Princes in the tower. He also hoped it would win him some support from Southern England, which he was seriously lacking. For he promised:

"I Richard, by grace of God, etc., in the presence of you, my lords spiritual and temporal, and you, my Lord Mayor and aldermen of London, promise and swear...that if the daughters of Elizabeth...will come to me out of the Sanctuary of Westminster and be guided, ruled, and demeaned after me, then I shall see that they shall be in surety of their lives...nor any of them imprison in the Tower of London or other prison, but that I shall put them into honest places..."

(Source: http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_17_Elizabeth-Woodville-and-Richard-III)

Some hypothizied that Richard as well, attempted to arrange a marriage for Elizabeth, the queen’s oldest daughter, to his son Edward of Middleham, now the Prince of Wales as an attempt to keep Henry Tudor away from the throne. But these plans didn’t go accordingly, as Edward died that March in 1484. (Source:http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/a/elizabeth_woodv.htm) (Weir, Alison "Elizabeth of York" pg. 110, endnote #50 "St. Aubyn author was unable to find a contemporary source.")

Elizabeth might have come to terms with Richard as well because she knew all too well what had happened to Margaret Beaufort for her aiding her son’s cause or the “great rebel and traitor.” She had been stripped of her lands, placed under house arrest, with her husband Thomas Stanley as her gatekeeper. Elizabeth more than likely did not want to face the same fate, as she would have gone to the Tower more than likely, if she were suspected of treason. She had also seen what had happened to her brother Anthony and one of her older sons, as well executed for treason.  Securing a future for her and her daughters was the priority, not the grief of her brother and sons deaths.

But the events after Richard’s fall show another side of the coin. If Richard ever had a reason to not trust her, he might have been correct in doing so. In 1487 she lost her dower (a widow’s share for the rest of her life of her husband’s estates normally monies.) due to a plot against the king, Henry VII. There was a Yorkist rebellion started by Lambert Simnel claiming to be the pretender Earl of Warwick. Her involvement is questioned amongst scholars today. ( Source: http://tudorhistory.org/people/ewoodville/)

Richard had every reason to hold some form of animosity towards Elizabeth. Did this directly influence fortune’s wheel and the outcome of events? Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to say.  What is consistent is who and where Richard’s loyalties remained through out his life.  Richard’s goals in the end and above all were for his loyalty for his family, and for his plans for his reign.

1. Richard III by Charles Ross, 1981 (http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php#woodvilles accessed: 1/25/14)

2. http://www.richardiii.net/2_5_0_riii_controversy.php#woodvilles

3. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/medbritishqueens/a/elizabeth_woodv.htm

4. http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa120197.htm

5. http://www.britroyals.com/plantagenet.asp?id=elizabeth_woodville

6. http://tudorhistory.org/people/ewoodville/

7. Collins, Patricia J. Richard III: Return of the King. C. 2013

Tudors: The real Margaret Tudor a Scottish Queen

TO THE PRINCESS MARGARET ON HER ARRIVAL AT HOLYROOD

I.
 Now fayre, fayrest of every fayre,
Princes most plesant and preclare,
The lustyest one alyve that byne,
Welcum of Scotlond to be Quene!

II.
 Younge tender plant of pulcritud,
Descendyd of Imperyalle blude;
Fresche fragrant floure of fayrehede shene,
Welcum of Scotlond to be Quene!


III.
 Swet lusty lusum lady clere,
Most myghty kyngis dochter dere,
Borne of a princes most serene,
Welcum of Scotlond to be Quene! 


IV.
 Welcum the Rose bothe rede and whyte,
Welcum the floure of our delyte!
Rejoysyng frome the sone beme,
Welcum of Scotlond to be quene;
Welcum of Scotlonde to be quene!
 
- William Dunbar (1503)
(Source: http://tudorhistory.org/poetry/margaretholyrood.html)

Margaret Tudor, the eldest of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor VII’s children was actually quite a different person in real life, when compared to Showtime’s “The Tudors” portrayal.   She was a woman who fought for her family, herself and for her crown.  She did not marry the King of Portugal, as depicted in the show and she definitely was not a strumpet nor trollop which is shown either. At times media, or shows temp to teach one thing, but get history and its people wrong. This is a definite case of misrepresentation.  The real Margaret was quite a different person as described below.

Margaret Tudor was born on the 28^th of November in 1489. She is presumably named after her grandmother who interestingly was also her godmother; Margaret Beaufort.  By this time, the royal household had separate quarters for raising their children.  She grew up in a separate home from the palace at Westminster, in Eltham. It was here she was brought up as a princess. While at Eltham it is noted that she learned to play the lute and clavichord (all musical instruments period to the time).  She was also tutored in French and Latin. Surprisingly, she was skilled in archery and she knew how to ride horses, in particular sidesaddle. She was also fond of horses.

In 1502 under a treaty with Scotland, she was betrothed to James IV. Preparations for this betrothal had been underway since 1496.  Because James great grandmother was Joan Beaufort, sister to John Beaufort who was great grandfather to Margaret Tudor, they had to wait for papal dispensation. Margaret Tudor was a forth cousin with James IV, which was within the prohibited degree.  Hence approval from the pope was necessary.  The same year her brother Arthur, died on the border of England and Wales. A year later in 1503, her mother Elizabeth of York died in childbirth and the child, named Katherine died a year later. She left for Scotland in 1503 to be with her husband James IV. Her travel to Scotland was a strenuous one and one that tested her will as a future queen. Noted:

"Her first night in Scotland was spent at Fast Castle; the next at the nunnery at Haddington on the third night, at 'Acquik' or 'Dacquik' Castle, Dalkeith Palace, James came to kiss her goodnight. He came again to console her on 4 August, after a stable fire had killed some of her favourite horses. Her riding gear was burnt and a new sumpter cloth or pallion of cloth-of-gold with a velvet cushion cost £127. On the 7 August 1503, Margaret was carried from Dalkeith to Edinburgh on a litter."

(Source: Accounts of the Lord High Treasurer, vol. 2 (1900), 214-215.)

Margaret, 13 wed James, 30 on August 8, 1503 at Holyrood Abbey. This isn’t the king of Portugal that “The Tudors” speak of, and the actress who portrays Margaret isn’t 13.  At this time, Henry had just been married that June to Catherine of Aragon.  It is rumored he had a fit when he found out his sister was going to be “Queen” and he was still a duke, for how could she be of higher rank than him.  Lovely Tudor temper. Margaret and Henry for sure were not living in the same court as the show portrays and the age of both is questionable, as he was 12, and not king at the time she left for Scotland.  

Margaret at first was not happy in Scotland. Her writings to her father Henry VII suggest this. Despite her unhappiness in Scotland her arrival spurred the poet William Dunbar to write The Thrisseil and The Rois (Thistle and the Rose), one of the most famous poems to date.  The poem also honors the joining of the houses of York and Lancastrian of her parents. 

She had a total of 5 children with James. Only one, James V survived to adulthood, born in 1512.  I do not know if she suffered the same genetic blood disorder as it is suggested that Henry VIII suffered from (Carrier of Kell’s positive blood and McLeod syndrome) but it is interesting how many of her children, barely survived infancy. 

Due to strained relations between Scotland and Henry VIII, Margaret’s brother, the country broke out in war in 1513.  September 9^th of that same year (1512) after James IV marched to the border, he died in battle at Flodden Field.  James V, her son became king, and Margaret became regent and was to stay regent as long as she did not remarry.  In 1514 she remarried again.  This did not help her to stay as regent.  She married Archibald Douglas, Earl of Angus the 6th of August 1514. Meanwhile John Stuart, Duke of Albany, who was a cousin to the king, also next in line for the throne if something happened to Alexander, was voted by Scottish lords to be regent.  The position of Regent was passed to him.  He arrived from France in May 1515.

Margret had her children taken from her and in September of the same year. As a result, she and new her husband fled to England in September 1515. With the help from her brother, Henry VIII, she was able to stay at Harbottle Castle in the north of England. Here she gave birth to her daughter, Margaret Douglas. After she was born, Margaret became very ill and almost died. Alexander her son, died in December that year, but news was delayed due to her poor health. Margaret stayed in England and went to London until 1517. It was then she discovered that her husband Angus had been unfaithful and had taken a mistress. He had also been living off her Scottish revenue. She spent the next few years in a dreadful marriage, no money, and little to no contact with her son James.  Letters written between her and Henry VIII beg of needing money and wanting to leave Scotland.

In 1524, with the help from the Earl of Arran, she was able to overthrow Albany’s regency, as her son was 12, and could now finally rule on his own. But this was short lived, as her husband, Angus returned and took control of the government and control of James V authority from 1525-1528.  She promptly applied for an annulment of her marriage to Angus in March of 1527 and Pope Clement VII issued the final decree.

Margret got married a third and final time.  In April of 1528, Margaret married Henry Stewart, Lord Methven. Angus who still had influence in Scottish court, had Lord Methven arrested on the grounds that he married the Queen without any approval. Margaret’s son, James who removed Angus and his family from power, overturned this. James was able to have Lord Methven as his stepfather and had parliament proclaim Angus and his followers “traitors.” Angus escaped to England and did not return until James V death.

Over the years Margaret had a good relation with her son James. She preferred to have closer relations with England, but her son favored France. On October 18, 1541 Margaret died in Methven Castle, Scotland.  She did not die due to foul play like “The Tudors” suggests.  Sad to note, her third marriage unfortunately went like her second.  Methven took a mistress and lived off her money. It is theorized that she died from a stroke. Like her brother and her a few others in her family, her weight later became an issue and more than likely impacted her health.

In watching the Tudors, the image of Margret is defiantly tainted and quite inaccurate.  She wasn’t the trollop or strumpet that is shown in the show nor did she marry any of the characters they portray her to.  She wasn’t defiantly was not brunette. Nor did she have raging fistfights with her husbands. That is a complete historical inaccuracy. Women never hit their husbands, especially if you were of nobility. It was just not done. Now she was known to have been a bit of an actress and spoiled, but it might have been because her brother Henry seemed to cater to many of her request. But she was Queen of Scotland for sometime and she was the eldest child to a victorious king, Henry VII. 

At times media representation of historical individuals sometimes is catered not to us historians, but to the masses, as I think was the reasoning behind “The Tudors” being scripted as it was. The show has its good points, yet it has its flaws. The depiction of Margaret Tudor is one of them.  Interestingly, the character of the show was based off both Mary and Margaret Tudor, for reasons I am not too sure why, but maybe to simplify the script and playing of the show and not to confuse audiences.  Tudor history is vast and complex and can be a demon within itself.  For whatever reason, it paints a very flawed and confusing image of a queen.  I am glad I re-watched the show and picked this up and found out who the real Margaret Tudor was and more.  

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Tudor#cite_ref-7
http://tudorhistory.org/people/margaret/

Setting Some Facts Straight: My Review of "The White Queen"

I, like many for the last 10 weeks or so have been watching Starz "The White Queen.” At first, I struggled to get through the first episode due to drugged stupor from surgery but once I finally watched it, I was curious as to what the series had to offer.

The series is based off the book of similar title set during the War of The Roses in England in 1450s or so. It’s a medieval period themed series: my cup of tea basically. So me and my knowledge, biting my tongue many of times, and mind; ended up watching the show in its entirety. In the end I was amazed. I had read mixed reviews, and was actually quiet shocked of how the series was perceived by many audiences. In the end, I certainly did not follow the tone of the journalists who wrote the reviews. Still I wonder what was put in their drink that day. Did they forget that film is like any art form, it is interpretative and first and foremost it is art. Criticizing it won’t do you a bit of good. The overall consensus: the show left me wanting more, and a with a few sleepless nights with the vision of Richard III dead body on the ground….I got a little freaked out…. Shock factor achieved there Aneurin.

The acting. Words don’t even come close. We are introduced to Elizabeth and Edward first. The Anne and Richard, played by Faye Marsay and Aneurin Barnard. They stole the show. As well as Amanda Hale who plays Margaret Beauford and Stanely. I am uncertain of the actors name. The twists, the emotions, the technique, they all used, especially Aneurin, is just captivating. I remember watching the first episode where Richard III is really a main character and I was just floored. His performance just blew me away. Give him a prize someone. I have seen a ton of period movies and not, and"The White Queen" just blew it out of the park. Bravo! Now, the show is over and I miss my medieval fix!

With that being said, we get to my review of the series. I understand liberties were taken with some aspects of the filming, i.e. lack of armor, clothing, and other details, (red paint on the window frame) which being a trained medievalist, I didn’t complain and just let it slide. As far as critiquing, the only real problem I had was some of the themes addressed in the story line. There is just not even close or loose historical base to have made the claims. It is a little bewildering to me as a historian and a scholar, that they were even suggested. As a result, it created confusion amongst many viewers and their views of specific characters, especially of Richard III. Of note, I did have a blast helping my peers understand the period after the show was over that following night.

Now back to Richard. He is probably the most misunderstood of all the English Plantagenet kings. A lot of it traces back to what happened after and before his death.
Now my gripes. First, I had a slight issue with the relationship that was suggested in the show between Lizzy (Elisabeth of York) and Richard. This more than likely never happened, actually it didn’t. It was a result of gossip and rumor. Anne and Richard actually shared a bed up until she got ill. This wasn’t very common in that day. King’s and Queen’s had separate chambers. If he had had an affair, she would have been the first to know, since they shared a bed up until the end, when it was feared that he too would become ill.

Is there any evidence? No. There is only one letter in existence that Lizzy wrote that is more than likely a misinterpretation or a fake. It is also know, or it should be that if Lizzy was educated, she would have known about courtly romance and courtly love, introduced by Marie de France. This needs to be taken into consideration. It greatly impacted writing at the time, as well as composition. When looking at her writings, these are some of the aspects that pop out and yes, could be misinterpreted quite easily for “love” not “admiration,” which in fact it was. Richard was planning a wedding for her. As a responsible and thankful niece, of course he would be in admiration of her; he is helping her plan her future marriage. This is a big deal and an expensive one.
Some notes about the letter. The letter found by George Buck, who lived about 100 years after Richard’s death. It claimed to have “have seen a letter written by Elizabeth of York to John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, shortly before the death of Queen Anne Neville, in which Elizabeth declared her love for Richard III and her hope of becoming his wife. In Buck’s words, the letter asks Norfolk “to be a mediator for her to the King, in behalf of the marriage propounded between them”, who, as she wrote, was her “onely joy and maker in this world”, and that she was his in heart and thought: “withall insinuating that the better part of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.” The letter, if it ever existed, is now lost.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Buck) Now as a scholar, it is quite interesting that a letter oh 100 years later emerges, then disappears. Something in this is not right. Hence, why it is thought that the letter was a fake, or misinterpretation, and oh by the way.. it’s missing now too.

Another source, that documents and discusses this letter as well as the information received from the Croyland Chronicles; the book Richard, Return of the King, by Patricia J. Collins, the same letter cited, and is also discussed. She also brings similar points about the letter, and the fact that Richard repeatedly publicly denied any such plans to marry his niece. Yet rumors circulated like wild fire after Anne’s death and did not help the situation. It was known is that he wished to remarry soon, as he had no heir to the throne at that time, he needed some job security. But it would make sense that the rumor mill went overboard, despite the good that Richard did. The game was to the defeated the one who is your opponent make them a victim of libel or slander, gossip and rumor and chip at them until they break. The rumors continued after his death under the rule of the new king, he had to establish power. And of course, they had to clean up the rumors of any public notion of what people once thought of Elizabeth of York when she married Henry Tudor. She had to be fit to marry a king. Place the blame on the dead king, he is dead so he can’t defend himself; easy scapegoat.

What do we take away from this? Just because it ends up in the daily newspaper, doesn’t mean it is fact or true. The educated public is a very small pool and most are the clergy, rumors are what makes the wheel and the power go around.
Finally, the princes in the tower. This is probably one of todays and in this time period, the biggest unsolved mystery to date. The show suggests that Elizabeth swapped young Richard out, with an imposter. That so did not happen. There are doctor records that show proof he was in the tower and he was ill. The gossip flew when they disappeared, again, who was unpopular? Richard III he was blamed for their disappearance. In defending Richard, it is questioned that Elisabeth’s loyalty eventually switched to him, but it was too late for obvious reasons, for him to save his throne. The simple fact that it did shift to him, is an indication that he was not responsible for their disappearance or why would she have changed loyalties if in fact he had something to do with the disappearances? It would not make sense, as what little evidence we have suggests.

The likely culprits? Margaret Beauford, and Stanley. They both wanted Tudor on that throne, and history shows that there is pile of bodies to that lead to that “iron throne”. Now, hypothetically, it is possible that she switched one of her children. But the biggest factual and theoretical problems that historians face today, is there is just no evidence anything that even suggests or supports who murdered the children, or in fact that they were even murdered in the first place. My personal theory; one died, the other more than likely died as well. From someone’s hand, no, from illness, yes. I vote tuberculosis; we already have a few dead of the disease currently in the show.

An article in The Guardian(http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under), discusses the urn that was found in the tower with some bones of two children found at the bottom of a stair case during a renovation, that could possibly hold some clues to this mystery. Since the discovery of Richard III and DNA testing of his remains, a suggestion was made to have those bones DNA tested but the request was denied. This actually puts a very interesting twist on the plot. The Church of England, and the Queen were even consulted and supported the denial. Perhaps they really do know what happened, it’s some big secret? We might never know. Is this enough to prove Richard III responsible, no. He was a very loyal, and catholic and held the church in great esteem, why would he commit a mortal sin on a child, he had other problems to worry about, and they were great by far. He went to great lengths to deny public accusations, where the Croyland Chronicles suggests, as well as the York House Books, as the one responsible for their disappearance. Again, the blame landed on a king whose competition wanted power, and if they could break him down piece by piece, they would and to take what they wanted in the end, that being the throne.
History always seems to have a different picture, than its interpretation or artistic departure. This is why I enjoy film. Sometimes it is nice to take a departure from what we know and to let it go.

My overall opinion of the show was it was terrific, beautiful, and just wonderfully written from an artistic perspective. From a historical perspective, it leads a lot into much needed discussion. But this is good for people like me. I love to teach others about what I love and know. There are so many aspects of medieval life that just one show cannot even begin to understand its complexity. It’s a complex but fascinating period. My biggest advice to people wanting to learn about the period or the people in it? Do your research wisely, and really look at who your sources have been written by. If you are reading about Richard III, if it is later for example 1600’s, the opinion will be painted poorly. This is something we are discovering today and is unfortunately the case in so much of our documentation. Sometimes a little of rewriting the past has to take place.

Finally, take a step back and try to think like that medieval person who wrote the material especially if it’s a primary source. Many angles need to be thought of when you go read into that piece. Who are they in favor with, what is their position at court, what is their education level, and are they a man of importance. To look at the life and times of individuals of the past, some of our best sources are the actual legal documents and letters of that time. For example “The Paston Letters.” They give anyone a perfect window into that time. The world of the Middle Ages is a fascinating time period and that was clearly depicted in the show“The White Queen.” It is a show worth its weight in gold. I highly suggest it.

Starz “The White Queen” is currently up for a People’s Choice Award for 2014.

Also vote for Aneurin Barnard for his role of Richard III

~ Andrea C. S. McMillin, BA Medieval Studies w/ History U.C. Davis and current scholar
October 26, 2013