 |
Reply
| | | From: Berengaria (Original Message) | Sent: 7/11/2005 6:19 AM |
I was reading the commentary regarding Edward of Warwick and decided to start a new thread for my question as it takes the topic off on a tangent somewhat. As Lady of the Glade said, Warwick was originally designated as Richard III's heir apparent following the death of his own son. Richard then changed his mind and selected his sister Elizabeth's eldest son, John de la Pole, instead. It could be that this was when it became apparent that Warwick's mental capacities were not what they should have been. Warwick was used as a figurehead in the Lambert Simnel affair, and that is the part I do not understand. John de la Pole led the pro-Yorkist troops in the final battle of the Wars of the Roses, Stoke, and lost his life in the attempt to seat Simnel aka Warwick on the throne. Why would he fight for the rights of another when he had been designated their heir to the throne by Richard? |
|
|
Reply
| |
Yes, Aunt Margaret backed Lambert Simnel, but really, how well did she know her nephews? She was married to Charles the Bold in 1468 and Prince Richard was born in 1473, while poor Edward (later Warwick) was born in 1475. I think I've read that she made only one visit to England while her brother Edward was king. And who knows if she even met Richard or Edward at that time, or if either was at court. My point is, I'm not sure she was in a position to know, truly, if either Lamber Simnel or Perkin Warbeck was one of her nephews. IMHO, the person who would best know the truth never offered an opinion on either of these men. That person is Elizabeth of York, Henry VII's queen. Another thought, perhaps the reason Richard III changed his mind about Warwick's being his heir was his young age - he was only 10 at the time of Bosworth, while the Earl of Lincoln was in his early 20's. If Richard was truly contemplating the thought of dying, he would have wanted to leave the throne to an adult, not another child! |
|
Reply
| |
the person who would best know the truth never offered an opinion on either of these men. That person is Elizabeth of York, Henry VII's queen Also, Elizabeth Woodville did not die until 1492, 5 years after the Battle of Stoke....& 1487 was the year she fell from Henry VIIs favor & sent to Bermondsey...hmmmm.... |
|
Reply
| |
Supposedly the reason Henry VII shut Elizabeth Woodville up was because she was involved in the plotting for de la Pole's rebellion. Now ya gotta wonder, why on earth would Elizabeth Woodville throw her support behind Warwick & de la Pole when her own daughter was Queen of England?  Cicely Neville, who was also "immured" at Berkhamstead, was also still alive till 1495... |
|
Reply
| |
True, FA, I somehow forgot about Elizabeth Woodville being around to offer an opinion about the pretenders. She only lasted at her daughter's court 2 years before being sent off? Oh, man I bet H7 couldn't wait to kick Elizabeth Woodville off to the nunnery - talk about the mother-in-law from h***! I can just imagine the power struggles going on behind the throne between her and Margaret Beaufort!   Margaret looks like she belongs in a convent! Or at least running one! Can't see this diva in nun's robes can you? Bet she didn't go willingly! terri*lee |
| |
Reply
| |
Well, see, this is what I think regarding La Woodville....Henry VII pretty much marginalized the Woodvilles' pretensions to being the power behind the throne, but that certainly wasn't enough reason for Elizabeth to support the Yorkist claimants while her daughter was Henry's consort (& Henry made sure that's all Elizabeth of York ever was despite HER better claim to the throne). I think Elizabeth Woodville suddenly threw her support to John de la Pole/Warwick because she had discovered her sons were dead...& that Henry dunnit.  |
|
Reply
| |
Lol about the power struggles between Elizabeth and Margaret! |
|
Reply
| |
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
OK...what is up with MSN today that it resent old posts from FA & Terrilee??? |
|
Reply
| |
Maybe it's Elizabeth Woodville! Wasn't she accused of witchcraft at one time? Or was it her mother?  |
|
Reply
| |
Her & Jacquetta both!!!  My money's on Margaret Beaufort as always tho. |
|
Reply
| |
| I second Margaret Beaufort....Judy |
|
Reply
| |
Personally, I always think you cant go too far wrong blaming Buckingham..for anything!!! lol |
|
Reply
| |
Good points all! I agree that it is strange about Elizabeth Woodville's involvement with John de la Pole's cause with her daughter as the new queen. |
|
Reply
| |
And ya know, Arthur was born in 1486, which meant Elizabeth Woodville's grandson was now heir to the throne, so even LESS reason for her to meddle with John de la Pole's rebellion Yesm I know this is an old thread LOL but the thunk just occurred to me so I hunted it up |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
0 recommendations 
Return to The Tudors