The Portraits of Lady Margaret Beaufort

by Judith Arnopp

Most of us are familiar with the portraits of Margaret Beaufort. Invariably she is depicted toward the end of her life, elderly, austere, and pious. It is difficult to imagine this staid, nun-like woman as a gurgling baby, or a naughty child; even less as a vigorous young woman. 

But people, even Countesses, are not born pious. Her face must once have been unlined, she may have been frivolous, perhaps even reckless. She was certainly determined; her crusade to secure her son Henry VII on the English throne involved intrigue against a reigning monarch. Against all odds, she financed her son’s campaign and in doing so, changed her life forever. 

With Henry’s accession to the throne, she became the most powerful woman in the realm, and she did not waste her new-found success but became one of Henry’s chief advisors, her charitable work extending to the foundation of universities, and championing the arts.

The portraits we see today are not contemporary. Without exception, she is depicted in her later year, clothed in a peaked white headdress, usually with a book, and always in the act of religious contemplation with an aura of chastity and charity.

Of course, portraits are not always about the subject’s appearance; sometimes a painting depicts a person’s character rather than how large the sitter’s nose may have been. Margaret, in her exalted position, would have been keen to project an authoritative, reverent persona but she evolved into a nun-like figure, as a young woman she would have suffered all the uncertainties, the passions and the flaws that we all experience. That is the Margaret made more fascinating simply because of the lack of portraiture from the uncertain days of her youth.

There are no extant portraits of Margaret from her lifetime, the ones we see today were made during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Undoubtedly they are copies of a lost original so, particularly if we compare them to the effigy on her tomb at Westminster, we can be fairly sure of her appearance during the later years of her life. This portrait of Margaret is believed to have been part of a set of corridor portraits including Henry VII, Henry VIII, commissioned during the reign of Elizabeth I. Again Margaret is in a religious pose, her clothing and book of hours illustrating her religious devotion. It is the best-preserved portrait we have of Margaret, the detail of the golden arch beneath which she sits, and the ornamented cloth of state is still visible to the naked eye.

My personal favourite portrait of Lady Margaret hangs in St John’s College in Cambridge. It was painted by Rowland Lockey in the 16th century. Margaret is shown at prayer in a lavish apartment, presumably her private chamber. She kneels at a desk with a heavy embroidered cloth and before her is a prayer book, a sign of piety and learning, and beneath it the ‘chemise’ cover she wrapped it in. Above her head, a tester bears the Tudor rose. The chamber itself is sumptuous, testament to her love of comfort, the stained glass windows with the badge of the Beauforts and of England.

This portrait tells us more about her lifestyle than the others. We can see that despite her sombre attitude, she lived luxuriously, as one would expect. Her dark clothes, although quite dour to our modern eyes, were of the best quality, black being among the most expensive and difficult hues to buy. 

After her death ‘seven gowns of black velvet were found, trimmed with ermine, and a mantle of tawny.’ And, most interesting of all, was ‘a scarlet gown with a long train, ornamented with the badges of the Garter and evidently to be worn on St George’s day. In another inventory we find a crimson gown to be work with her ‘circuit’, not a diadem but a surcoat, such as she had worn at Christmas 1487.’

So, a new Margaret begins to emerge, a woman who favoured scarlet and ermine, whose ‘chariot men wore scarlet. The very buttons of the horse harness were of gold of Venice.' This speaks less of piety and very much of majesty, perhaps even a little vanity.

The National Portrait Gallery has a portrait previously thought to be Margaret but now largely dismissed. It features a younger woman, hands clasped in pious prayer, her head covered with a veil. The painting is dark but the gown appears to be dark red, the veil itself lavishly embroidered. The nose is long and heavy, the eyes heavily lidded, as Margaret is shown in other portraits, and the face is pensive. Whether the sitter is lost in religious contemplation or distracted by plots of rebellion, it is difficult to judge. 

As I said earlier, the portrait is no longer believed to represent Margaret but it is intriguing none the less and I confess I used it during my research to picture the younger Margaret, the young woman who, widowed three times and separated from her only son, had no notion of the triumphs the future held.

[1] Jones and Underwood, The King’s Mother p188

[2] Ibid p189

Portraits from Wikimedia Commons

This is an Editor’s Choice from the #EHFA archives, originally published February 25, 2019.

~~~~~~~~~~

Judith Arnopp is the author of eleven historical fiction novels including The Beaufort Chronicle: the life of Lady Margaret Beaufort. 

Connect with Judith at https://author.to/juditharnoppbooks. Judith's books are available through Amazon including The Beaufort Bride, The Beaufort Woman: Book Two of the Beaufort Chronicles, and The King's Mother: Book Three of the Beaufort Chronicles. 

Common Myths of the Wars of the Roses: Richard III: Victim of Tudor Propaganda? Part 2

I have come to loathe the phrase ‘Tudor propaganda’ which is trotted out so regularly – especially online – that it has become a joke. It is used to stop argument and debate rather than to further it.

So, this is how I see it.

Propaganda has to be a deliberate and concerted attempt to mislead by repeatedly using information which you know or suspect to be false. So, is that what Henry Tudor – and his successors – were doing?

There is no question that Henry VII was determined to promote his own image by presenting himself as the king who brought unity to a divided land.

Young Henry VII
[Public domain via wikipedia]

It is often said that history is written by the victors, so it would be very surprising if the supporters of the victorious Henry Tudor started his reign by congratulating the late Richard III on his excellent reputation and achievements. Naturally, the very reverse was the case: King Henry was keen to emphasise the faults of his predecessor because his own claim to the throne was about as solid as the proverbial chocolate teapot. Compared to Richard, Henry was a novice for he had not even managed an estate let alone governed a country!

Thus, by painting a dark image of Richard, Henry could distract from his own major shortcomings: a weak dynastic claim and complete inexperience of government.

Inevitably, this involved blackening Richard’s name but Henry had to be careful what he said because he was pledged to marry Richard’s niece, Elizabeth of York, and thus he could not blacken the name of York entirely.

Sometimes when a country seeks unity after conflict they choose to forgive – though not forget - past acts in order to move forward.  Henry did do that to some extent and by presenting the short reign of Richard III as an aberration, he found a means of unifying the majority of political interests behind him.  Since he had pretty much appeared from nowhere, having held no high office and with no large retinue of supporters, he needed to justify his kingship. 

So, after 1485, there was indeed a concerted attempt to present Richard’s reign as a disastrous interlude which only the timely arrival of young Henry Tudor had resolved. This was where the weight of emphasis was and the early Tudor pageantry and badges – most obviously the Tudor Rose – hammered home the message of unity, made flesh by the symbolic union of Henry and Elizabeth.

Let us not forget though that most of those who inhabited the Tudor Court in Henry VII’s reign would have supported this approach because that was how they viewed the immediate past too. Many – perhaps the majority - of his supporters were men who had loyally served Edward IV, but presumably most had little love for the dead king because they had abandoned him in favour of Henry. As I indicated in the first part of this discussion, ‘the strength of their opinion is shown by their willingness to support an exile about whom they knew nothing and whose claim to the throne could not have been weaker.’

All the same, there was no guarantee that Henry Tudor could keep the throne. Many had supported Henry only because he had formally committed to marrying the Yorkist heiress, Elizabeth. However much Henry disliked this fact, it remained true. Therefore, it made sense for him to focus the heat on Richard as an individual - the usurper - not Richard, of the House of York. 

After his victory in 1485, Henry was merely making as much capital as he could out of a legacy that many folk regarded as genuine. In this approach then, Henry was pushing at an open door.

It is a very long stretch to move from the clear intention on the first Tudor king’s part to promote his own image at the expense of his predecessor, to the suggestion that throughout the entire period of the Tudor monarchy, lasting about 120 years, there was some sort of orchestrated attempt to blacken Richard’s name. Such an idea is quite simply nonsense.  So what were the contemporary writers saying?

Edward Hall's Chronicle
[Public domain]

Those who wrote about the past in the Tudor period such as Polydore Vergil, Thomas More and Edward Hall would have grown up accepting the version of events, as presented in 1485 and 1486, as fact.

Edward Hall’s Chronicle is the best example of a contemporary history because, unlike More, he was at least trying to tell the history of what we know as the Wars of the Roses in his Chronicle: The Union of the Two Noble and Illustrious Houses of Lancaster and York.  

Hall wrote in Henry VIII’s reign though his chronicle was published after his death – and Henry’s! Though Hall had many original sources to refer to and took pride in listing them, he relied heavily on Thomas More’s account of Richard’s reign. More was not especially concerned with the veracity of his work. He accepted the “received history” and used it to present moral arguments. From a twenty-first century perspective this makes More unusual but for writers of the period – all God-fearing men – separating moral judgements from history would be an alien concept. Frequently Hall made judgements on events by use of spectacular adjectives. Thus, men’s actions were “glorious” or “detestable” or “odious” but then Hall did want his work to be interesting to read!

Was Hall writing propaganda?

Not really, no.  His was the earliest attempt at a comprehensive history of the struggle between Lancaster and York. Like an awful lot of historians since his time, Hall assumed that what had been said by folk in authority was probably true.  As far as he was concerned, it was a great story with a happy ending – King Henry VIII - though we might judge Henry rather differently.

Hall was attempting to explain what had happened to cause division in the state and he traced it back to the demise of Richard II in 1399. In doing so, he laid down the traditional view of the origins of the Wars of the Roses. Reading Hall, one is astonished how little that view changed over the next four centuries. Since the second half of the twentieth century, though historians have analysed more rigorously and critically the sources available, yet in some respects Hall’s account remains largely unchallenged.

Although Hall had access to sources long since lost to us, he lacked the one thing we do have: perspective. Surely though, we cannot blame him for that.

It does make his work biased and flawed, but it does not make it propaganda. He saw Richard III through a Tudor lens, but that does not mean it was a Tudor plot – nor, crucially, does it mean that what he wrote is actually incorrect.

Hall was not attempting to deliberately twist the truth.  Although the Privy Council did make some changes to Hall’s Chronicle before publication in 1548 and again when it was republished in Elizabeth’s reign, that was normal enough and there is no suggestion that the Tudor state significantly adulterated his account.

Hall’s Chronicle is evidence enough that the line taken by Henry VII in 1485 had been successful if, fifty or more years later, it was accepted as fact. So Hall was certainly furthering the Tudor image, but that does not mean that everything he wrote about Richard III was wrong.

If the ‘Tudor propaganda’ tag is applied to one man more than any other, it is William Shakespeare. His tragedy, Richard III, is regarded as the ultimate Tudor propaganda.

William Shakespeare
[Public domain via wikipedia]

Indeed, if you Google Richard III, you’ll find a lot about the play before you discover anything much about the king! It’s certain that the play has coloured opinion over the centuries but that does not make it propaganda.

Shakespeare drew inspiration for his plays from two chronicles in particular: Hall’s and the more contemporary, Raphael Holinshed – who also drew heavily from More and Hall.

Hall would have provided him with the entire historical backdrop not just for Richard III but for all his other history plays from Richard II onwards.

Shakespeare was thus making use of the best possible source of historical information available to him at the time.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Shakespeare set out to destroy Richard III’s name – but I have seen it written many times online. The playwright was creating an interesting character – as is shown by our fascination with him ever since.

Some will say that he was ‘under pressure’ from Queen Elizabeth to blacken Richard’s reputation. No, he was not. He was under pressure not to write plays that annoyed the queen, or other prominent courtiers, because he relied on their patronage to make a living. The queen, however, was far more interested in what he wrote in Richard II than Richard III because in the former he concentrated on the theme of kingship and sovereignty. He raised the spectre of an anointed monarch being overthrown, eloquently presenting the victim’s views as well as the usurping Henry IV. For Elizabeth, who several times faced the threat of being removed, that was a far more important issue.

So, in conclusion, the writers of Tudor England reflected not simply the line taken by the victor in 1485, but the accepted ‘world view’ of Richard III. 

Are there aspects of that which we would now question? Yes, of course there are – and rightly so, but please let us banish the old red herring of ‘Tudor propaganda’.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derek Birks was born in Hampshire in England but spent his teenage years in Auckland, New Zealand, where he still has strong family ties.

For many years he taught history in a secondary school but took early retirement to concentrate on writing. Apart from his writing, he spends his time gardening, travelling, walking and taking part in archaeological digs at a Roman villa. Derek is interested in a wide range of historical themes but his particular favourite is the late medieval period. He writes action-packed fiction Now the violent events of 1483 are played out in the sequel, The Blood of Princes.

Connect with Derek through his Website, Twitter (@Feud_writer), and his author sites through Amazon UK and Amazon US.

Henry Tudor at Raglan Castle

by Judith Arnopp

Raglan Castle

At the start of the wars of the roses Margaret Beaufort was a relatively insignificant member of the house of Lancaster but after years of struggle she and her son, Henry became the ultimate victors. During her years of struggle for her son’s rights she can have had no inkling that he would one day become King of England.

Margaret was a wealthy heiress, heir to the Duke of Somerset. Her great grandfather was the eldest son of John of Gaunt and his then mistress, Katherine Swynford. Although the Beauforts were later legitimised they were excluded from the succession and never to inherit the throne.

Edmund Tudor

She was married to the king’s half-brother, Edmund Tudor and travelled with him to Wales where he upheld the authority of the king. Shortly after impregnating his teenage bride, he died, either of wounds sustained in a skirmish with the adherents of York, or from plague, or possibly a combination of both. Margaret, widowed and pregnant, was left vulnerable and turned to her brother in law, Jasper Tudor, for support. He offered her shelter at his stronghold in Pembroke where her son was born a few months later. She named him Henry, after her cousin the king.

To avoid another marriage arranged by the king, Margaret quickly married Henry Stafford, a younger son of the Duke of Buckingham. While she moved with her husband to Bourne in Lincolnshire and later Woking, her son remained at Pembroke in the care of his uncle, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke.

Margaret would have seen nothing unusual in her son being brought up in the household of a powerful lord. The couple visited and wrote to young Henry regularly until the trouble between York and Lancaster flared again. Jasper did not take part in the battle of Towton but remained at Pembroke defending the castle against Yorkist forces. After a few weeks of siege, Pembroke and its inhabitants were eventually surrendered into the hands of William Herbert. Jasper managed to escape but he left behind a valuable prize - the four year old Earl of Richmond, Henry Tudor.

Pembroke Castle

Sir William Herbert took Henry into his custody at Raglan and in 1462 paid the king an enormous sum for his wardship. It is not documented how Margaret or Henry felt about this but there was long standing rivalry between the Herbert and Tudor families and, together with the high probability that William Herbert was responsible in some degree for the death of Edmund Tudor, it is quite likely she did not see it as pleasing.

Henry’s time at Raglan is often viewed as one of imprisonment but there is no doubt he was well treated: chronicler Polydore Vergil recorded that Henry was “kept as prisoner, but honourably brought up with the wife of William Herbert”.  As I mentioned earlier, it was not unusual for the sons of noblemen to be sent from home to be raised in the household of a great lord, to learn warfare and sword skill. The Herberts treated Henry with great civility but even so his movements were restricted and although he kept his title Richmond, his properties were in the hands of the Yorkists. He was, you might say, a lucrative guest. Henry and Herbert’s son were the offspring of opposing houses – Henry was from the House of Lancaster, Walter and William Herbert (the younger) were loyal to their father and to York. But ties of friendship formed at this time in the nursery at Raglan proved beneficial to Henry in the years to come.

Raglan Castle

It is interesting to consider that the ruins we see today at Raglan were once the rooms frequented by the young Henry Tudor. When Herbert inherited the castle from his father it was already a magnificent fortress with an impressive tower but William transformed it into a palace with huge glazed windows, a magnificent Fountain Court, the Pitched Stone Court and Great Gatehouse.

Henry spent the next seven years at Raglan, treated as a member of the Herbert family, educated by ‘the best and most upright instructors’ and mingling with the Herbert children. It seems he was happy there and developed strong connections to the family. Testimony of his affection or gratitude to the family, after he became king Henry invited Herbert’s widow, Lady Anne Devereux, to court. Herbert harboured plans to unite his family with the Tudors by marrying his daughter, Maud, to Henry. He left orders for the betrothal in his will but the arrangements were prevented by the readeption of Henry VI. Maud later married another of Herbert’s wards, Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland. Margaret Beaufort and Henry Stafford continued to visit and correspond with Henry until 1469, when Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick betrayed King Edward IV and joined the Lancastrians.

Raglan Castle

Taking Henry and probably his two sons, William and Walter, with him, Herbert rode off to battle at Edgecote Moor; not to fight but to observe and learn. It may seem incredible to us that an eleven year old should be exposed to the dangers of battle but things were different then. Young boys had to be educated in warfare, exposed to the violence of the battlefield to ensure that when their time came to fight, they’d be prepared. Possibly Herbert saw it as an opportunity for education. Possibly he desired to keep his valuable asset close to hand. Unfortunately for Herbert the battle did not go well for York.

Herbert was captured during fighting and executed by Warwick. It is often recorded that Henry was abandoned on the side lines and later rescued from the field and taken to safety at Weobley, the family seat of Herbert’s wife, Anne Deveraux.

Raglan Castle

For a while, Lancaster was in ascendance in England. The former king, Henry VI, was placed once more on the throne, to be ruled like a puppet by Warwick. At last, Jasper Tudor was able to return from exile, at which time he presented Henry to the Henry VI. 

The supporters of Lancaster emerged once more and everything seemed settled in Lancaster’s favour; King Edward was beaten and Margaret and Jasper would have been confident that the Richmond holdings would now be restored to Henry. Margaret attended court, bringing her son to the attention of the king and queen but it was not to last. In 1471, Edward IV came back with a vengeance and regained the throne with a decisive battle at Tewkesbury which saw the death of the Lancastrian heir, Edward of Lancaster and the fall of his mother, Margaret of Anjou. Edward IV crushed the Lancastrian hopes by the murder of the mentally unstable king, Henry VI, leaving just one possible claimant to the Lancastrian crown - Henry Tudor.

Henry Tudor

Jasper, taking the boy with him, fled to Brittany where Henry spent most of the next fourteen years until August 1485 when he returned with his mother’s financial support, with a mercenary army to face Richard III on the field at Bosworth. During the battle several Welshman ostensibly loyal to Richard, turned their coats and fought for Henry instead; Rhys ap Thomas is believed to have dealt the Yorkist King’s killing blow and Walter Herbert of Raglan is believed to have fought alongside his old friend of the schoolroom.

~~~~~~~~~~

Margaret's battle for her son's rights and Henry's time at Raglan is featured in the trilogy The Beaufort Chronicles.

Judith Arnopp is the author of nine historical fiction novels set in the medieval and Tudor period. You can find more information by following the links below:

author.to/juditharnoppbooks

www.judithmarnopp.com

Picture credits
Edmund Tudor https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Edmund_Tudor%2C_1st_Earl_of_Richmond.jpg
Henry Tudor - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Henry7England.jpg
Castle Photographs - Judith Arnopp

The King’s Son: The Short Life of Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales

by Karlie aka History Gal

In April 1484 King Richard III and his wife Anne Neville were enjoying a respite from their royal progress. They were lodging at Nottingham Castle when they received the devastating news that their son Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales was dead.

Richard and Anne Neville - Attribution

The Croyland Chronicler recorded that King Richard and Queen Anne were “in a state almost bordering madness, by reason of their sudden grief.” 1

Prince Edward’s death would have profound consequences in Richard and Anne’s personal and political lives. It would also herald in the beginning of the end of the Plantagenet’s reign.

 Edward of Middleham, Prince of Wales, had taken his last breath at the same place in which he was born: Middleham Castle in North Yorkshire. Edward’s nursery, located in the west wing of the Castle, was adjacent to the south wing known as the ‘Prince’s Tower’ (where Anne is said to have given birth to him).

The precise date and year of Prince Edward’s birth is unknown. Various historians have estimated that he was born within the years of 1473 to 1477; this would have made Edward 11 to 7 years old at the time of his death in 1484. According to “the Tewkesbury chronicler,” it’s likely that Edward “was born…in 1476 – an old style year that continued until 25 March 1477...” 2 

Middleham Castle - Attribution

Few records survive of Edward’s life both before and after his father, Richard, became King of England in June 1483. The first official record we have of him was written on 10 April 1477 when the priests at York Cathedral were asked to “pray for the good estate of the King and his consort (Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville) and the King’s brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester (the future Richard III) and Anne his consort and Edward their son...” 3

As the nephew of the King, the son of a Duke, and an Earl in his own right, Edward was cared for and tutored as befitting his high status. The woman employed as his wet nurse was Isabel Burgh: wife to one of King Richard’s favorite courtiers.

The mistress of the nursery was Anne Idley: the widow of “Peter Idley, author of a book of manners, or education, for the rearing of boys, called Instructions to His Son.” 4 Edward’s parents must have been happy with Anne Idley’s services, because Richard penned a letter (to William Stoner) praising Idley, referring to her as “our right well beloved servant.” 5 In Edward’s later years, a lady by the name of Jane Collins was employed as his caretaker and Master Richard Bernall was assigned as his tutor.

Even with his exemplary upbringing, the prospect of Edward ever becoming King seemed less likely to occur during the early years of his life. At that time, Richard’s eldest brother –and Edward of Middleham’s uncle, (possible) god father and namesake—Edward IV was King of England. Edward IV’s son: Edward, Prince of Wales (the future Edward V) was the next in line to the throne, followed by his other son Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.

Edward IV - Atribution

Things changed after the deaths of Richard’s other elder brother George, Duke of Clarence in 1478, Edward IV’s death in 1483 and subsequently the latter’s sons’ disappearance in 1483. These series of events made it possible for Richard to assume the role as King of England.

In early 1484 parliament declared King Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth’s marriage invalid due to an alleged pre contract of marriage between King Edward to Lady Eleanor Butler. This proclamation made all of the late King’s offspring with Queen Elizabeth illegitimate, thus forfeiting their right to the crown.

As the new heir to the throne, King Richard’s son inherited grand titles. On 26 June 1483 Edward of Middleham became the Duke of Cornwall, a month later he was given the honorary title of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. On 24 August 1483 he was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. The following month he was formally invested as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in an extravagant ceremony held at York Minster. The venue was chosen as the place for his investiture instead of “Westminster Abbey as was customary…because the boy’s fragile health made distant travel ill advised.” 6 Edward was supposedly too weak to ride on horseback for the ceremony, and had to be carted from and back to Middleham Castle in a litter. Nonetheless, this was a proud moment for the young Prince’s parents to have witnessed, particularly since Edward was not in attendance for their joint coronation.

Although there is very little contemporary evidence to prove that Prince Edward suffered from a frail constitution throughout his entire life, it seems that he did spend the majority of his time in the confines of Middleham Castle. The scant records that exist of his life, show that he was able to live a fairly normal existence.

Edward Prince of Wales - Attribution

At Middleham, “Edward would have spent his days playing in the court yard watching mummeries (elaborate plays) in the Great Hall and spending time with his parents when they were at the keep.” 7 He also had a fool (a court jester) named Martyn who no doubt provided him with hours of entertainment. “Edward’s leisurely activities may have included watching the hounds” 8, as part of his inventory shows that during a visit to Pontefract Castle, he had in his possession “a pack of hounds…” He also occasionally traveled with his retinue to the “religious houses of Coverham, Fountains and Jervaulx.” 9

In the spring of 1484 Prince Edward was curiously absent during his parent’s royal progress. It’s possible that his father “left him behind in the north, as a symbol to his most loyal adherents of the new regime to which they owed allegiance, but it was likely that (his son) was also too ill to travel.” 10 What is certain is that neither King Richard nor Queen Anne expected their son to die during their absence.

In this age of superstition, it did not go unnoticed that Richard’s heir died in April 1484, “on a date not very far distant from the anniversary” 11 of King Edward IV’s death. This gave way to malicious gossip at court that Prince Edward’s death was just punishment because his father had been responsible for the deaths of the Prince’s in the Tower: Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York.

There has been much speculation regarding the cause of Edward of Middleham’s death. One theory is that he died from tuberculosis: a bacterial infection that primarily affects the lungs. Whatever the true cause was, the Croyland Chronicler notes that his illness mercifully lasted but a “short duration.”

There can be no doubt that King Richard and Queen Anne genuinely loved their son. The “maddening grief” that they displayed shows that they were not as cold hearted as history has portrayed them. And that they didn’t just see their son as another pawn in their dynastic ambitions.

There is a lot of speculation concerning the whereabouts of Prince Edward’s remains, as no surviving record exists of his burial place. The Church of St Mary and St Alkelda in Middleham, Jervaulx Abbey in East Witton, Coverham Abbey in Coverdale, and the Church of St Helen and Holy Cross in Sherriff Hutton, are locations speculated as being Edward’s final resting place. At the Church of St Helen and Holy Cross, there is an alabaster cenotaph depicting a young boy dressed in fine robes. However, “recent research has proved that it dates from the first half of the 15th century” 12; thus the cenotaph is likely that of a Neville family relation.

A few months after Prince Edward’s death, King Richard traveled to North Yorkshire to pay off the remainder of his son’s expenses. The document he signed (detailing Edward’s expenditure) included the words “most dear son” and following that “in his own handwriting [Richard] added 'Whom God has pardoned'”.13

With his heir gone, the question arose about who Richard’s successor would be. The latter fathered two (perhaps three) illegitimate children with an unidentified woman, prior to his marriage to Anne Neville. King Richard’s other son, John of Gloucester, was knighted at York Minster on the same day that Edward of Middleham’s investiture as Prince of Wales took place.  Because bastards could not inherit the throne, John could not become King of England. The next obvious successors were Richard’s two nephews: John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln (son of Richard’s sister: Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk) and Edward, Earl of Warwick (son of Richard’s late brother George, Duke of Clarence). However, an Act of Attainder, issued by Edward IV against George, Duke of Clarence, prevented the latter’s offspring from inheriting the throne. This fact was further cemented in a statute, issued by parliament in 1484, called Titulus Regius (a statute essentially stipulating that Richard was the rightful King of England). Other than the contemporary English historian John Rous writing that King Richard named Edward, Earl of Warwick as his successor, there is no other evidence to support this. Although John de la Pole was never formally confirmed as such, Richard appears to have accepted him as his successor.

King Richard’s hopes of producing another heir were dashed when his wife became ill during the winter season of 1484. Tragically, 11 months after the death of her son, Anne died at the Palace of Westminster on 16 March 1485. She was only 28 years old and had been Queen Consort of England for almost 2 years. The general consensus among modern scholars is that the most likely cause of her death was either tuberculosis or some form of cancer.

Cenotaph once alleged to be that of Edward of Middleham

After the death of his wife, King Richard’s reign became blighted by political and domestic turmoil and scandals. The gossip at the English court and abroad was that Richard had poisoned his wife so that he could marry his young and attractive niece Elizabeth of York. The marriage never came to be, and for a time he made negotiations to marry Princess Joanna of Portugal, but that union never came to pass.

King Richard also had to contend with the hostile Lancastrian faction and their figurehead Henry Tudor. Henry had been living in exile in Brittany for over a decade, until he landed on the shores of Mill Bay in Wales on 7 August 1485. His mission: to become the new King of England.

The fight for dynastic supremacy, known as the Wars of the Roses, reached its crescendo at the Battle of Bosworth Field, on 22 August 1485. King Richard and his army put up a valiant fight but were ultimately defeated by Lancastrian forces.

Richard died on the battlefield after sustaining several blows to his head by “possibly four assailants armed with halberds, swords, and heavy-bladed daggers” .14 Henry VII became King and his family, the Tudors, ruled England for the next 118 years.

Portrait of King Henry VII - Attribution

Edward of Middleham’s legacy, much like his life, was short lived. He is a footnote in history, overshadowed by the political climate of his time, and the character and reign of Richard III. A sad state of affairs for a Prince whom—had he outlived his father—could have gone down in history as a famous Yorkist King, prisoner, martyr and or soldier.

                                                           References
1. 11. “Richard, The Man behind the Myth” by Andrea Willers
2. “Anne Neville: Queen to Richard III” by Michael Hicks
3. “Calendar of the Patent Rolls: Edward IV-Richard III.” by Great Britain. Public Record Office
4. http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.com/2013/04/educating-edward-what-sort-of-king.html
5. “The Contemporary Review, Volume 3” by A. Strahan, 1866
6. “Lives of England's Reigning and Consort Queens” by H. Eugene Lehman
7. “The World of Richard III” by Kristie Dean
8. http://nerdalicious.com.au/history/a-glimpse-of-edward-of-middleham-prince-of- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140917-richard-cause-death-helmet-forensic-science/ wales/
9. “Richard III: England's Black Legend” by Desmond Seward
10. “Queens Consort: England's Medieval Queens from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Elizabeth of York” by Lisa Hilton
12. http://www.richardiii.net/richards_world.php
13. “Memoirs of King Richard the Third and Some of His Contemporaries, Volume 1”by John Heneage Jesse
14. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140917-richard-cause-death-helmet-forensic-science/

~~~~~~~~~~

I’m Karlie (also known as History Gal on Twitter)! I have many interests including reading, writing, drawing and painting but my passion is history. I have read and love to read just about every period in history but I am most interested in the Plantagenet and Tudor eras. I’m intrigued, not just by their dynasties, but also the world in which they lived i.e.: the people, the religion, the politics, the conflicts, the events, the castles, the beautiful clothes, just overall their way of life.

The Tragic Life of Catherine Gordon

by Samantha Wilcoxson

Holyrood Palace, Edinburgh

Little is known about Catherine Gordon's early years, as history is much more careful about recording tragedy and scandal than everyday life. As a great-granddaughter of King James I of Scotland and daughter of the Earl of Huntley, Catherine likely enjoyed a charmed childhood and looked forward to a bright future. That vague dream of imminent prosperity became defined for her in a handsome young man proclaimed to be Richard of York.

Catherine is one of those women who would be wonderful to sit down to tea with and ask many of those questions that drive history enthusiasts mad. Did she think her Richard was truly Perkin Warbeck, the name later assigned to him by Henry VII? What was her impression of the first two Tudor kings? Catherine lived during fascinating times with close connections to some of the historical figures who continue to intrigue us the most. However, as with many who lived during the Tudor era, her life is a complex blend of joys and sorrows.

Perkin Warbeck

Whatever Catherine eventually ended up believing about her first husband, at the time of her marriage she would have been confident that she was marrying a Prince of England, one who was preparing to reclaim his kingdom with her at his side. The fact that Catherine was given to Warbeck in marriage is a significant indication of his belief in his claim.

While Warbeck was undoubtedly pleased with the status that Catherine gave him, he also seems to have been in love. A letter believed to be written by him states, "whoever sees her cannot choose but admire her, admiring cannot choose but love her, loving cannot choose but obey." Catherine appears to have returned his affection, accompanying him when he set out to invade England though she most likely was either pregnant or had a small child with her.

So began the string of tragedies in this lovely young woman's life.

Warbeck's 1497 invasion failed almost before it began, and Catherine was taken captive at St Michael's Mount where she awaited news of her husband's victory. Found wearing mourning clothes, it is believed that Catherine had suffered a miscarriage during her five weeks there. Records being unclear in the details, Catherine may have alternatively suffered the loss of a young child rather than a miscarriage. Either way, Catherine would bear no more children.

St Michael's Mount, Cornwall

Catherine was treated with respect by Henry and became an attendant for his wife, Elizabeth of York. She was informed that her husband was a pretender. What Catherine thought of all this, we can only imagine. The fact that records exist stating that "Henry was treating the couple well enough, but would not let them sleep together," indicate that Catherine still loved her husband, whoever he really was. She remained at the Tudor court, whether she was a well-treated prisoner as her great-grandfather had been or she chose this path is unknown.

In 1499, Warbeck was executed under suspicious circumstances, and Catherine found herself a childless widow of twenty-five at a foreign court. Catherine became close to the royal couple, serving as one of Queen Elizabeth's ladies and eventually mourner at her funeral in 1503. She remained with Henry after he lost his wife, indicating that she had forgiven him for any wrong she may have felt he had done to her or her first husband.

Catherine Gordon before Henry VII

After the first Tudor king's death, Catherine became a member of Katherine of Aragon's household. This Katherine had, too, already seen a small portion of the tragedy that her life would include. Already married and widowed by the first Tudor prince, Katherine of Aragon married the brother who had become Henry VIII.

Around this time, Catherine married her second husband. Little is known of James Strangeways besides the fact that he was Gentleman Usher of the King's Chamber and that he did not survive long after his marriage to Catherine. By the summer of 1517, Catherine was married a third time. This marriage and a role in Princess Mary's household took Catherine a greater distance away from the English court than she had been in twenty years.

Matthew Craddock was a Glamorganshire knight with holdings in Wales. Catherine was able to divide her time between Princess Mary's household at Ludlow and that of her husband. Catherine loved to explore her estates on horseback, and this is an activity she found great refuge in throughout her life. Based upon Catherine's will, written in 1537, Craddock held a special place in Catherine's heart. Though the document refers to Catherine as the "sometime wife" of Strangeways, Craddock is referred to as her "dear and well beloved husband."

Catherine served as Chief Lady of the Privy Chamber for Princess Mary while Margaret Pole served as Governess. These two women were of an age together and likely struck up a friendship at this point if they had not previously. They would be protective of their charge as the political environment deteriorated, causing the downfall of Mary's mother, friend of both women, Queen Katherine of Aragon. Catherine served in this role until 1530, but Margaret stayed until she was forced to leave in 1533.

In the meantime, Catherine had lost her third and gained a fourth husband. Craddock's death in 1531 may be an indication that Catherine had left Princess Mary's household when she did in order to care for him. It is not known precisely when Catherine married her final husband, but he would be the one to survive her.

Fyfield Parish Church
Final resting place of Catherine Gordon

Christopher Ashton, another Gentleman Usher, was from Berkshire, where Catherine held lands that had been gifted to her by Henry VII. When not at court before her move to Wales, this is where she had taken up residence. Her final marriage was brief and little is recorded of it besides Catherine's final will and resting place.

When Catherine died on October 14, 1537, she was sixty-three years old. A surviving monument to her exists within the Parish Church of Fyfield in Berkshire where she is buried. Another monument had been raised by Craddock in Swansea, indicating his doubts that she would remarry after his death. Her will makes no mention of her first husband, and there is no existing record of her discussing him at any point in her life after his death. Whatever she thought of Perkin Warbeck had died with him. Eventually, Ashton was the husband to be buried next to the much admired Scottish noblewoman when he died in 1561.    

Photo Credits:
Holyrood Palace: Cassell's History of England, 1901
Perkin Warbeck: Unknown Artist, Public Domain
St Michael's Mount: Cassell's History of England, 1901
Catherine Gordon before Henry VII: Cassell's History of England, 1901
Fyfield Church by Colin Bates [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Additional Reading:
The Last White Rose: Secret Wars of the Tudors by Desmond Seward
Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury by Hazel Pierce
Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England by Thomas Penn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author:

Samantha Wilcoxson is a first generation American with British roots. She is passionate about reading, writing, and history, especially the Plantagenet dynasty. Her novel, Plantagenet Princess, Tudor Queen: The Story of Elizabeth of York has been recognized as a Historical Novel Society Editor's Choice.

The Plantagenet Embers series continues with Faithful Traitor: The Story of Margaret Pole and will conclude with Queen of Martyrs: The Story of Mary I in 2017.

Samantha has also published two middle grade novels, No Such Thing as Perfect and Over the Deep: A Titanic Adventure.

When not reading or writing, Samantha enjoys traveling and spending time at the lake with her husband and three children. You can connect with Samantha on her blog, Twitter, Goodreads, Booklikes, and Amazon.

The First Tudor Prince

Arthur Tudor
Prince of Wales

by Samantha Wilcoxson

With the birth of the first Tudor prince a sparse eight months after the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, few would have prophesied the problem of begetting heirs that would plague the short-lived Tudor dynasty. His name spoke of the high expectations that his parents, and indeed the kingdom, had for Prince Arthur. After decades of war and familial infighting, Prince Arthur would solidify the peace that had begun with the marriage of his Lancastrian father and Yorkist mother.

Born on September 20, 1486, Prince Arthur was the embodiment of God’s blessing upon the first Tudor king and queen. In contradiction to some accounts, particularly in historical fiction but not absent from works of nonfiction, Arthur Tudor was not treated as a sickly child unexpected to survive until adulthood. It is easy to assign these descriptions to him in retrospect based upon his early demise, but contemporary accounts and events in his life demonstrate that Arthur was fully expected not only to survive, but to rule. As an infant, he was described as ‘vital and vigorous.’

In 1489, shortly following his third birthday, Arthur was made a Knight of the Bath in preparation for his investiture as Prince of Wales the following February. In 1491, he was made Knight of the Garter. This same year, Arthur welcomed a younger brother, Henry, whose birth was celebrated but not with the exuberance that Arthur’s had been. There is no indication that Henry was expected to take his brother’s place as heir. While Arthur was raised up away from court and included in the governing of Wales from a young age, Henry was kept near his mother with his other siblings.

Ludlow Castle, Shropshire

Established at Ludlow in 1492, Arthur would have hardly known the brother whose name would forever come before his own. Arthur was expected to be king, and great effort was expended toward obtaining for him a royal wife. Henry would have likely looked forward to a leading role in the church to support his brother, perhaps as an Archbishop.

The negotiations for Arthur’s marriage had begun when he was a toddler. More than anything else in his life, he would be remembered for being the first husband of his brother’s wife. Katherine of Aragon insisted until her dying day that this marriage had never been consummated because of the briefness of their time together and Arthur’s failing health. During the decade of haggling over details of the match, Arthur’s health is one of few things not counted as a concern by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, further evidence that Arthur’s early death was unexpected. In fact, the Spanish ambassador, who would have no incentive to mislead his king and queen, described the young Arthur as ‘taller than his age would warrant’ and ‘of remarkable beauty and grace.’

The power couple of Spain were not afraid to make demands. Due to their concerns that Arthur’s rule be unchallenged, two executions took place. Perkin Warbeck, who had claimed to be the younger of the Princes in the Tower and therefore the Queen’s brother, was put to death after an attempted escape from the Tower. If these charges were questionable, Warbeck had undoubtedly performed other acts of treason. The scandal was the partner that was executed shortly after him.

Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick
by Edward Harding
National Portrait Gallery, London

Edward of Warwick was one of those pesky Plantagenet sons who made it easy for those who were unimpressed with Tudor rule to think of a possible substitute. Not that Edward himself had ever challenged Henry the way others, such as the de la Pole brothers, did. Son of George of Clarence and brother of Margaret Pole, Edward had been imprisoned since early in Henry VII’s reign. He was not necessarily mistreated, but neither was he allowed to truly live a life where he could become the center of rebellion for disillusioned Yorkists. His sister, Margaret, was married to a Tudor supporter, and she served in a variety of roles, serving Arthur at Ludlow and later Princess Mary. However, Edward, kept under lock and key since childhood, was seen as too much of a risk. Including him in the dubious charges against Warbeck, Edward was executed in 1499 to clear the way for Arthur and Katherine’s marriage. Certainly, this is not an action that one would undertake for a Prince not expected to survive to rule.

Coat of Arms
Arthur Tudor Prince of Wales

Arthur had been educated and raised to be king in a way that was not mirrored in the treatment of his brothers. While Arthur was made Duke of Cornwall at birth, Earl of Chester in 1489, and Prince of Wales in 1490, his brothers received titles reserved for younger sons. Henry was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in 1492, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1493, and Duke of York in 1494.

Arthur was sent to govern Wales with Jasper Tudor, his father’s most loyal supporter, as the head of his council. We have every reason to believe that, with the help of his experienced council, Arthur excelled in the governance of Wales during his time there. Contemporaries praised his intelligence and demeanor.

The fact that Katherine of Aragon insisted that she and Arthur never consummated their marriage is not necessarily evidence that he was already suffering from a long-lasting illness. While couples their age were not kept from the marriage bed, they knew the dangers that young couples faced, especially mothers, but Katherine’s brother had recently died at age nineteen, a disaster that was blamed on his libido. Travel and pageantry that took place during the couple’s short marriage also kept them from sharing a bed more than a handful of times. Therefore, it is possible that, even if Arthur felt well at the wedding ceremony, business and later sickness could have kept him from his wife’s bed.

Katherine of Aragon
National Portrait Gallery

Katherine also became bed-ridden with sweating sickness at this time. It is possible that Arthur died from one of many possibilities that have been suggested: tuberculosis, pneumonia, testicular cancer, or other wasting disease. However, it seems likely that he succumbed to an illness that attacked many people of this time, rich and poor, and that could have just as easily claimed his young wife.

One of the most touching scenes documented of a man reputed to be cold and calculating is Henry VII’s anguish over the death of his firstborn son. He and his wife were shattered, as any parents would be, and there is no evidence that Arthur was raised under the shadow of eminent death based upon their shock and grief. His parents decided to attempt to have another child after Arthur’s death, a step they had not taken two years earlier after the death of his younger brother, Edmund. Arthur’s death was unexpected and the royal couple’s reaction could indicate that the Tudor fear for a lack of sons was beginning to take root.

The first Tudor prince had been welcomed to the world with great acclaim and was mourned in devastation. Let us not dismiss him as a sickly child who was quickly replaced by the charismatic brother but remember him as a life full of promise, extinguished too soon.

Photo Credits:

Portrait of Arthur Tudor by Anonymous Artist: Public Domain

Ludlow Castle: Ian Capper [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Arthur Tudor's Coat of Arms: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACoat_of_Arms_of_the_Tudor_Princes_of_Wales_(1489-1574).svg

Edward of Warwick: National Portrait Gallery, London

Katherine of Aragon: National Portrait Gallery, London

Additional Reading:

Elizabeth of York: A Tudor Queen and Her World by Alison Weir

Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England by Thomas Penn

About the Author:

Samantha Wilcoxson is a first generation American with British roots. She is passionate about reading, writing, and history, especially the Plantagenet dynasty. Her novel, Plantagenet Princess, Tudor Queen: The Story of Elizabeth of York has been recognized as a Historical Novel Society Editor's Choice. The Plantagenet Embers series continues with Faithful Traitor: The Story of Margaret Pole and will conclude with Queen of Martyrs: The Story of Mary I in 2017.

Samantha has also published two middle grade novels, No Such Thing as Perfect and Over the Deep: A Titanic Adventure.

When not reading or writing, Samantha enjoys traveling and spending time at the lake with her husband and three children. You can connect with Samantha on her blog, Twitter, Goodreads, Booklikes, and Amazon.

Book Links:

Faithful Traitor: The Story of Margaret Pole

Plantagenet Princess, Tudor Queen: The Story of Elizabeth of York

No Such Thing as Perfect 

Over the Deep: A Titanic Adventure