Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Exile

Sorry, I meant to compare Charles II with the de la Pole who came home and fell victim to the Tudor genocide.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Exile


--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> I was thinking, as I watched last night's documentary: there was a
rightful king in exile on the European mainland. Not always a
completely safe place to be (think of the de la Poles)!
>
>

Didn't see it, I'm afraid, but thinking outside our timeframe does
bring home the fact that for a dynasty to attempt to restore itself
with completely spurious candidates who were none of their blood,
would be a bit unusual to say the least.
I'm thinking of the 'Feigned Boys' of course.

Marie


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Genocide! Please let's not go down that road - it's an innacurate word to
use in that context.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen LARK" <smlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Exile


> Sorry, I meant to compare Charles II with the de la Pole who came home and
fell victim to the Tudor genocide.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Exile
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > I was thinking, as I watched last night's documentary: there was a
> rightful king in exile on the European mainland. Not always a
> completely safe place to be (think of the de la Poles)!
> >
> >
>
> Didn't see it, I'm afraid, but thinking outside our timeframe does
> bring home the fact that for a dynasty to attempt to restore itself
> with completely spurious candidates who were none of their blood,
> would be a bit unusual to say the least.
> I'm thinking of the 'Feigned Boys' of course.
>
> Marie
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Perhaps you would like to suggest another word.

The two Henrys killed every Plantagenet heir they could get their hands on, including:
Warwick, imprisoned at about twelve and stupid,
Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, aged about seventy, harmless in person and unlikely to reproduce further,
"The one who came back" - any decent lawyer could get him declared insane just for trusting a Tudor,
another Duke of Buckingham.

This is quite some chopping list.

Of course, some were not actually killed but put into holy orders so they could not reproduce (social castration), including Cardinal Reginald Pole, son of Salisbury, who went into exile for a while.

Henry had no right to the crown, except by conquest and subsequent forced marriage, but these people did. None of them attempted to take it but all were judicially murdered, just for who they were and from whom they were descended.

My dictionary calls that genocide. Ironically, it was unsuccessful as I am told that Plantagenet descendents live today!

My sources: my memory, refreshed by a JA-H lecture last February.
----- Original Message -----
From: tim
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Exile


Genocide! Please let's not go down that road - it's an innacurate word to
use in that context.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen LARK" <smlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Exile


> Sorry, I meant to compare Charles II with the de la Pole who came home and
fell victim to the Tudor genocide.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Exile
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > I was thinking, as I watched last night's documentary: there was a
> rightful king in exile on the European mainland. Not always a
> completely safe place to be (think of the de la Poles)!
> >
> >
>
> Didn't see it, I'm afraid, but thinking outside our timeframe does
> bring home the fact that for a dynasty to attempt to restore itself
> with completely spurious candidates who were none of their blood,
> would be a bit unusual to say the least.
> I'm thinking of the 'Feigned Boys' of course.
>
> Marie
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

At 09:30 19/11/2003, you wrote:
>Perhaps you would like to suggest another word.
><snip the Tudors>
>My dictionary calls that genocide. Ironically, it was unsuccessful as I am
>told that Plantagenet descendents live today!

It's not genocide because genocide is specifically against an entire
culture - whether Jewish, Bosnian, African.

You can't describe the elimination of one family as "genocide" - it's a
trivialisation of the immense horror of the word. "Murder" is a very good
word, conveying quite enough horror in itself to describe what happened
under the Tudors.

Jenny

--- In , Jennifer Delaney
<clanwilliam@f...> wrote:
> At 09:30 19/11/2003, you wrote:
> >Perhaps you would like to suggest another word.
> ><snip the Tudors>
> >My dictionary calls that genocide. Ironically, it was unsuccessful
as I am
> >told that Plantagenet descendents live today!
>
> It's not genocide because genocide is specifically against an
entire
> culture - whether Jewish, Bosnian, African.
>
> You can't describe the elimination of one family as "genocide" -
it's a
> trivialisation of the immense horror of the word. "Murder" is a
very good
> word, conveying quite enough horror in itself to describe what
happened
> under the Tudors.
>
> Jenny

Have to agree with Jenny, putting on my ex-editor-pedant hat.
Genocide is the wiping out of an entire people - from Latin gens,
gentis.
Perhaps we should coin another word - familicide or something - to
describe what the Tudors were doing. I'm not being entirely frivolous
here. It's too one-sided to be called a blood feud.

Marie

Marie

Firstly apologies this is a particular bug bear of mine because it is
another oft repeated illusory myth. And attacking the imagined opposition
isn't always the best way of defending someone.

Firstly in 1485 there were only two people who could reasonably be said to
have the surname Plantagenet - apart from Edward IV's daughters:

1) Edward Earl of Warwick (the only legitimate surviving male descendant of
the first Plantagenet Monarch Henry II) - almost undoubtedly executed
because of who he was and because of the long term dynastic threat he
posed - and possibly the only member of the list you trotted out whose death
attracted any adverse reaction at the time and it was done by enlarge to
ensure no more false "Warwicks" and to ensure the marriage of Arthur Prince
of Wales to the Infante Catherine of Aragon.
2) His sister Margaret Plantagenet - who was comfortably provided for -
intially was one of the first women to attend Catherine of Aragon at Ludlow
when she was first married to Prince Arthur, subsequently restored in the
blood to the Earldom of Salisbury (hers by right of inheritance from her
great grandmother) by Henry VIII (shortly after his accession) who also made
her chief lady to the young Princess Mary. Margaret married and had
numerous children - her daughter Ursula despite that oh so dangerous
Plantagenet blood married the last Duke of Buckingham's son and their
descendants were still living when Elizabeth I was buried in Westminster
Abbey - 118 years after Bosworth although one of their children Thomas
Stafford did die on the block in 1557.. (they were so very good at
eliminating all threats those Tudors you know). Margaret's son Reginald
Pole was a great favourite of Henry VIII as a child who I think was his
godfather - it was Henry who sponsored his religious education the main
opening for a younger son however Reginald issued a polemic from the safety
of Paris in 1536 (ironically the time Henry was getting rid of Anne)
heartily condemning the King's divorce from Catherine of Aragon and the King
was furious and the entire family found themselves in uncomfortable
territory. After Jane Seymour's death and the continuing unsettled
religious picture Cromwell was angling for a german alliance with the
Protestant prince's meanwhile the arch catholics appeared to gaining ground
when they managed to scotch the alliance (which was later reborn with the
Cleves marriage) and Bishop Gardiner returned to court in revenge Cromwell
successfully pinned treasons charges on the Countess, her eldest son Lord
Montagu and her third son Geoffrey Pole. Only Montagu died along with
Henry's cousin Henry Marquess of Exeter (son of the Princess Catherine
sister to Elizabeth of York) in 1539 the rest remained in prison Margaret
being executed two years later though Geoffrey Pole survived. They were all
implacable Catholics opposed to the great reforms and directly in opposition
to Cromwell who manipulated the King into a treason charge and given the
doubts about the succession that Henry had probably added that to the mix to
get rid of them.
This was hardly deliberate political extermination and Mary Tudor Henry's
daughter remained close to the family for the remainder of her life - in
fact Reginald Pole was the chosen Cardinal who accepted her submission on
behalf of the Pope for England's heretical behaviour and formally her realm
back into the Catholic Church. They remained close and Pole survived Mary I
by only a short while before dying of old age.

Moving on to look at others of the half plantagenet blood:

Richard III's aunt Isabel Countess of Essex left quite a brood of
descendants - the vast majority of them lived to greatness in the Tudor era
including such luminaries as the Earl of Essex who I presume you know died
not because he had a spot of Plantagenet blood but because he was an
overambitious fool. (incidentally he was part of an enormous brood most of
whom survived unscathed).

Richard III's eldest sister Anne left one daughter - Anne St Leger who
married and lived comfortably into old age bothering nobody (she was also
probably sensible enough to keep a low profile) her descendants are numerous
and with us today.

Richard's second sister Elizabeth lived on to 1503 her husband John de la
Pole died in about 1491/2 - their children all accepted Henry VII and John
Earl of Lincoln was soon a member of the council and a prominant figure at
the Tudor court - however in 1487 he rebelled and met his end at Stoke. His
siblings continued to support Henry Edmund de la Pole however was smarting
when Henry demoted his late father's Dukedom and reduced him to mere Earl of
Suffolk which heralded the break - he fled England in 1499 returned and was
forgiven any imagined sin and fled again for good two years later in 1501
his youngest brother Richard also fled - between them they spent the next
decade passing from semi imprisonment to relative freedom across Europe
depending on whether their hosts were feeling friendly towards England or
not. Eventually Henry VIII got Edmund back and he was executed in 1513
(after more than twenty years of attempted plotting enough to test the
patience of a saint if you ask me) whilst Richard was killed fighting at
Pavia in the 1520's. Henry VII's view of the Suffolk boys was that they
weren't enough of a threat to deal with them in 1485 he was remarkably
forgiving to the family after Lincoln's behaviour - the old adage give them
enough rope and they'll hang themselves seemed to have suited.

The above is hardly a damming indictment of some Tudor policy of
extermination. You can of course add Edward Stafford Duke of Buckingham who
got up Wolsey and Henry's nose in 1521 and lost his head - though the facts
are worth repeating - Stafford wasn't very bright - he was rather loose in
conversations about the King's lack of an heir other than the toddler
Princess Mary, he'd asked and gained royal consent for a marriage between
his son and Lady Salisbury's daughter which while granted didn't go down
well, and perhaps more importantly he had a terrible relationship with
Wolsey. He was removed before he became a serious threat however his
brother Lord Wiltshire survived and his children did okay. (incidentally
his downfall saw Margaret Salisbury removed from her post as principal
governess to the Princess Mary although she remained close to the Queen).





----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen LARK" <smlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Exile


> Perhaps you would like to suggest another word.
>
> The two Henrys killed every Plantagenet heir they could get their hands
on, including:
> Warwick, imprisoned at about twelve and stupid,
> Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, aged about seventy, harmless in person
and unlikely to reproduce further,
> "The one who came back" - any decent lawyer could get him declared insane
just for trusting a Tudor,
> another Duke of Buckingham.
>
> This is quite some chopping list.
>
> Of course, some were not actually killed but put into holy orders so they
could not reproduce (social castration), including Cardinal Reginald Pole,
son of Salisbury, who went into exile for a while.
>
> Henry had no right to the crown, except by conquest and subsequent forced
marriage, but these people did. None of them attempted to take it but all
were judicially murdered, just for who they were and from whom they were
descended.
>
> My dictionary calls that genocide. Ironically, it was unsuccessful as I am
told that Plantagenet descendents live today!
>
> My sources: my memory, refreshed by a JA-H lecture last February.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tim
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Exile
>
>
> Genocide! Please let's not go down that road - it's an innacurate word
to
> use in that context.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen LARK" <smlark@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Exile
>
>
> > Sorry, I meant to compare Charles II with the de la Pole who came home
and
> fell victim to the Tudor genocide.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Exile
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen LARK"
> > <smlark@i...> wrote:
> > > I was thinking, as I watched last night's documentary: there was a
> > rightful king in exile on the European mainland. Not always a
> > completely safe place to be (think of the de la Poles)!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Didn't see it, I'm afraid, but thinking outside our timeframe does
> > bring home the fact that for a dynasty to attempt to restore itself
> > with completely spurious candidates who were none of their blood,
> > would be a bit unusual to say the least.
> > I'm thinking of the 'Feigned Boys' of course.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> Firstly apologies this is a particular bug bear of mine because it
is
> another oft repeated illusory myth. And attacking the imagined
opposition
> isn't always the best way of defending someone.
>
> Firstly in 1485 there were only two people who could reasonably be
said to
> have the surname Plantagenet - apart from Edward IV's daughters:

I'm sorry to say I think this is a bit pedantic Tim. As you know, the
paucity of Plantagenets by name has already been discussed on this
forum and I'm sure Stephen is aware that surnames don't pass through
the female line. He is talking about Plantagenet descent and the
dynatstic threat that went with it.For the most part we could use
the term "House of York" rather than Plantagenet, but that wouldn't
cover Buckingham.
>
> 1) Edward Earl of Warwick (the only legitimate surviving male
descendant of
> the first Plantagenet Monarch Henry II) - almost undoubtedly
executed
> because of who he was and because of the long term dynastic threat
he
> posed - and possibly the only member of the list you trotted out
whose death
> attracted any adverse reaction at the time and it was done by
enlarge

Sorry, but if we're going to insist on linguistic correctness,
shouldn't this by "by and large"?

to
> ensure no more false "Warwicks" and to ensure the marriage of
Arthur Prince
> of Wales to the Infante Catherine of Aragon.

And this should be Infanta, not Infante (infantes are male). It was
done to secure the marriage, and to secure Henry's wobbly throne,
which many believed he shouldn't have taken, and most believed he
should have shared properly with his Yorkist queen. It was, as the
Infanta said, a marriage made in blood. As for false Warwicks, I
think the jury has to be out on that given the state of current
research.

As for the rest, you've rehearsed what I suspect is well known to all
on the forum. It did take a long time for a lot of these people to
go, but go they did. The same, of course, is true of the House of
Lancaster under Edward IV. The difference is there weren't many of
them to start with.
Essentially, the Henrys normally picked people off in turn, which I
suggest is why some lasted as long as they did and why the Bourchiers
survived. And Henry's spy network was ruthlessly efficient. I've just
been reading Anne Wroe's 'Perkin'. You can't really tell me he wasn't
looking for the least hint of treason; the danger of that is that one
could in the end say "to hell with it, I can't stand the strain any
longer".
As for the execution of Warwick, this attracted openly voiced
condemnation (which was dangerous) because he was so obviously
innocent. What people thought privately about other matters we can
never really be sure. As for the Countess of Salisbury, she also
appears to have been innoicent (at least, Henry couldn't get a
conviction and had to execute her without one). These were
particularly nasty incidents by any standards.
I should also say that Henry allowed, indeed forced, his officers to
come up with an identity for man claiming to be Richard Duke of York,
and had him ill treated in the Tower and executed still unsure of
whether he was his wife's brother or not. Indeed, had he been
confident that he wasn't, he probably wouldn't have felt the need to
engineer his escape and subsequent "plotting" in order to have him
condemned. He would have been kept around like Simnel.
> opening for a younger son however Reginald issued a polemic from
the safety
> of Paris in 1536 (ironically the time Henry was getting rid of Anne)
> heartily condemning the King's divorce from Catherine of Aragon and
the King
> was furious and the entire family found themselves in uncomfortable
> territory. After Jane Seymour's death and the continuing unsettled
> religious picture Cromwell was angling for a german alliance with
the
> Protestant prince's meanwhile the arch catholics

"Arch Catholics", Tim? This sounds very old-fashioned C of E
Establishment history. Bear in mind, Henry had gone and changed
everyone's religion for the convenience of his divorce, and just
expected them to comply. Some people sincerely couldn't. It didn't
give them horns.

They were all
> implacable Catholics opposed to the great reforms

Oh, come on, Tim! This is just more C of E Establishment myth. The
real reform in progress when Henry made himself head of the Church
was not a religious, Wycliffite one, but another that had been
bubbling in intellectual thought (ie the thoughts of the people close
to power) since the mid 15C, inspired by reading of the classics -
read Jonathon Hughes on the subject - and that is the elevation of
the notion of the state as the highest good that people could serve,
and an impatience with the Church's position over it. I'm ot arguing
that the Church wasn't corrupt, or just another human power
structure, only that the "Reformation" was just more of the same by a
different interest group. It's not exactly reforming the monasteries
to get rid of them and hand out their lands amongst your friends;
and, yes, now the Church of England has them again. And with Edward
VI it degenerated into mere iconoclasm. And, as for torturing and
killing people for heresy, both sides, sadly, were at it.

I know you'll disagree, Tim, but that's the fun of it, isn't it?

Marie

Marie wrote:

> And this should be Infanta, not Infante (infantes are male). It was
> done to secure the marriage, and to secure Henry's wobbly throne,
> which many believed he shouldn't have taken, and most believed he
> should have shared properly with his Yorkist queen. It was, as the
> Infanta said, a marriage made in blood. As for false Warwicks, I
> think the jury has to be out on that given the state of current
> research.
>
Of course it should be Infanta so my apologies. I don't believe I have ever
said that Warwick's death wasn't done to remove a potential threat - of all
the Plantagenet's or half Plantagenets who survived into the Tudor period -
I have always believed that Warwick died because of who he was rather than
any perceived treason.

> As for the rest, you've rehearsed what I suspect is well known to all
> on the forum. It did take a long time for a lot of these people to
> go, but go they did. The same, of course, is true of the House of
> Lancaster under Edward IV. The difference is there weren't many of
> them to start with.
> Essentially, the Henrys normally picked people off in turn, which I
> suggest is why some lasted as long as they did and why the Bourchiers
> survived.

I don't disagree with you on much of what you have said now and in the
past - my objection centres on the language used and on the assumption that
it was some deliberate policy (use of language like extermination for
example) I also object to the fact that some don't look at the circumstances
that brought about the deaths of the half dozen or so people with a remote
Plantagenet connection. Had Elizabeth of York and Henry VII had a nursery
full of health male children then I supsect most of them (Buckingham,
Courteney, and the Countess of Salisbury and her offspring) would have faded
into obscurity.

Deliberate Tudor policy in the early reign of Henry VII was to secure the
throne by whatever means - hence the marriage to Elizabeth of York and the
inclusion in Government of many individuals associated with both Edward IV
and Richard III. Had there been a deliberate policy to remove anyone with a
claim (however spurious) to the throne then he didn't exactly act with
speed - Lincoln and his brother's brought about their own fates they weren't
exactly hounded into the grave by Henry VII. Securing your throne was a
necessity and it continued to be so throughout the Tudor period - the
dynastic insecurity of the later Tudor's wasn't caused by a Plantagenet
threat but by their own increasing difficulty in producing legitimate heirs.
Those half Plantagenets with a suspected claim who kept a low profile
survived unharmed - those who were poltically active like Buckingham or Lady
Salisbury's sons were bound to make enemies and using Tudor insecurities
those enemies were able to bring them down - in Buckingham's case Wolsey and
in the case of the Pole's Cromwell. The fact is that if you stick your head
over the top of the trench there's every chance someone will shoot at it.

And Henry's spy network was ruthlessly efficient. I've just
> been reading Anne Wroe's 'Perkin'. You can't really tell me he wasn't
> looking for the least hint of treason; the danger of that is that one
> could in the end say "to hell with it, I can't stand the strain any
> longer".

Me also - rather well written isn't it! And I don't dispute that Henry was
on his guard for any hint of treason even when its clear there wasn't any -
in fact I tend to share the view of Christine Carpenter who believes that
Henry's own paranoia actually made his throne more insecure than it need
have been.


As for the Countess of Salisbury, she also
> appears to have been innoicent (at least, Henry couldn't get a
> conviction and had to execute her without one). These were
> particularly nasty incidents by any standards.

Lady Salisbury is indeed a particularly unpleasant blot amongst many that
spatter Henry VIII's reign. Although she was hardly a dynastic threat to
him.
Staying with this issue you wrote:

> "Arch Catholics", Tim? This sounds very old-fashioned C of E
> Establishment history. Bear in mind, Henry had gone and changed
> everyone's religion for the convenience of his divorce, and just
> expected them to comply. Some people sincerely couldn't. It didn't
> give them horns.
>
Hardly Cof E history - given that the Church of England in its current form
owes more to the Church as Established by Elizabeth and James - in fact
Henry VIII would heartily disapprove I suspect. Henry's religious ideology
hardly changed at all - he certainly died nearer to Rome than to Luther.
However it was a political issue Lady Salisbury and her family were and
remained until her death close to Queen Catherine of Aragon, they would have
found the Boleyn marriage (as illustrated by Reginald's polemic) hard to
swallow and probably found it even harder to swallow the Act of Supremacy.
Unfortunately for them they were identified by Cromwell and other's amongst
the reformers as amongst the pro-Rome court party - along with individuals
like Norfolk. There is some indication that actually Henry did hesitate
some time over Lady Salisbury (given that he had been rather fond of her
since his boyhood) - they were partly paying the price for Reginald's
betrayal (which is what Henry saw it as) as he was out of Henry's reach.

> They were all
> > implacable Catholics opposed to the great reforms

You mistook my meaning - given that I was using the language of Cromwell
rather than implying there was any "great" ie good reform going on. The
point which I think you deliberately mistook was that the Salisbury's were
caught up in Cromwell's latest attempt to ensure the country continued on
the political course he wanted (which had of course grossly enriched him)
rather than come to some sort of political raprochement (which with the
death of Anne Boleyn and the birth of Prince Edward was now a stronger
possibility given Henry's personal faith) with the Vatican.


As ever
Tim

So only one alternative claimant - Lincoln, who died in battle - sought to dispute the throne, and not even for himself, yet half a dozen of them were executed. Merely leaving the country does not count as a plot - had Richard been as ruthless and duplicitous as the Henrys, he could have extradited and chopped Tudor, died in bed and chosen his own successor - nor does being a good Catholic if the alternative is ante mortem cremation.
Of course, if Warbeck and/or Simnel had been genuine then they were Plantagenet claimants who did dispute the throne in their own right but, if so, had a stronger claim than the Tudors.
----- Original Message -----
From: tim
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Exile


Marie wrote:

> And this should be Infanta, not Infante (infantes are male). It was
> done to secure the marriage, and to secure Henry's wobbly throne,
> which many believed he shouldn't have taken, and most believed he
> should have shared properly with his Yorkist queen. It was, as the
> Infanta said, a marriage made in blood. As for false Warwicks, I
> think the jury has to be out on that given the state of current
> research.
>
Of course it should be Infanta so my apologies. I don't believe I have ever
said that Warwick's death wasn't done to remove a potential threat - of all
the Plantagenet's or half Plantagenets who survived into the Tudor period -
I have always believed that Warwick died because of who he was rather than
any perceived treason.

> As for the rest, you've rehearsed what I suspect is well known to all
> on the forum. It did take a long time for a lot of these people to
> go, but go they did. The same, of course, is true of the House of
> Lancaster under Edward IV. The difference is there weren't many of
> them to start with.
> Essentially, the Henrys normally picked people off in turn, which I
> suggest is why some lasted as long as they did and why the Bourchiers
> survived.

I don't disagree with you on much of what you have said now and in the
past - my objection centres on the language used and on the assumption that
it was some deliberate policy (use of language like extermination for
example) I also object to the fact that some don't look at the circumstances
that brought about the deaths of the half dozen or so people with a remote
Plantagenet connection. Had Elizabeth of York and Henry VII had a nursery
full of health male children then I supsect most of them (Buckingham,
Courteney, and the Countess of Salisbury and her offspring) would have faded
into obscurity.

Deliberate Tudor policy in the early reign of Henry VII was to secure the
throne by whatever means - hence the marriage to Elizabeth of York and the
inclusion in Government of many individuals associated with both Edward IV
and Richard III. Had there been a deliberate policy to remove anyone with a
claim (however spurious) to the throne then he didn't exactly act with
speed - Lincoln and his brother's brought about their own fates they weren't
exactly hounded into the grave by Henry VII. Securing your throne was a
necessity and it continued to be so throughout the Tudor period - the
dynastic insecurity of the later Tudor's wasn't caused by a Plantagenet
threat but by their own increasing difficulty in producing legitimate heirs.
Those half Plantagenets with a suspected claim who kept a low profile
survived unharmed - those who were poltically active like Buckingham or Lady
Salisbury's sons were bound to make enemies and using Tudor insecurities
those enemies were able to bring them down - in Buckingham's case Wolsey and
in the case of the Pole's Cromwell. The fact is that if you stick your head
over the top of the trench there's every chance someone will shoot at it.

And Henry's spy network was ruthlessly efficient. I've just
> been reading Anne Wroe's 'Perkin'. You can't really tell me he wasn't
> looking for the least hint of treason; the danger of that is that one
> could in the end say "to hell with it, I can't stand the strain any
> longer".

Me also - rather well written isn't it! And I don't dispute that Henry was
on his guard for any hint of treason even when its clear there wasn't any -
in fact I tend to share the view of Christine Carpenter who believes that
Henry's own paranoia actually made his throne more insecure than it need
have been.


As for the Countess of Salisbury, she also
> appears to have been innoicent (at least, Henry couldn't get a
> conviction and had to execute her without one). These were
> particularly nasty incidents by any standards.

Lady Salisbury is indeed a particularly unpleasant blot amongst many that
spatter Henry VIII's reign. Although she was hardly a dynastic threat to
him.
Staying with this issue you wrote:

> "Arch Catholics", Tim? This sounds very old-fashioned C of E
> Establishment history. Bear in mind, Henry had gone and changed
> everyone's religion for the convenience of his divorce, and just
> expected them to comply. Some people sincerely couldn't. It didn't
> give them horns.
>
Hardly Cof E history - given that the Church of England in its current form
owes more to the Church as Established by Elizabeth and James - in fact
Henry VIII would heartily disapprove I suspect. Henry's religious ideology
hardly changed at all - he certainly died nearer to Rome than to Luther.
However it was a political issue Lady Salisbury and her family were and
remained until her death close to Queen Catherine of Aragon, they would have
found the Boleyn marriage (as illustrated by Reginald's polemic) hard to
swallow and probably found it even harder to swallow the Act of Supremacy.
Unfortunately for them they were identified by Cromwell and other's amongst
the reformers as amongst the pro-Rome court party - along with individuals
like Norfolk. There is some indication that actually Henry did hesitate
some time over Lady Salisbury (given that he had been rather fond of her
since his boyhood) - they were partly paying the price for Reginald's
betrayal (which is what Henry saw it as) as he was out of Henry's reach.

> They were all
> > implacable Catholics opposed to the great reforms

You mistook my meaning - given that I was using the language of Cromwell
rather than implying there was any "great" ie good reform going on. The
point which I think you deliberately mistook was that the Salisbury's were
caught up in Cromwell's latest attempt to ensure the country continued on
the political course he wanted (which had of course grossly enriched him)
rather than come to some sort of political raprochement (which with the
death of Anne Boleyn and the birth of Prince Edward was now a stronger
possibility given Henry's personal faith) with the Vatican.


As ever
Tim


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.