Elizabeth of York etc.

Coming out of lurkerdom with a couple of comments on the interesting
recent threads:

1. Re: Richard & EoY: I agree that it was likely Tudor-based
propaganda, aimed at alienating Richard's northern support. According
to some sources (that I am too lazy to look up and cite), the reason
Richard made the public disavowal of such intent was to placate the
Neville affinity he now commanded, who were outraged that he'd so
quickly replace Anne Neville with a half-Woodville.

2. Buckingham and Howard as kingmakers: this makes sense to me. As
I understand it, the Mowbray inheritance was absorbed into the crown
properties upon the marriage of Richard Duke of York and the Mowbray
heir, and her subsequent death. It did seem a bit unfair, as she was
a minor when she died, and John Howard, next in line to the Mowbray
inheritance, had toiled long and loyally in the Yorkist cause. With
Richard of York disinherited and a grateful Richard of Gloucester on
the throne, it was reasonable to expect he might be rewarded with
what was rightfully his anyway.

As for Buckingham, I believe that at some point between Edward's
death and Richard's ascension, he came up with the idea of claiming
the crown for himself, given his Plantagenet antecedents, and played
both sides against the middle. I just cannot see a man with such
delusions of his own grandeur risking himself for an exiled offshoot
of a bastard branch like Henry Tudor. Nor had he ever exhibited any
outstanding loyalty to or affection for Edward IV, so rebelling on
behalf of his heir seems equally unlikely.

- MargaretA

Agreed:

1. I've often wondered just how strong Richard's northern support was.
There seem to have been a few ruminations as time went on.

2. As already mentioned, William Berkeley got his lands back.

3. Buckingham had added the royal arms back into his personal array,
much to the chagrin of Edward IV. By doing so, he may well have
signalled his intention to be recognized as a prince of the blood. Not
much of leap from that position to king. Arguably, his claim to the
throne was stronger than Henry Tudor's. He may have been more than a bit
ambiguous when he stated his support for 'Henry'. After all, he was a
'Henry' as well.

meandermay wrote:
>
> Coming out of lurkerdom with a couple of comments on the interesting
> recent threads:
>
> 1. Re: Richard & EoY: I agree that it was likely Tudor-based
> propaganda, aimed at alienating Richard's northern support. According
> to some sources (that I am too lazy to look up and cite), the reason
> Richard made the public disavowal of such intent was to placate the
> Neville affinity he now commanded, who were outraged that he'd so
> quickly replace Anne Neville with a half-Woodville.
>
> 2. Buckingham and Howard as kingmakers: this makes sense to me. As
> I understand it, the Mowbray inheritance was absorbed into the crown
> properties upon the marriage of Richard Duke of York and the Mowbray
> heir, and her subsequent death. It did seem a bit unfair, as she was
> a minor when she died, and John Howard, next in line to the Mowbray
> inheritance, had toiled long and loyally in the Yorkist cause. With
> Richard of York disinherited and a grateful Richard of Gloucester on
> the throne, it was reasonable to expect he might be rewarded with
> what was rightfully his anyway.
>
> As for Buckingham, I believe that at some point between Edward's
> death and Richard's ascension, he came up with the idea of claiming
> the crown for himself, given his Plantagenet antecedents, and played
> both sides against the middle. I just cannot see a man with such
> delusions of his own grandeur risking himself for an exiled offshoot
> of a bastard branch like Henry Tudor. Nor had he ever exhibited any
> outstanding loyalty to or affection for Edward IV, so rebelling on
> behalf of his heir seems equally unlikely.
>
> - MargaretA
>
>