Lady Katherine Gordon: The Noblewoman Caught in the Crossfire of Tudor Intrigue
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @hteysko
In this episode, we delve into the fascinating and tumultuous life of Lady Katherine Gordon, the Scottish noblewoman who became embroiled in one of the most dramatic episodes of Tudor history. As the wife of Perkin Warbeck, the pretender who claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, Katherine's life was marked by political machinations, personal loss, and remarkable resilience.
Join us as we explore:
Katherine's noble origins and early life at the Scottish court
Her politically charged marriage to Perkin Warbeck and their life together
The impact of Warbeck’s failed invasions and subsequent capture
The rumors surrounding Henry VII’s intentions towards Katherine
Katherine's later life, including her subsequent marriages and role in the English court
Her enduring legacy and historical significance
This episode uncovers the personal and political complexities faced by Lady Katherine Gordon, highlighting her strength and adaptability amidst the power struggles of the Tudor era. Don't miss this in-depth look at a woman who navigated the treacherous waters of royal intrigue with dignity and grace.
Subscribe for more captivating stories from the Tudor period and beyond!
---Renaissance English History Podcast Website: www.englandcas...
Patreon: / englandcast
Tudor Learning Circle (book club & discussions): www.tudorlearn...
Facebook: / englandcast
Twitter: / teysko
ITunes: podcasts.apple...
TuneIn: tunein.com/pod...
Sometimes when I watch these video, I marvel that anyone was able to survive the Tudor period. Seems like a rather scary time to live if you were nobility.
BBC owes her a miniseries 🎉
I suspect that Elizabeth of York had to be loyal to her husband (Henry VII) and had to bury her own feelings about Warbeck possibly being her brother. Maybe it tortured her to some degree but she kept it to herself. I think due to this conflict of emotions, she likely treated Lady Katherine as nothing more than a high born noble lady with all the respect due to her rank and not a sister-in-law.
She had children by Henry. She would have put her sons before her brother, they were threats to one another. If he was her brother she would have chosen her sons but likely was devastated over having to choose them. I'm inclined to think it wasn't her brother though.
@@jamiemohan2049Definitely agree because she also could have been aware that has Warbeck really been Richard and became King her sons would always be used as pawns for Lancashire cause whereas her sons would be more safe as the York and Lancashire direct heirs.
Thank you for sharing the things you have learned with us. I love history.
Positive vibes to you
Thanks so much for the lovely comment, it means a lot!
I wonder if Katherine was happy to marry Warbeck? Did the Scottish King & the Duchess of Burgundy really believe Warbeck was Prince Richard? Or is this our perception 500 years later?
It seems a pretty sad ending for her as her husband was excuted & she became a permanent "guest" with no autonomy.
I think it was analysed well here for the doubt in that did Margaret do it as the daughter and sister to those killed by the Lancashire side and as a sister to two York kings and an aunt to Edward V, with potential of hoping an agreement strong point of power through the claimant, (or even if she was desperate enough to want to believe a York claim lived) to believe in York, as she also argued James IV seeking someone to ally against the English to underminee - I always thought he maybe thought if by placing this person now who he can pretend he thought royal and then hope to undermine him later and claim him a fraud as many also had done. However rightfully there were never any bodies shown so claims could be made anywhere and everywhere
Actually, although she certainly endured a lot of emotional suffering around the period of her capture and Warbeck's execution, thereafter it appears she enjoyed a reasonably comfortable life. Elizabeth of York must have at least been a little fond of her to have continued to have Catherine in her household long after Warbeck was dead. She married, apparently quite successfully, three times, acquired lands and wealth from the king, and from her husbands. She enjoyed a high position with Mary Tudor. She was allowed to travel, and live in Wales with her third husband. This does not sound to me like a a woman whose life had a sad ending and who had no autonomy.
So who killed the children? Richard the 3rd was horrified by their disappearance and looked bad. His honesty and integrity came into public question as he was in charge of protecting them. So he didn't kill them even though he had the best and most opportunity. Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VIIth was known to openly speak of wishing those children would disappear. But as a thin, short frail woman, it is highly unlikely she could get past the guards, chase 2 10-12-year-old boys around to kill them by hand when the boys could likely outrun her, were stronger than she, and could more than likely beat her up. Richard IIIrd's wife Queen Anne Neville never expressed any ill feelings towards the children in the tower and Henry VII was in France at the time. Even he expressed that he would not want to be king over the dead bodies of 2 innocent children. Even though his mother Lady Margaret would be good with it. The most likely scenario is that some 2nd in command of Henry VIIth who would also greatly benefit from Henry being made king, snuck over to London from northern France without Henry VIIth's knowledge or consent, and accomplished disappearing the children in the tower. Might have Lady Margaret paid him to do it? Possible. And not unlikely given her attitude, her ambition for her son, and knowing that her son didn't want to assume the crown by killing children.
Lady Margaret's brother in law was the man in charge of the prince's... iv always felt she had more to gain than most if the boys just....... you know
@@johnfinnie1181 She would only have been tidying up the succession for Richard had she had them killed. Henry was still out of the country, and there was no certainty he would ever be king. If she'd had them killed when they disappeared she'd only have been making Richard's hold on the throne more secure.
@edithengel2284 not exactly as She was in constant contact with Henry it was a plan & by having the True king & his heir removed it'd be an easier way to remove a usurper & bring in a new king with a small claim to the throne.... this was a plan Margaret had from the beginning ( maybe not to be king) it was to het Henry back in English soil, then the true king dies his heir & sons were removed which made it easier for those against Richard to have a new champion. If those boys lived the name tudour would be a blip in the history books.... remember this was a time when turning on your brother was the norm.
@@johnfinnie1181 I disagree. Removing the heirs--and we're disregarding how hard it would be to get it done, especially with Margaret under virtual house arrest--would make Richard's position more secure, as he would not have to worry about the two boys emerging to claim the crown, and would have absolved him from responsibility for their removal.. Wouldn't you think Richard would have noticed the boys' deaths/disappearance? There would have been a hue and cry. Something like that would definitely have left some kind of evidence, at the very least, a disturbance in the normal routines of the Tower.
And Richard wasn't removed because the princes disappeared, or at least it was only one issue. He was insecure due to the cumulative effects of his usurpation process, including the disappearance of the princes, but chiefly because he was beaten in battle.
It's not that it's impossible, but it seems less than likely.
Her paternal great grandmother was Elizabeth Gordon, but her paternal great grandfather was Alexander Seton. Seton's son took the name Gordon. This is much the same as Oliver Cromwell, who's paternal great great grandmother was Katherine Cromwell (sister of Thomas Cromwell), but his paternal great great grandfather was Morgan Williams. This was not that uncommon, showing titles and names were important.
Thank you heather. Tumultuous times to have lived through. Yes, one can feel sorry for that poor lady but think what it must have done to Katherine of York! The agony of just not being sure he was her brother must have been dreadful. Even though your head says ‘no’, you can’t stop the heart just thinking ‘what if’. Boy, fancy being around Margaret Beaufort at that time. Hard enough mother in law at the best of times. Dragon 🐉 lady at best. Sorry, just my opinion folks. Thank you heather 🙏🙏👵🇦🇺
Lady Katherine was a cousin of the King of Scotland. It is unlikely that James V would marry a relative to someone he suspected of being an imposter. Just as demonstrated in "My Fair Lady", being a noble involved a certain posture, body language, accent and behavior that almost became instinctive. No matter how much he resembled the Yorks, if Warbeck did not have the characteristics associated with living in a sophisticated court, he would not have been recognized as a prince by so many people. Warbeck supposedly had a cast in his eye, a physical trait that he shared with other British royalties. The people who supported Warbeck obviously did not grab some likely looking boy and give him a crash course in princely behavior. Henry VII was a vengeful man but he spared Warbeck for a long time. Monarchs had a horror of spilling royal blood.
Both probably silent to avoid losing their heads
My mother's dad's side of the family are Clan Gordon.
Although we are fifth generation Kiwis,my mother has always been extremely proud of our Scottish ancestry.
Hello. I didn't make it through your video, but since it showed up in my feed and you present yourself as someone who might know, could you tell me about iconoclastic revisionism of the kind undertaken during the Reformation, under Henry VIII? Did he dispose of Thomas Cromwell for related reasons?
These poor women, just being used for breeding and as pawns.
The men didn't have any more choice than the women at those ranks.
@@ruthsaunders9507 the noble men had plenty of choices, the peasants not so much. The lords were like mini kings with their own fiefdoms.
@@faeriefruitcake The men didn't have a choice in who they married any than the women did.
@@faeriefruitcake ruthsaunders above is correct. Matches were made for the male children of nobles at extremely early ages and they also had no choice in the matter either.