I SO agree about Margaret as a suspect in the disappearance of the princes: I won't seriously consider her until someone can prove Richard didn't do it. But the fact that I think Richard was most likely behind it doesn't mean I think he was the devil incarnate with no good qualities, & I don't get why Ricardians argue as if that's how everyone except them thinks. Since so many people DO talk about Margaret like that, I felt defensive of her before I knew much about her- no-one can be that bad, & it sounded like the usual vicious slander about a powerful woman. Which is possibly what you'd call "jumping on the Margaret bandwagon", but I try very hard to be open-minded, & my interest in history isn't about judging people. As to Elizabeth of York, I always think, "Maybe she PREFERRED to let Margaret take a bigger role?" I certainly would; I'm the opposite of ambitious & politically savvy. And the fact that the idea of Elizabeth resenting her is based on one comment by an ambassador shows how important it is to know your sources! I'm not a historian, & I'm so pleased when experts explain what actual, reliable evidence there is for something. Really interesting & educational, awesome!
I don't believe Margaret had anything you for with their deaths at all. She may have helped them escape however. I'd believe that. And I do see evidence that they might have escaped. Or that 2 imposters were swapped well before they ever came into the tower. Both boys couldn't been taken to France and other children found to replace them when they first found out their father was dead and were ordered to court. Then if Richard found out or doubted they were the real boys or if they escaped he'd look dumb admitting it or he was investigating secretly. I think it's more likely he liked them but I do find it strange how quickly Elizabeth Woodville turned them over and that she never said a mass for them. She also seemed to be involved in Lambert losing her lands at the time. All suggests possible she knew they weren't her boys going in to the tower. She could've made a deal to let Elizabeth marry Henry in exchange for their lives. Maybe she was even going to let her may Edward in exchange for their lives. Many many possibilities. But Margaret was not a killer. Of that I'm sure.
Historical novelists are permitted to imagine what they like but the problem is that people assume it is historically accurate. Philippa Gregory was pretty unfair in making out that Margaret killed the princes. It's more in line with Richard's MO. She may have been filled with genuine anger and revulsion at their 'disappearance' when she said Richard should be brought down; it didn't have to be sheer opportunism. What Gregory did get right I think is that Margaret should be seen as a victim of a child marriage. There was no romance with Edmund as in Iris Gower's 'Bride of the Thirteen Summers'. We can see this because Margaret queried whether she was sinful to loathe marital sex. By the time she was translating from French works, she had made up her mind that it was 'lechery' that was wicked. The vision sounds like ex post facto fantasising. She was a good friend to Cecily of York who had married her own half brother, John Welles. When Cecily later made an infra dig marriage to a pleb, Thomas Kyme, Henry vii was furious , expelled her from the court and grabbed her property. Margaret gave her refuge at her house in Collyweston, and interceded for her. Cecily was the daughter of Elizabeth Woodville and the sister of Elizabeth of York. It doesn't sound as if Margaret was such a dragon to the York women. What does chill the blood is that Margaret had young Warwick, the son of George of Clarence, as a ward. We know he went into the Tower as a young boy, had no education, was even kept literally in the dark and was later executed for conspiring with Perkin Warbeck to escape, something that had been set up. He has been called the third prince in the Tower. Margaret and Henry can be acquitted of harming the canonical princes but the Warwick tragedy does not reflect well on them. Marianne via Roger's computer
OMG! When she said, "...I actually agree with everything Nathan just said" and then explained her views I FELL IN LOVE WITH NICOLA!!! A fine scholar says that type of thing as well as, "I don't know!" I just ordered her book about Beaufort. Brava, Nicola!
This is so very helpful! I do wish historians would consider their speaking when they do these things; stronger, clearer diction, enunciation would be wonderful. I enjoyed this very much and learned a lot. Thank you!
The way I look at Margaret and the Princes is that even if she had them killed (which I don’t think she did), there was no way she could have known Bosworth was going to happen two years later. Too much else needed to happen and would not have been something she could have predicted, she looks like she could be a suspect in hindsight but in 1483 it makes no sense. Also there are other heirs to consider like the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Lincoln and Richard III own son, if she wanted to place Henry on the throne, would she not also need to remove them? I think at a time where women should be trying to support other women it is a shame Margaret is villianised, she should be treated with respect like all women of history.
I don't find it horrid. I love that finally she got her son. Finally her prayers were answered. He was king and safe and with her. A great example of faith. And God turning bad things into good in our life.
I just wanted to say thank you for doing this interview to everyone. I am researching Margaret for my thesis paper and I found this conversation extremely enlightening (I am still in the researching process). I am looking at the idea that Margaret Beaufort had a deep piety and royal ancestry, which lead her to believe that God willed that the Crown of England was destined if not for her but for her heirs especially after the Princes in the Tower incident. It was refreshing to listen to historians actually speak rather than reading a book! I loved the conversation and I learned a lot about Tudor propaganda. Nathan brought up a great point about story telling that I think I might mention. Would it be okay if I used this as a secondary source for my project? Particularly I would use this when discussing the historiography of MB.
I need to say this (and I am a Margaret Top Fan). There is no way Beaufort was a sweet, little grandmotherly type. No CHILD who marries a big ole Tudor man at age 12 and bears his child at 13 and then has to constantly fight to keep what she had and find husbands and run, etc. is "sweet". OK,, now I feel better. I love Margaret and I have loved this talk! Thank you!
Good conversation. Have you read any of Susan B Higginbotham's novels? I find her take on both Margaret Beaufort and Richard III to be very balanced and accurate.
The more we learn about Richard III, the more likely Margaret Beaufort funded and organized the disappearance of the princes. Richard had an uphill battle for approval outside of the North, and even a hint of infanticide would turn the nobles against him, it is unlikely he ordered it. The church provided the documentation about Edward IVs marriage being invalid (debatable) but Edward's will left him Lord Protector, he had all the authority of a king with Edward V alive (if stroppy). He had more to lose than to gain by killing his nephews. But MB had everything to gain by eliminating a claimant who had a solid male descendant to the throne. She was also savvy enough to realize Richard III needed her husband's support, and so she kept her head when others (Buckingham, Warwick) lost their heads fomenting rebellion again him. Unlucky early in life, but in the end they were all kissing her royal bum!
The main point here is that if Richard’s kingship was in any way effective, no agent of Margaret Beaufort would be able to get to the princes. The church did not sign-off on the illegitimacy of the princes, even though it was an ecclesiastical issue. Many people didn’t believe it and as such there were plots to free the princes. Evidentially, alive, they were a threat to Richard.
But isn't it true though that the reason she married young and was gotten pregnant so young ... Sort of rushed instead of waiting until she was older.... Was because they wanted to produce an heir? I mean isn't that why he was taken from her to be raised to be a king?
It’s more likely that Tudor wanted to have a child by Margaret quickly to secure his claim on her lands. Henry VI already had a son by the time Margaret was married.
Most people of that class didn’t raise their own children. We don’t know exactly when Margaret stopped raising Henry but it was probably when he was about a year old so that she could marry Stafford. The Tudors were treated with some suspicion by Edward IV which is probably why Henry was placed with the Herberts. But that was because Jasper was such a loyalist to his brother.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 people of that class had nannies or were sent to school but not taken from the parents. Only heirs to the throne were taken and raised by someone else to either be trained or protected. My point is I think it was in their minds he could be king some day. I think Margaret believed it. I don't think she plotted her whole life or schemed for it. But in her heart I think she believe it. I don't think she seriously was involved in a plot for it until the end just before it happened. But I do think she believed it would happen someday or was possible and that is why she did many things. I think he was trained to be a king in case. Not that they were plotting but they were prepared.
At 40:15 Nicola says "well, we won't get into that" , and Gareth says something about a death in 1483, and then Nicola says, "which I think really happened.' ARGHG! I have played this 3 times and don't know to what they are referring. Help! Thanks! Are they simply referring to the princes, and they both believe the boys were killed in 1483?
Yes, as opposed to some people (esp. Ricardians) who argue that the Princes were killed later, when the Tudor faction would have had more of a motive to do it. Some even argue that the Princes weren't killed during Richard's reign at all, but rather by Henry or his supporters after Bosworth. (That scenario obviously raises the huge question of why Richard wouldn't have produced the Princes when people were accusing him of having killed them and demanding their whereabouts, but people try to float the theory nonetheless.)
@@Luanna801 Thanks! I really cannot, after much study and even more thinking, imagine that Ricky did not have them killed. The evidence for his innocence is rather pale. As for Nicola, I sure wish I had my money back for her book on M. Beaufort! Dreadful!
I think she actually had a vision. Being religious and having visions that drove my life myself I think she did see he would be king and always had it in her head. Of course there's no record of that because it would be treason and very serious to write it or say it but she was thinking it and believing it. She maybe started to give up on it and doubting it but when she saw God opening the door she knew and that's why she had no fear. And Henry had an army ready so it wasn't a new idea in his head.
So darn wonderful 👍
Thanks all.
I SO agree about Margaret as a suspect in the disappearance of the princes: I won't seriously consider her until someone can prove Richard didn't do it. But the fact that I think Richard was most likely behind it doesn't mean I think he was the devil incarnate with no good qualities, & I don't get why Ricardians argue as if that's how everyone except them thinks. Since so many people DO talk about Margaret like that, I felt defensive of her before I knew much about her- no-one can be that bad, & it sounded like the usual vicious slander about a powerful woman. Which is possibly what you'd call "jumping on the Margaret bandwagon", but I try very hard to be open-minded, & my interest in history isn't about judging people.
As to Elizabeth of York, I always think, "Maybe she PREFERRED to let Margaret take a bigger role?" I certainly would; I'm the opposite of ambitious & politically savvy. And the fact that the idea of Elizabeth resenting her is based on one comment by an ambassador shows how important it is to know your sources! I'm not a historian, & I'm so pleased when experts explain what actual, reliable evidence there is for something.
Really interesting & educational, awesome!
I don't believe Margaret had anything you for with their deaths at all. She may have helped them escape however. I'd believe that. And I do see evidence that they might have escaped. Or that 2 imposters were swapped well before they ever came into the tower. Both boys couldn't been taken to France and other children found to replace them when they first found out their father was dead and were ordered to court. Then if Richard found out or doubted they were the real boys or if they escaped he'd look dumb admitting it or he was investigating secretly. I think it's more likely he liked them but I do find it strange how quickly Elizabeth Woodville turned them over and that she never said a mass for them. She also seemed to be involved in Lambert losing her lands at the time. All suggests possible she knew they weren't her boys going in to the tower. She could've made a deal to let Elizabeth marry Henry in exchange for their lives. Maybe she was even going to let her may Edward in exchange for their lives. Many many possibilities. But Margaret was not a killer. Of that I'm sure.
Awesome talk. Really enjoyed it. Thank you Gareth Nicola and Nathan. Ps. Already have the books 😇
Historical novelists are permitted to imagine what they like but the problem is that people assume it is historically accurate. Philippa Gregory was pretty unfair in making out that Margaret killed the princes. It's more in line with Richard's MO. She may have been filled with genuine anger and revulsion at their 'disappearance' when she said Richard should be brought down; it didn't have to be sheer opportunism.
What Gregory did get right I think is that Margaret should be seen as a victim of a child marriage. There was no romance with Edmund as in Iris Gower's 'Bride of the Thirteen Summers'. We can see this because Margaret queried whether she was sinful to loathe marital sex. By the time she was translating from French works, she had made up her mind that it was 'lechery' that was wicked. The vision sounds like ex post facto fantasising.
She was a good friend to Cecily of York who had married her own half brother, John Welles. When Cecily later made an infra dig marriage to a pleb, Thomas Kyme, Henry vii was furious , expelled her from the court and grabbed her property. Margaret gave her refuge at her house in Collyweston, and interceded for her. Cecily was the daughter of Elizabeth Woodville and the sister of Elizabeth of York. It doesn't sound as if Margaret was such a dragon to the York women.
What does chill the blood is that Margaret had young Warwick, the son of George of Clarence, as a ward. We know he went into the Tower as a young boy, had no education, was even kept literally in the dark and was later executed for conspiring with Perkin Warbeck to escape, something that had been set up. He has been called the third prince in the Tower. Margaret and Henry can be acquitted of harming the canonical princes but the Warwick tragedy does not reflect well on them.
Marianne via Roger's computer
OMG! When she said, "...I actually agree with everything Nathan just said" and then explained her views I FELL IN LOVE WITH NICOLA!!! A fine scholar says that type of thing as well as, "I don't know!" I just ordered her book about Beaufort. Brava, Nicola!
This is so very helpful! I do wish historians would consider their speaking when they do these things; stronger, clearer diction, enunciation would be wonderful. I enjoyed this very much and learned a lot. Thank you!
The way I look at Margaret and the Princes is that even if she had them killed (which I don’t think she did), there was no way she could have known Bosworth was going to happen two years later. Too much else needed to happen and would not have been something she could have predicted, she looks like she could be a suspect in hindsight but in 1483 it makes no sense. Also there are other heirs to consider like the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Lincoln and Richard III own son, if she wanted to place Henry on the throne, would she not also need to remove them? I think at a time where women should be trying to support other women it is a shame Margaret is villianised, she should be treated with respect like all women of history.
I don't find it horrid. I love that finally she got her son. Finally her prayers were answered. He was king and safe and with her. A great example of faith. And God turning bad things into good in our life.
I loved Nicola’s book and really enjoyed this. Thanks!
Thank you, that’s great news.
I just wanted to say thank you for doing this interview to everyone. I am researching Margaret for my thesis paper and I found this conversation extremely enlightening (I am still in the researching process). I am looking at the idea that Margaret Beaufort had a deep piety and royal ancestry, which lead her to believe that God willed that the Crown of England was destined if not for her but for her heirs especially after the Princes in the Tower incident. It was refreshing to listen to historians actually speak rather than reading a book! I loved the conversation and I learned a lot about Tudor propaganda. Nathan brought up a great point about story telling that I think I might mention.
Would it be okay if I used this as a secondary source for my project? Particularly I would use this when discussing the historiography of MB.
Of course! Glad it’s helpful.
I need to say this (and I am a Margaret Top Fan). There is no way Beaufort was a sweet, little grandmotherly type. No CHILD who marries a big ole Tudor man at age 12 and bears his child at 13 and then has to constantly fight to keep what she had and find husbands and run, etc. is "sweet". OK,, now I feel better. I love Margaret and I have loved this talk! Thank you!
Margaret's Endurance is definitely to be respected for sure.
@@eamonndeane587 Absolutely! Love her! wouldn't you love to actually TALK to her?!!!!!
Good conversation. Have you read any of Susan B Higginbotham's novels? I find her take on both Margaret Beaufort and Richard III to be very balanced and accurate.
The more we learn about Richard III, the more likely Margaret Beaufort funded and organized the disappearance of the princes. Richard had an uphill battle for approval outside of the North, and even a hint of infanticide would turn the nobles against him, it is unlikely he ordered it. The church provided the documentation about Edward IVs marriage being invalid (debatable) but Edward's will left him Lord Protector, he had all the authority of a king with Edward V alive (if stroppy). He had more to lose than to gain by killing his nephews. But MB had everything to gain by eliminating a claimant who had a solid male descendant to the throne. She was also savvy enough to realize Richard III needed her husband's support, and so she kept her head when others (Buckingham, Warwick) lost their heads fomenting rebellion again him. Unlucky early in life, but in the end they were all kissing her royal bum!
The main point here is that if Richard’s kingship was in any way effective, no agent of Margaret Beaufort would be able to get to the princes.
The church did not sign-off on the illegitimacy of the princes, even though it was an ecclesiastical issue. Many people didn’t believe it and as such there were plots to free the princes. Evidentially, alive, they were a threat to Richard.
With regards to the Regency question wasn't Catherine of Aragon the first official female regent of England? Appointed by Henry VIII?
I'm really surprised any of the Queen Jewels survived the Civil War... I'd like to learn more about them. The original crowns were melted down.
But isn't it true though that the reason she married young and was gotten pregnant so young ... Sort of rushed instead of waiting until she was older.... Was because they wanted to produce an heir? I mean isn't that why he was taken from her to be raised to be a king?
It’s more likely that Tudor wanted to have a child by Margaret quickly to secure his claim on her lands. Henry VI already had a son by the time Margaret was married.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 but then why was Henry taken from her? Why couldn't she raise her own son? Isn't what they do to heirs of the throne?
Most people of that class didn’t raise their own children. We don’t know exactly when Margaret stopped raising Henry but it was probably when he was about a year old so that she could marry Stafford. The Tudors were treated with some suspicion by Edward IV which is probably why Henry was placed with the Herberts. But that was because Jasper was such a loyalist to his brother.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 people of that class had nannies or were sent to school but not taken from the parents. Only heirs to the throne were taken and raised by someone else to either be trained or protected. My point is I think it was in their minds he could be king some day. I think Margaret believed it. I don't think she plotted her whole life or schemed for it. But in her heart I think she believe it. I don't think she seriously was involved in a plot for it until the end just before it happened. But I do think she believed it would happen someday or was possible and that is why she did many things. I think he was trained to be a king in case. Not that they were plotting but they were prepared.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 I think it wasn't until he was 5 that he was taken? But do you think Jasper and Margaret had a strong bond?
At 40:15 Nicola says "well, we won't get into that" , and Gareth says something about a death in 1483, and then Nicola says, "which I think really happened.' ARGHG! I have played this 3 times and don't know to what they are referring. Help! Thanks! Are they simply referring to the princes, and they both believe the boys were killed in 1483?
Yes, as opposed to some people (esp. Ricardians) who argue that the Princes were killed later, when the Tudor faction would have had more of a motive to do it. Some even argue that the Princes weren't killed during Richard's reign at all, but rather by Henry or his supporters after Bosworth. (That scenario obviously raises the huge question of why Richard wouldn't have produced the Princes when people were accusing him of having killed them and demanding their whereabouts, but people try to float the theory nonetheless.)
@@Luanna801 Thanks! I really cannot, after much study and even more thinking, imagine that Ricky did not have them killed. The evidence for his innocence is rather pale. As for Nicola, I sure wish I had my money back for her book on M. Beaufort! Dreadful!
I think she actually had a vision. Being religious and having visions that drove my life myself I think she did see he would be king and always had it in her head. Of course there's no record of that because it would be treason and very serious to write it or say it but she was thinking it and believing it. She maybe started to give up on it and doubting it but when she saw God opening the door she knew and that's why she had no fear. And Henry had an army ready so it wasn't a new idea in his head.
What i find astonishing is that you so caled historians, dont understand the mindset an roles in those times.
Always great to meet a fan :-)