The Controversial Matriarch of the Tudor Dynasty | Margaret Beaufort | Part 2
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- The Tudors were a royal family that dominated the late medieval era, but how did they go from minor Welsh nobility to monarchs of England? It all started with the mother of Henry VII, Margaret Beaufort. A teen mother and widow by the age of thirteen, Margaret would elevate herself beyond the low expectations of her sex, and ensure her son's place on the throne of England. This video looks at Margaret as she became part of the politics of the royal court, her attempts to keep her son safe as his life was threatened, and the reasons she had to switch sides to the House of York...
If you like my videos, consider sponsoring me via Patreon here! You can watch selected videos before they go on TH-cam, take part in exclusive polls, and even create fan requests! / historysforgottenpeople
Sources and Related Books:
Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty by Elizabeth Norton - amzn.to/42Nm9VM
Uncrowned Queen: The Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch by Nicola Tallis - amzn.to/3pasg8J
The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown by Nathan Amin - amzn.to/3NdRR8L
Red Roses: Blanche of Gaunt to Margaret Beaufort by Amy Licence - amzn.to/3pcxtNu
The above book links are affiliate links, and by clicking and buying a book, you're helping support this channel. Thank you very much! 🙌
For my images and footage, thanks to:
Pexels
Pixabay
Wikimedia Commons, especially:
Xenophon
Niki.L
Gérard Janot
King of Hearts
Many of my images in this video were made with Midjourney - see if you can spot which ones!
I strive to always credit everyone whose images I use, and try as much as possible to use images freely in the public domain (purchased where not possible) - please let me know if I have missed you so I can give you due credit.
Folk Round by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Burglar by Kuro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. creativecommon...
Source: / free-medieval-backgrou...
Thank you for watching! 😊 I hope you guys enjoyed the second part of Margaret's story. So what are your thoughts on her as a person? Was she a dedicated mother? Or did she just want power in her own family? Maybe both?
Btw I am a staunch Yorkist ,🌼🌼🤍🤍
You mentioned Stafford was Margaret’s THIRD husband, who were the first two? I know Henry Tudor’s father must have been husband number 2, but whom was her first?
@@kellyshomemadekitchen John de la Pole was her first husband but it was annulled, Edmund Tudor was her second, Stafford would have been third, then Stanley which is who she was married to the longest.
@kellyshomemadekitchen They're in Part 1! 😊 Her first (extremely brief, never consummated) marriage was to the equally young John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, when she was about 9 or 10. Her second marriage (the one which produced her son, Henry Tudor) was to Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond and half-brother to Henry VI when she was just 12 years old.
Cool! Me too!
Fascinating, as always. I think Margaret Beaufort gets a raw deal in the way she's always portrayed. In this day and age, a woman would be praised for wanting to be so involved in her son's life, and protecting both him and his inheritance... it just wasn't done by the noblewomen of HER day. She did a damn good job of it too, in my opinion.
Margaret Beaufort was nothing if not a committed mother, and Henry Tudor was very lucky to have her in his corner. I agree that she's definitely been vilified, especially in certain modern 'historical' dramas, and it's a shame more people don't know the finer details of her life. And you're right, she would definitely be commended for how she protected her son nowadays!
@@HistorysForgottenPeople - Wait, you mean to me she wasn't behind the killing of Edward V? ;)
@MJ-cc4uf LOL Definitely not! I personally believe (taking into account the very limited and smudged evidence on all sides) that there's a possibility Margaret may have discussed with Henry Tudor the idea of the princes not being around - but in the sense of them being spirited away abroad, not killed. There is no evidence putting her even close to the boys, and she also would have no access to them, unlike Richard or the Duke of Buckingham.
Now, if Henry had decided to do something, I've no doubt, however pious a woman she was, Margaret would have helped him cover it up. But again, there is absolutely no evidence for this at all, and Henry would have had very limited (if any) influence in England at the time.
This is why I don't watch many historical dramas anymore, I get too infuriated with them! 🤣
I love this detailed biography, Margaret Beaufort is the historical figure I admire the most. She must have been stunningly intelligent to be as successfully pragmatic as she was during that period in history and i love her single-minded dedication to her son - I am always awed by her story.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the video! 😊 Margaret definitely rose above what was expected of her in life, that's for certain, and it's even more impressive that she did it against the backdrop of one of the bloodiest and most complex wars in England! Her dedication to Henry was absolutely the making of her, I think.
A widow and a mother at 13 omg 😳
I know, that part of her story is always so difficult to think about! Even by the standards of the day, it was considered to be too young. I don't know if you've seen Part 1 or not, but that goes over more of the early part of her life. 😊
Ikr?
@@HistorysForgottenPeople yes I have seen the earlier parts.
Say what you will about Margaret of Anjou, but she was a true warrior queen- and the only reason why York didn’t take the throne in the 1450s-. And in the end, she lost it all :( losing her husband and (especially) son after spending all she had in fighting for them…
She really was an impressive woman! She never stopped fighting for her husband's right to rule (certainly with a lot more energy than Henry VI himself!), and she also worked hard on freeing him when he was a prisoner in the Tower of London. She had a good sense of her own majesty, and fought for her family's position. She also had that same old story that many queens would have when marrying abroad - she was 'foreign', and therefore disliked the moment she arrived as a 15-year-old to England's shores. There is a video coming about her, too!
If she hadn’t been so vicious as to have the attainders, she probably would of stayed on the throne. She was a Warrior Queen.
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”
Margaret definitely encapsulated that phrase!
Generally, King Henry 6th gets a bad rap for being weak and unfit. But weren't the overly ambitious and bellicose factions that surrounded him the real problem? I'll bet that he and Margaret of Anjou would get a more nuanced treatment at your hands.
After all, they did found Eton College, King's College, Cambridge, and (with Henry Chichele) All Souls College, Oxford. Wikipedia asserts that for a time he was venerated as a saint. What's wrong with a sincerely pious, bookish, unwarlike monarch besides being a square peg in a round hole?
I definitely agree - and I certainly am going to do a video on them both at some point, as part of this series of Wars of the Roses videos. As you point out, he was a pious, intelligent, king monarch, who probably would have done well had he been born during the height of Anglo-Saxon culture blossoming, or really during any time of peace, but was unfortunately born during a period of the most extreme nepotism and violence from his power-hungry relatives! Margaret of Anjou really was his other half, as she was definitely more forward-thinking, stubborn and prepared to fight, as well as - luckily for Henry - being completely devoted to him. Unfortunately, she was also a French woman, and that never goes down well with the misogynistic racism of the middle ages, so history hasn't been kind to her character, either.
I suppose it's that old adage - the people we should have in charge often don't want to be, and shouldn't be in case they are taken advantage of.
@@HistorysForgottenPeopleKudos to you! What a great reply. It's so good to see scientific discourse in a comment section on TH-cam! I just discovered your channel, because this series on Margaret got recommended to me. I'm definitely sticking around ❤
@teresawelter7530 Thank you so much, and it's great to have you here! 😊 And no worries, I love having debates with the little community my channel has. Quite often I learn new stuff I didn't know either!
@@HistorysForgottenPeople Well, that's what it's all about, isn't it? Looking forward to learning from and with you! 🙏
"Margaret chose an older man because she didn't want to have more than one child because she was young?" I think if she did have a choice why not marry when she is older? She was too young. I doubt Margaret had a choice who she married. Marriages were fixed. Women, and those as young as Margaret, I doubt she'd have any decision in the matter at all.
Because she did - as proven in sources - have a say in her second marriage, unusual in itself. I wasn't speaking about her first marriage, which is mentioned in Part 1 - this video is Part 2. Not marrying wasn't a choice with the events going on with the Cousins' War, and she recognised that marrying would afford her and young Henry some security, as I mention in the video.
Henry 6 died of melancholy.. That and being smothered will do that.😉
Oh, absolutely, it was only a BIT of smothering. It was definitely melancholia. Absolutely not the pillow over his face, poor chap.
Margaret Beaufort was actually more closely related to the Yorks than the Lancasters at the time of the War of the Roses. Edward IV and Richard III’s maternal grandmother was Joan Beaufort, Margaret’s great aunt. Shoot, she was more closely related to the Scottish king James III. His great grandfather was Margaret’s grandfather.
That was certainly what made things so confusing - as you point out, so many involved in the Wars of the Roses had ties on both sides of the divide, and it certainly wasn't a neat split as the name suggests. As someone else on here has said, you need a score card to keep track! 🤣
This is the best presentation I have heard on these years of confusion. Your voice is so pleasant and clear it makes it easier to follow. What a mess! It takes a score card to keep track of those involved.
Thank you so much, that's so kind! 😊 I'm not going to lie, I need index cards for my notes on this series right now. 😂 It doesn't help when there's more than one 'Margaret' or 'Richard', either!
@@HistorysForgottenPeople You are doing a fantastic job! Something that is hard for us Americans to follow can be the titles/surnames/first names. Lots of presenters and writers use titles and surnames interchangeably and for those of us without intimate knowledge of the system -- including basic British geography -- we can lose the basic trail of information. Your presentation was clear and moved at a pace that kept the viewer enthralled without losing interest.
A journalism trick is to find new ways to say the same thing over and over. For instance think of the many descriptors for Margaret Beaufort. Henry VII's mother. Henry VIII's grandmother. Elizabeth of York's mother-in-law. The bridge between Lancaster and York. Matriarch of the Tudor dynasty. About the only thing she was not was Mrs. Tudor/Stafford/Stanley. Like Anne Boleyn had titles, including Queen of England, but she was never Mrs. Henry Tudor. ;-)
You did a real good job tying Margaret back to her son Henry, that she made certain decisions while planning for her son Henry, future Henry VII. That is a main thread of her life, the many years protecting, advising, planning for, and informing her son.
@annalisette5897 Thank you so much for your kind words! It's a lovely comment to wake up to. 😊 And you're right about the trick with the many ways to 'name' people at this time. I think I do that a little bit, but I'll keep an awareness of that now for future videos. Thanks!
Henry was definitely the defining focus of Margaret's life - every major decision she made, from whom she married to what side she was on, was completely for her son.
as much as I love philosophy, I resent it for not being able to watch this great video right away :’) I have an exam on Tuesday… Still, I shall find it in my schedule to watch it still today, even if it is listening to it while in the shower haha. Have a nice week!
No worries, you have a nice week too! 😊 And good luck with your exam! I'm sure you'll ace it. The video will still be here when you get back, haha.
@@HistorysForgottenPeoplelet us hope so! Exams can be so tricky! Here in Portugal professors have gone on strikes, so there are fears that the government wants to make harder exams so as to punish them (after al, the professors will be the ones blamed if everyone does badly)
@@lfgifu296 I saw you on history calling. ^_^
@@lfgifu296 Well I hope that doesn't happen! The strikes over here are causing chaos as well, as many students who have graduated don't actually have a degree awarded yet - I'm lucky I guess in that my marks just come in a few weeks late sometimes! Fingers crossed it goes well for you.
Just discovered this channel! Which women do you think were the most "virago"-like and with a warrior spirit? Except Empress Matilda.
There's so many! I've covered a few, such as Aethelflaed, who was the Lady of Mercia, and further afield, Queen Nzinga was absolutely a warrior queen in the fullest sense of the word. I don't know that I'd use the term 'virago', although I know what you mean, as I think it sort of suggests the skills of leadership, being opinionated and political are somehow negative in a woman, and they wouldn't be described the same way for a man. I think every era in every country has had their share of women who fit that description, so it might need to be narrowed down for me! 😂 Having said that, another woman famously would fit that description who was extremely successful, and that would probably be Elizabeth I of England.
I've always believed that Margaret beaufort's 3rd marriage was undertaken with the understanding that after consummating the marriage as was legally required she would not desire any further relations in the bedroom with her husband. He likely being sick wouldn't be up for much anyway and as Margaret had already produced a male heir, it would secure his own inheritance to a child he at least liked even if it was not his own.
I've always believed that Margaret beaufort's 3rd husband married her out of pity and to protect her because being forced to consummate the marriage at just 12 years old was a horrifying thing even for the time.
Coming to this kind of intimate understanding about bedroom relations would be the sort of thing she would not wish a man talking about with another man. But he would have to sympathize and care for her personally enough to agree to the demands of her terms for the marriage even if they would never be written down in the marriage contract. Even if sickly and unable to produce a son for self I'm sure he loved visiting little Henry and having someone to care about.
Even if he wasn't completely impotant he may have simply been gay. For a man to be 31 and unmarried and with a lovely Young Bride in need of protection and not really looking for the physical part of things, it would have been the perfect cover story for him.
If this was the case they would have every reason to make a big deal of their wedding anniversary. Both as a propaganda statement of their happiness with each other and a show of wealth. But privately as their own relief that by being with each other they were freed from many of the other societal pressures and their fortunes safe with each other.
Even if his situation was simply being physically incapable in bed and not attracted to men they would have had the same exact reasons to celebrate and be quite happy with each other.
Poor Margaret isn’t portrayed very well in the shows I’ve seen. But to me it sounds like she had no choice a lot of times, and she was trying to survive for her son.
She really has been the victim of a lot of misinformation - Elizabeth Woodville is another woman who has also been portrayed throughout history in a particular way. I agree that she definitely sometimes had no choice, and when she did have a choice, Margaret chose her son, and I think that's probably just a sign she was a good mother.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople agree…excellent video btw!
@@amyjones8114 Thank you, I'm pleased you enjoyed it! 😊
Hi, how are you doing? I'm doing well. Awesome live history video. I enjoyed it. Have a great day see you next video greetings from Canada 😊
Hi Michelle, lovely to see you enjoyed the next video of Margaret Beaufort! Thanks for commenting. 😊
What do you think of Elizabeth Woodville?? (witchcraft aside lol, though Phillipa Gregory sure made it fun!)
Haha, the witchcraft thing annoyed me so much! Along with everything else in that series. 😂 I don't mind Elizabeth Woodville too much. I think she was, like Margaret, trying to get something for herself that men were handed more easily, and she did it in a way women were able to. Even later on when Edward IV died, and she tried to take custody of her son Prince Edward in order to maintain power for her family, it wasn't any different to what Richard planned to do (although holding back the small detail of Edward being dead probably triggered Richard).
She was also like Margaret in that both women recognised the importance of changing allegiance when it was needed for personal safety, and the safety of their families. Although of course, Margaret's later dominance at court pretty much shut her out in her later years. I also think it's difficult to get a hold on Elizabeth's character as you have to wade through so much propaganda about her - both from her contemporaries who disliked a 'commoner' being queen, and from later Tudor sources who wanted to extol the virtues of Elizabeth of York.
Love Elizabeth. First Tudor Queen. Ending the War of the Roses.
This is so well done! Thank you ❤
Thank you! 😊 I'm pleased you enjoyed it.
An excellent addition to a extremely fascinating series. The AI artwork is fantastic and a real step up from previous videos.
BTW what is your opinion on theory about Edward IV being illegitimate 🤔
Thank you! 😊 I was a little worried about using more 'film style' images, but honestly, Midjourney is better at making them, and I couldn't resist the chance to try and make Margaret 'real'.
For Edward IV, I don't believe the theory of him being illegitimate. Only one person apparently knew (his chaplain, Dr Ralph Shaa), and there was no evidence to back it up. The main point was that, even if Edward had been the product of an affair by his mother, he was still acknowledged by his father as his son. By medieval law, that made him his father's legitimate son just by acknowledgement. It was just a convenient way for Richard to displace the two princes, in my humble opinion!
@@HistorysForgottenPeople thanks for answering. Definitely keep up using the AI. Its makes things more visually interesting and like you said ‘more real’.
How had York had the stronger claim, he came from the female lines of the throne, I thought that would have cancelled that out.
It's ridiculously complicated, but it was like this; Richard was descended from Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of Edward III, through his father. But he was also descended from Edward III's second son, Lionel of Antwerp, through his mother.
Henry VI's claim was from John of Gaunt, Edward III's son only, so being descended from two of Edward III's children was even better, despite one of those claims coming from a mother. Richard was also possibly 'closer' to the original claimants as he was the grandson of Edmund of Langley (although great-great-grandson of Lionel of Antwerp), whereas Henry VI was the great-grandson of John of Gaunt. If you kind of think of it like 'points', Richard basically scored more points for his claim.
For Henry VII, who claimed his mother's inheritance, it was even worse. Margaret's claim came from John of Gaunt, Edward III's third son, through her father. Now, normally, as you point out, this would have superseded Richard's claim of being descended from Edmund of Langley as it was through his mother, and Margaret's claim was through her father, except that when her father's father was born, John of Gaunt wasn't yet married to his mother, Katherine Swynford.
I hope that makes some sense! Honestly, you need index cards for this lot. 🤣🤦♀️
Where are these pictures from?
A lot of them I now make in Midjourney, an A.I. image generator - it's pretty fun trying to make 'real'!
What better way to keep an eye on your enemy’s.
Absolutely! Margaret was very smart in doing what she did.
The greatest Tudor
I've got to admit, I do have a soft spot for her!
As she is my anscestor I should say thank you. Very interesting. She was my 17th great grandmother. And I might just say that her and Elizabeth woodville changed the course of England for the better even if they didn’t see eye to eye. I am related to both as Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were my 16th great grandparents. Following to their daughter Margaret Tudor who became queen in Scotland marrying James IV and also sister to Henry VIII which then she came into another series of battles between Scotland and England pitting her husband and brother against one another. My line then goes thru the Stewart’s to James V. So very interesting to see many Royal women and even commoner women changing outcomes behind the scenes if only they could see today what all their work did.
Fascinating, thank you.
You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it! 😊
Part 1 good. Part 2 somehow the narrative is boring. Is this a new writer?
Nope, same person!
Really fascinating and I appreciate the detailed historical analysis, but I could really do without the AI images-they look like grocery store checkout line romance novel covers.
FINALLY
I hate to say it, but there is a Part 3 for next week...sorry! 😂
Rest in peace the poor Edward V and his brother- Richard, duke of York. (╯︵╰,😭 I truly believe Richard III killed them. When you usuped A king, you don't keep them alive.
Certainly either he had them killed personally, or another possibility is that the Duke of Buckingham had them killed in a misguided show of loyalty (Buckingham and Richard III were thick as thieves until some point in the autumn of 1483, when they fell out catastrophically about something unknown), and Richard covered up the fact they were dead as it still would have cost him his crown. A suggestion often made in his favour is that he could have sent the two boys abroad to his sister, Margaret of York who was in Burgundy, but that was foiled by their deaths. Edward V also saw a lot of his doctor before their deaths, so it's possible they died of an illness, and Richard worried he would be blamed for their deaths anyway, aware of the fragility of his position.
Either way, whichever theory is correct, Richard either killed the boys, or covered up their deaths - one is slightly worse than the other, but it's still bad overall. It wasn't the first time in history that monarchs took out rival claimants for their throne (Henry VII would do it years later to Edward Plantagenet), but I think it was more shocking because they were such young boys.
@@HistorysForgottenPeople I think it was too convenient that after Edward IV death this "allege" secret marriage between Edward and A another woman rumor started spreading around. And also, they took the crown off Edward V because he was illegitimate but yet- Willain the conqueror was illegitimate and no one complain.
@@savagedarksider2147 Oh, you're right in that Richard III is certainly still the number 1 suspect, as he had the most access to the boys. But equally, declaring them illegitimate should easily have been enough for him to hold the crown, as others had done before him. It's such a tricky one as any evidence that really existed either lacks detail, or has been trampled on by later Tudor propaganda.
@@HistorysForgottenPeopleNo, declaring people bastards has never kept them off the English/British throne.
Henry Tudors line was a bastard born, William the conqueror was bastard, Edward of westminster was called all sorts of things by the Yorkists but still had support and the Jacobites were declared imposters. Even their sister was still considered marriageable and a ticket to the throne. They had support and could challenge the throne. It's likely that people just thought it was a lie, as one of the primary sources does.
But regardless of how widely it was believed, at that time the reality was all you needed to become king of England was an army. It was proven many times, even when Oliver Cromwell became lord protector he was offered Kingship.
If Richard kept them alive this was quite naive. Especially as the Yorks had tried keeping Henry VI alive. People fought for him and the Yorks killed off him and most of the Lancastrian family.
Who knows why Richard didn't produce bodies, because he was laying the foundations for trouble. The Plantagenets often displayed the bodies of their enemies, especially the bodies of rival kings, to prove that they were dead and cause lost. Henry VII had three major imposter crises in his reign and rival nations would use this to undermine him and leverage him for concessions.
This would inevitably happened to Richard III and his heirs. He should have shown bodies if they were dead, especially if it was natural causes. I assume it was to sow doubt amount woodville Yorkists about their status. But their mother believed them dead quite soon after they disappeared, so perhaps it didn't work.
Jasper Tudor wasn't duke of Bedford, he was earl of Pembroke. The duke of Bedford was an uncle of Henry the 6th named John, who was at one time married to Jaquetta Woodville ( mom of Elizabeth Woodville). Before she married Richard Woodville.
Jaspar Tudor absolutely was Duke of Bedford, as well as being Earl of Pembroke. He was created Earl of Pembroke in 1452, and Duke of Bedford in 1485 when Henry Tudor took the throne. When we speak of people from history (in order to avoid a long list of titles) we go with the highest title they obtained in their lifetime. Such as Queen Elizabeth I, who was also Princess Elizabeth, but we don't use that title when speaking of her. Henry VII was also Earl of Richmond, but we don't call him by that title.