I think that Cecily wanted to mention the name of two of her boys in her will in 1492 , after all she was the mother of not one but two kings . But in 1492 , vanquisher of her youngest son was sitting on the throne , who had married her eldest granddaughter. Henry tudor . So she doesnt wanted to put herself in another danger . 😊😊
@@HistoryDocumentary150 yes., I think she was the woman of preservation. When George called her whore , and got executed , she was silent , she was focused on preserving Edward . When Edward was dead , she acted a passive role in her only remaining son Richard 's life . When Richard was dead in Bosworth, she focused on her granddaughter. 🤍🤍
I am sorry, but I have no idea. Most of the sources we have about him are from his enemies. So we rarely see him giving speeches or socializing with friends. But this might very well have been an attempt from Tudor historians to dehumanize him. Cold-hearted: There was only one person who could answer this conclusively and he died in 1485. I think (and that is really just my opinion) he had his own view about right and wrong, which was special even for his time.
Thank you for making a video with your own voice, it makes the interesting questions come alive. Thank you for adding to our knowledge of the women in or around 1483 and their position of power and precariousness.
Thank you for another very interesting and entertaining video with informations about Richard III! To me it looks as if his mother Cecily Neville had some hard times in life.... Loosing a husband and son in battle, loosing another son (George) because he wasn't too clever and started rebellions against his brother the king and in the end even loosing Richard III, her youngest son, in another battle... But obviously Cecily - just like dowager wueen Elizabeth Woodville - went on with her life, looking into the future for her surviving family members. The one letter that still exists, that Richard III wrote to his mother after his only son had died is so touching. I think Richard III really loved his mother and because he asked her for support, telling openly how he feels, I assume that Cecily had a loving relationship with Richard III. That she did not take part in his coronation - well she can laove him and not agree with him about the crown and still love him. At least we don't know if she would have come to Edward V coronation? That she wrote nothing about Richard III after Bosworth seems clever to me - a Tudor was on the throne and they tended to throw there oponents into the Tower and got them freed of there heads. And in Tudor times this got even fashionable for women...
While I agree that Tudors did that: It was fashionable before. Nearly every king did it - including Richard III. There were two kings before that with Edward IV and Henry VI who tried a different approach and failed. The situation after Bosworth: She had been plenty of opportunities to remember him privately. I am pretty sure she did. I see her as a very tragic figure during that time. She had her fair share of losses and then some. I think she just wanted it to stop. The coronation: Like I said in the video. She was quite old. I think she had decided to retire from public life effective immediately. No matter what you think about the events of the summer: for her it must have been exhausting. An alternative reading is that she had lost a son three months prior and just didn’t feel ready to see her last son go for the crown, which had killed her husband and all her other sons (and would kill Richard).
Quote "No, it was not usual for queen dowagers to attend the coronation of the next king before the 20th century. However, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, did attend the coronations of their respective husbands, George VI and Elizabeth II." It was not normal nor, was it normal for Kings to attend the coronation of queens {see coronation of Anne Boleyn}. We must not look at what is normal today as having been normal in ages before us.
I assume this is in regard to Cecily and the coronation. She was at Edward‘s coronation. Katherine of Valois was at Henry‘s coronation. And Margaret Beaufort was at Henry‘s coronation. All wars of the Roses coronations were attended by the mothers of the Kings, but the one of Richard. If Edward V would have had one, Elizabeth Woodville would have been there.
I don't really think of 500-800CE (maybe even as far as 1000CE) as being the Middle Ages, but maybe this is me being Anglo centric. I probably would take it as starting from the reign of Charlemagne (maybe the day of him and the breakup of the Frankish kingdom he ruled over), but I still see this as a transitionary phase of history following the fall of the Roman Empire and kingdoms as we saw them from 1000-1500CE hadn't been fully established yet. I'm also not sure how much written evidence there is during this intermediate period of history and although I don't really like the term the Dark Ages, they are at best the Early Middle Ages, but I think this gives the impression that they still have very much in common with the core period of the Middle Ages, which from my point of view start at 1066 and the Norman invasion of England. The other reason I don't like 500-800CE as part of the Middle Ages is that it the Viking raiding period,I just don't see as being during the Middle Ages. I'd love to get more of an opinion on this matter though.
That’s a very interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it. I didn’t talk about it in the video, but it’s worth adding here due to your comment. We cut the Middle Ages in three parts: Early, High and Late Middle Ages. 1066 is one of the dates to signal the change from the early to the high Middle Ages for us. The whole Viking raids are distinctively early Middle Ages. Between Rome and the Kingdoms of the high Middle Ages there are these transitional constructs. But they are very important for the political formation moving forward. The name France alone is an example. The pope switched from the Byzantine emperor to the Frankish king as his protector in the middle of the 8th emperor. This was essential for medieval western empires. You have the start of common laws everywhere. The church wins a very powerful position. This is all pretty (early) medieval. But as I said in the video: there are other concepts. And discussions about periodization are very popular.
I have my doubts about that ....but for me he is in every case responsible, because he was the king. If I look at his just two years of reign, it looks to me as if he had a whole lot of what I just can call bad luck. So I can imagin the princes getting ill and they died. Around the time Richard III was crowend the princes basically vanished in the tower. We know they got moved in the inner parts and I deare to say they became noble prisoners and would have to stay in safe rooms - one way in, one way out to make it easy for the guards. So I think they had to stay in less comfortable rooms and in that time children dies way more often. The little wife of prince Richard died in the age of 8, while living at the kings court in London. Also Richard III son died at the age of 10. What really makes me suspicious in the princes case is Richard III staying silent about them. While he told openly he had not poisend his wife and he didn't planned to marrie Elizabeth of York. In my opinion something happend to the princes in the tower what was not ment to be happend and would be negativ for Richard III if the public would know it.
Not personally, but definitely orchestrated. They were inconvenient at best and dangerous to his reign and his own son and any future sons he anticipated. Monarchy is not for the faint of heart.
I think that Cecily wanted to mention the name of two of her boys in her will in 1492 , after all she was the mother of not one but two kings . But in 1492 , vanquisher of her youngest son was sitting on the throne , who had married her eldest granddaughter. Henry tudor . So she doesnt wanted to put herself in another danger . 😊😊
I mostly agree. But I think her primary focus were her granddaughters. She didn't want to complicate the situation for them.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 a question , I know Richard was calculating, but was he cold hearted and introvert ?
@@HistoryDocumentary150 yes., I think she was the woman of preservation. When George called her whore , and got executed , she was silent , she was focused on preserving Edward . When Edward was dead , she acted a passive role in her only remaining son Richard 's life .
When Richard was dead in Bosworth, she focused on her granddaughter. 🤍🤍
I am sorry, but I have no idea. Most of the sources we have about him are from his enemies. So we rarely see him giving speeches or socializing with friends. But this might very well have been an attempt from Tudor historians to dehumanize him. Cold-hearted: There was only one person who could answer this conclusively and he died in 1485. I think (and that is really just my opinion) he had his own view about right and wrong, which was special even for his time.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 is this your real voice in this video ?
Thank you for making a video with your own voice, it makes the interesting questions come alive. Thank you for adding to our knowledge of the women in or around 1483 and their position of power and precariousness.
Thank you for another very interesting and entertaining video with informations about Richard III!
To me it looks as if his mother Cecily Neville had some hard times in life.... Loosing a husband and son in battle, loosing another son (George) because he wasn't too clever and started rebellions against his brother the king and in the end even loosing Richard III, her youngest son, in another battle... But obviously Cecily - just like dowager wueen Elizabeth Woodville - went on with her life, looking into the future for her surviving family members.
The one letter that still exists, that Richard III wrote to his mother after his only son had died is so touching. I think Richard III really loved his mother and because he asked her for support, telling openly how he feels, I assume that Cecily had a loving relationship with Richard III.
That she did not take part in his coronation - well she can laove him and not agree with him about the crown and still love him. At least we don't know if she would have come to Edward V coronation?
That she wrote nothing about Richard III after Bosworth seems clever to me - a Tudor was on the throne and they tended to throw there oponents into the Tower and got them freed of there heads. And in Tudor times this got even fashionable for women...
While I agree that Tudors did that: It was fashionable before. Nearly every king did it - including Richard III. There were two kings before that with Edward IV and Henry VI who tried a different approach and failed.
The situation after Bosworth: She had been plenty of opportunities to remember him privately. I am pretty sure she did. I see her as a very tragic figure during that time. She had her fair share of losses and then some. I think she just wanted it to stop.
The coronation: Like I said in the video. She was quite old. I think she had decided to retire from public life effective immediately. No matter what you think about the events of the summer: for her it must have been exhausting.
An alternative reading is that she had lost a son three months prior and just didn’t feel ready to see her last son go for the crown, which had killed her husband and all her other sons (and would kill Richard).
Quote "No, it was not usual for queen dowagers to attend the coronation of the next king before the 20th century. However, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, did attend the coronations of their respective husbands, George VI and Elizabeth II." It was not normal nor, was it normal for Kings to attend the coronation of queens {see coronation of Anne Boleyn}. We must not look at what is normal today as having been normal in ages before us.
I assume this is in regard to Cecily and the coronation. She was at Edward‘s coronation. Katherine of Valois was at Henry‘s coronation. And Margaret Beaufort was at Henry‘s coronation. All wars of the Roses coronations were attended by the mothers of the Kings, but the one of Richard. If Edward V would have had one, Elizabeth Woodville would have been there.
I don't really think of 500-800CE (maybe even as far as 1000CE) as being the Middle Ages, but maybe this is me being Anglo centric. I probably would take it as starting from the reign of Charlemagne (maybe the day of him and the breakup of the Frankish kingdom he ruled over), but I still see this as a transitionary phase of history following the fall of the Roman Empire and kingdoms as we saw them from 1000-1500CE hadn't been fully established yet. I'm also not sure how much written evidence there is during this intermediate period of history and although I don't really like the term the Dark Ages, they are at best the Early Middle Ages, but I think this gives the impression that they still have very much in common with the core period of the Middle Ages, which from my point of view start at 1066 and the Norman invasion of England. The other reason I don't like 500-800CE as part of the Middle Ages is that it the Viking raiding period,I just don't see as being during the Middle Ages. I'd love to get more of an opinion on this matter though.
That’s a very interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing it. I didn’t talk about it in the video, but it’s worth adding here due to your comment. We cut the Middle Ages in three parts: Early, High and Late Middle Ages. 1066 is one of the dates to signal the change from the early to the high Middle Ages for us. The whole Viking raids are distinctively early Middle Ages.
Between Rome and the Kingdoms of the high Middle Ages there are these transitional constructs. But they are very important for the political formation moving forward. The name France alone is an example. The pope switched from the Byzantine emperor to the Frankish king as his protector in the middle of the 8th emperor. This was essential for medieval western empires. You have the start of common laws everywhere. The church wins a very powerful position. This is all pretty (early) medieval.
But as I said in the video: there are other concepts. And discussions about periodization are very popular.
Do you think Richard is the third killed his nephews in the tower?
yes (not personally but he gave the order)
Possibly, but I doubt it.
I have my doubts about that ....but for me he is in every case responsible, because he was the king. If I look at his just two years of reign, it looks to me as if he had a whole lot of what I just can call bad luck. So I can imagin the princes getting ill and they died. Around the time Richard III was crowend the princes basically vanished in the tower. We know they got moved in the inner parts and I deare to say they became noble prisoners and would have to stay in safe rooms - one way in, one way out to make it easy for the guards. So I think they had to stay in less comfortable rooms and in that time children dies way more often. The little wife of prince Richard died in the age of 8, while living at the kings court in London. Also Richard III son died at the age of 10.
What really makes me suspicious in the princes case is Richard III staying silent about them. While he told openly he had not poisend his wife and he didn't planned to marrie Elizabeth of York. In my opinion something happend to the princes in the tower what was not ment to be happend and would be negativ for Richard III if the public would know it.
Not personally, but definitely orchestrated. They were inconvenient at best and dangerous to his reign and his own son and any future sons he anticipated. Monarchy is not for the faint of heart.