Me too, little Dickon is inoccent from all the mess between his parents
The Sunne in Splendour: A War of the Roses Timeline
- Thread starter pandizzy
- Start date
March 2013.
Partial transcript of Professor Charles Tudor’s lecture on King Richard III at the University of Cambridge on March 12 2013. Professor Tudor will be referred to here as PT and his students, however many of them, as S1, S2, and so on.
PT: Good morning, everyone. I see now that we have many faces here, more than last week’s, possibly because we have our midterms next Monday. (Laughter) I’m eager to begin, as all know how much I adore our dear Dickon, and will not be satisfied until all of you adore him as well. This lecture is planned to be long, so I recommend everyone to go to the bathroom now as we discuss the early life of the King, since there will be no questions about it in the exam. There is a paper going around to mark down attendance, I should warn all, and at the end of the lecture, I will give information on an essay to be written about Richard III.
So, as to begin, we start with the King’s birth. He was born on the 14th of August in 1485. Many, mostly those with less information, believe him to be the son of King Edward IV, as Richard’s father was a less well-known king of the Early Yorkist Era, but he was in fact his grandson. Through his father, King Edward V, Richard III was a grandson of Edward IV, known for his victory in the famous Wars of the Roses, and his wife, who was a French princess. Through his mother, Blanche of Lancaster, he was the grandson of Edward of Westminster, only child of King Henry VI and the famous Margaret of Anjou. Thus, he was a descendant of both the House of York and the House of Lancaster and could claim descent from King Edward III through three of his sons. Although it’s considered that the wars ended with the death of Westminster and the marriage of his only child to Edward of Eltham, I’d dare say that until Richard was born, there was always the possibility of another Lancastrian attempt to take the throne. (A student raises their hand.) Yes, Amanda?
S1: Would you say there is any merit in the rumours that King Richard was actually the son of his father’s brother, the Duke of York?
PT: (Sigh.) That rumour is as truthful as me being His Royal Majesty the King of England. (Laughter.) First, I should start my answer by saying that accusing someone of being a bastard was a common insult at the time. Richard’s two grandfathers, for example, were both accused of such by their political enemies and he was no different. We can’t simply believe that all of the ladies at the time were having affairs. More else, Queen Blanche was surrounded at all times by attendants and servants. They slept in the same rooms, served her food and even dressed her. In fact, the only time she could possibly be alone was when the King visited her bed, as all would leave to allow them a degree of privacy. There is no reason to believe they wouldn’t have been witnesses to any affair that could have taken place.
Yes, Blanche of Lancaster was very close to her brother-in-law, also named Richard, but that was because they were the same age. She was five years younger than her husband and Richard was known to be charming and fun-loving, unlike her usually sullen husband. They would have spent time together, though the King himself often sent his brother away from court, as his mere presence was enough of a focal point for opposition. He was, until his brother had a child, the heir to the throne. They were apart for many months, except for that final December in 1484, where the King invited his brother for Christmas. And we all know how that ended.
S1: But Blanche was in Windsor with them. We know for example that on January 5 of 1485, King Edward and his brother had a meeting which led to an argument between the two that ended with the Duke of York dead. Eight months later, Richard III was born. Could the Duke of York have confessed to his brother of an affair between him and the Queen, and his brother angrily killed him?
PT: There are many reasons why they could have argued. For example, there were plans for Richard to be married to Infanta Beatriz of Portugal but, in a letter to his mother, King Edward said that he didn’t believe his brother was ready for such an important match. Moreover, with a foreign bride with Lancastrian blood, Richard’s children could be seen as more likely heirs to the throne in the place of Blanche’s children. Infanta Beatriz was already fifteen at the time and capable of bearing children, whereas Blanche was only fourteen. There is enough evidence to suggest that the consummation of the royal marriage was anticipated in the sight of a possible wedding for the Duke of York and Edward may have hoped to delay his brother’s nuptials until he himself had a son in hand. Of course, Richard was known to be as hot-headed as his father, and was surely offended by the lack of trust in him. Thus, a reason for the argument.
S2: Professor, earlier you cited the servants and attendants of the Queen as possible witnesses. But as attendants to the King and Queen, were they not also bound to the discretion of the Duke of York? Surely if the Queen were to have a lover powerful enough to intimidate servants to silence, it would be a prince of the blood.
S3: And Chapman cites in her paper on the supposed illegitimacy of Richard III that many royal residences of the period had means of covertly travelling through them, such as passageways between bedrooms for the visiting King and Queen. Couldn’t such manoeuvring have been used to allow for the couple to be together after servants had been dismissed?
PT: The “hidden door” argument made by Chapman is little more than a fanciful and voyeuristic attempt at legitimising a rumour and to support her preferred king, Richard’s younger brother Edgar. The Edgarian Society has long been working to undermine Richard III’s rule and to bring a legal reason for Edgar’s rebellion against his older brother and, consequently, label his execution as ‘unlawful’.
S4: But the Edgardian society doesn’t support the “hidden door” theory. They’ve made it very clear that they follow the intimidation theory, with Richard of York effectively bullying servants and attendants alike through varying means to the point of silence. They also use second-hand historical anecdotes as proof, citing the children and grandchildren of servants to the crown at the time of Richard III’s birth as stating the King to be illegitimate.
PT: The Queen’s servants were paid for by the Queen’s purse and were bound to hold her secrets from all except the King. They would surely not feel threatened in any way shape or form by a sixteen-year-old boy, no matter his title and royal blood. We must remember the ages of these characters. Richard had just turned sixteen, Blanche was fourteen and King Edward was eighteen. Many of these servants had known them since they were children, especially since Blanche retained most of her household from her years as Princess of Wales.
S4: I was not arguing that the intimidation theory was correct, Professor. Only that the Edgardian Society is staunch in their subscription to the intimidation theory rather than the hidden door theory.
PT: The Edgardian Society also fail to mention that Edgar himself never believed in the rumours, as they hurt his mother’s reputation. Instead, he worked to claim the throne on the grounds that Richard was not the Queen’s child at all, but rather, a changeling brought in a chamberpot that was switched with Blanche’s baby, who was stillborn according to his claim, by Lancastrian loyalists. Since we have plenty of evidence now that there were multiple witnesses to Richard’s birth -- most of them found by Richard himself, after his brother’s execution -- and we know Edward V was standing outside the room, listening in to everything. It was the Society that took it a step further by saying that even if Edgar was wrong, Richard would be illegitimate either way with this load of hogwash.
S5: Professor, Clarke recently cited in his paper that Richard III not being accused of illegitimacy until Edgar’s rebellion was due to the “bystander effect”. Do you think the theory that the “open secret” of Richard’s illegitimacy being circulated to the point of being common knowledge but was not declared for fear of the backlash holds any water?
PT: Richard came to the throne when he was twenty years old. Before then, there was no fear of his retaliation and if it was such an open secret, there would be evidence of it before his reign. King Edward would not have hesitated to accuse his wife of any misconduct if he believed for even a moment that his wife had cheated on him. Moreover, the famous Isabella of Castile would never have married her daughter to him if there was any possibility of it being common knowledge.
S6: Professor, if the King’s legitimacy is so assured, why hasn’t there been a DNA test done on his remains? We know where his legal father and the Duke of York are buried so, surely, historians would have worked to get it confirmed these days.
PT: The answer to that is very simple: to exhume a member of the royal family, you need the King’s permission. And the King will never agree to anything such as that.
S3: Why not?
PT: Because, on the off-chance that there is any truth to this matter, then the entire royal lineage since 1505 is illegitimate. Who knows what could happen then? The Edgardian Society already kisses his descendants’ arses, however few they are, and even those that say Edgar’s attainder stops them from inheriting, can’t deny that the true heir to the English throne then is the Clarence family. The King may not have legal powers now, but it’s in his best interests to forbid such testing.
S2: Except, in 2007, the King allowed for the exhumation of King Edward IV to test the bones found in Dublin.
PT: That was entirely different. The bones that we now know to be of a Celtic warrior were believed to be of King Edward’s youngest son, Lionel Duke of Bedford, who died during the Yorkist Conquest of Ireland. Since he had no children and historians can only trace the matrilineal descent of his sisters to foreigners who were either unwilling or forbidden from taking part in the test due religious reasons, it was imperative to find a close relative of the Duke. His father was, of course, an obvious choice. (Students raise their hands.) No, I shall not discuss the Duke’s relationship with young Alan Percy, and whether or not it was romantic. For that, you can consult my book about the House of York, which is available at the department’s library.
Now, on with the King.
PT: Good morning, everyone. I see now that we have many faces here, more than last week’s, possibly because we have our midterms next Monday. (Laughter) I’m eager to begin, as all know how much I adore our dear Dickon, and will not be satisfied until all of you adore him as well. This lecture is planned to be long, so I recommend everyone to go to the bathroom now as we discuss the early life of the King, since there will be no questions about it in the exam. There is a paper going around to mark down attendance, I should warn all, and at the end of the lecture, I will give information on an essay to be written about Richard III.
So, as to begin, we start with the King’s birth. He was born on the 14th of August in 1485. Many, mostly those with less information, believe him to be the son of King Edward IV, as Richard’s father was a less well-known king of the Early Yorkist Era, but he was in fact his grandson. Through his father, King Edward V, Richard III was a grandson of Edward IV, known for his victory in the famous Wars of the Roses, and his wife, who was a French princess. Through his mother, Blanche of Lancaster, he was the grandson of Edward of Westminster, only child of King Henry VI and the famous Margaret of Anjou. Thus, he was a descendant of both the House of York and the House of Lancaster and could claim descent from King Edward III through three of his sons. Although it’s considered that the wars ended with the death of Westminster and the marriage of his only child to Edward of Eltham, I’d dare say that until Richard was born, there was always the possibility of another Lancastrian attempt to take the throne. (A student raises their hand.) Yes, Amanda?
S1: Would you say there is any merit in the rumours that King Richard was actually the son of his father’s brother, the Duke of York?
PT: (Sigh.) That rumour is as truthful as me being His Royal Majesty the King of England. (Laughter.) First, I should start my answer by saying that accusing someone of being a bastard was a common insult at the time. Richard’s two grandfathers, for example, were both accused of such by their political enemies and he was no different. We can’t simply believe that all of the ladies at the time were having affairs. More else, Queen Blanche was surrounded at all times by attendants and servants. They slept in the same rooms, served her food and even dressed her. In fact, the only time she could possibly be alone was when the King visited her bed, as all would leave to allow them a degree of privacy. There is no reason to believe they wouldn’t have been witnesses to any affair that could have taken place.
Yes, Blanche of Lancaster was very close to her brother-in-law, also named Richard, but that was because they were the same age. She was five years younger than her husband and Richard was known to be charming and fun-loving, unlike her usually sullen husband. They would have spent time together, though the King himself often sent his brother away from court, as his mere presence was enough of a focal point for opposition. He was, until his brother had a child, the heir to the throne. They were apart for many months, except for that final December in 1484, where the King invited his brother for Christmas. And we all know how that ended.
S1: But Blanche was in Windsor with them. We know for example that on January 5 of 1485, King Edward and his brother had a meeting which led to an argument between the two that ended with the Duke of York dead. Eight months later, Richard III was born. Could the Duke of York have confessed to his brother of an affair between him and the Queen, and his brother angrily killed him?
PT: There are many reasons why they could have argued. For example, there were plans for Richard to be married to Infanta Beatriz of Portugal but, in a letter to his mother, King Edward said that he didn’t believe his brother was ready for such an important match. Moreover, with a foreign bride with Lancastrian blood, Richard’s children could be seen as more likely heirs to the throne in the place of Blanche’s children. Infanta Beatriz was already fifteen at the time and capable of bearing children, whereas Blanche was only fourteen. There is enough evidence to suggest that the consummation of the royal marriage was anticipated in the sight of a possible wedding for the Duke of York and Edward may have hoped to delay his brother’s nuptials until he himself had a son in hand. Of course, Richard was known to be as hot-headed as his father, and was surely offended by the lack of trust in him. Thus, a reason for the argument.
S2: Professor, earlier you cited the servants and attendants of the Queen as possible witnesses. But as attendants to the King and Queen, were they not also bound to the discretion of the Duke of York? Surely if the Queen were to have a lover powerful enough to intimidate servants to silence, it would be a prince of the blood.
S3: And Chapman cites in her paper on the supposed illegitimacy of Richard III that many royal residences of the period had means of covertly travelling through them, such as passageways between bedrooms for the visiting King and Queen. Couldn’t such manoeuvring have been used to allow for the couple to be together after servants had been dismissed?
PT: The “hidden door” argument made by Chapman is little more than a fanciful and voyeuristic attempt at legitimising a rumour and to support her preferred king, Richard’s younger brother Edgar. The Edgarian Society has long been working to undermine Richard III’s rule and to bring a legal reason for Edgar’s rebellion against his older brother and, consequently, label his execution as ‘unlawful’.
S4: But the Edgardian society doesn’t support the “hidden door” theory. They’ve made it very clear that they follow the intimidation theory, with Richard of York effectively bullying servants and attendants alike through varying means to the point of silence. They also use second-hand historical anecdotes as proof, citing the children and grandchildren of servants to the crown at the time of Richard III’s birth as stating the King to be illegitimate.
PT: The Queen’s servants were paid for by the Queen’s purse and were bound to hold her secrets from all except the King. They would surely not feel threatened in any way shape or form by a sixteen-year-old boy, no matter his title and royal blood. We must remember the ages of these characters. Richard had just turned sixteen, Blanche was fourteen and King Edward was eighteen. Many of these servants had known them since they were children, especially since Blanche retained most of her household from her years as Princess of Wales.
S4: I was not arguing that the intimidation theory was correct, Professor. Only that the Edgardian Society is staunch in their subscription to the intimidation theory rather than the hidden door theory.
PT: The Edgardian Society also fail to mention that Edgar himself never believed in the rumours, as they hurt his mother’s reputation. Instead, he worked to claim the throne on the grounds that Richard was not the Queen’s child at all, but rather, a changeling brought in a chamberpot that was switched with Blanche’s baby, who was stillborn according to his claim, by Lancastrian loyalists. Since we have plenty of evidence now that there were multiple witnesses to Richard’s birth -- most of them found by Richard himself, after his brother’s execution -- and we know Edward V was standing outside the room, listening in to everything. It was the Society that took it a step further by saying that even if Edgar was wrong, Richard would be illegitimate either way with this load of hogwash.
S5: Professor, Clarke recently cited in his paper that Richard III not being accused of illegitimacy until Edgar’s rebellion was due to the “bystander effect”. Do you think the theory that the “open secret” of Richard’s illegitimacy being circulated to the point of being common knowledge but was not declared for fear of the backlash holds any water?
PT: Richard came to the throne when he was twenty years old. Before then, there was no fear of his retaliation and if it was such an open secret, there would be evidence of it before his reign. King Edward would not have hesitated to accuse his wife of any misconduct if he believed for even a moment that his wife had cheated on him. Moreover, the famous Isabella of Castile would never have married her daughter to him if there was any possibility of it being common knowledge.
S6: Professor, if the King’s legitimacy is so assured, why hasn’t there been a DNA test done on his remains? We know where his legal father and the Duke of York are buried so, surely, historians would have worked to get it confirmed these days.
PT: The answer to that is very simple: to exhume a member of the royal family, you need the King’s permission. And the King will never agree to anything such as that.
S3: Why not?
PT: Because, on the off-chance that there is any truth to this matter, then the entire royal lineage since 1505 is illegitimate. Who knows what could happen then? The Edgardian Society already kisses his descendants’ arses, however few they are, and even those that say Edgar’s attainder stops them from inheriting, can’t deny that the true heir to the English throne then is the Clarence family. The King may not have legal powers now, but it’s in his best interests to forbid such testing.
S2: Except, in 2007, the King allowed for the exhumation of King Edward IV to test the bones found in Dublin.
PT: That was entirely different. The bones that we now know to be of a Celtic warrior were believed to be of King Edward’s youngest son, Lionel Duke of Bedford, who died during the Yorkist Conquest of Ireland. Since he had no children and historians can only trace the matrilineal descent of his sisters to foreigners who were either unwilling or forbidden from taking part in the test due religious reasons, it was imperative to find a close relative of the Duke. His father was, of course, an obvious choice. (Students raise their hands.) No, I shall not discuss the Duke’s relationship with young Alan Percy, and whether or not it was romantic. For that, you can consult my book about the House of York, which is available at the department’s library.
Now, on with the King.
I'm guessing she will do epilogue's like with the charles V history.
Richard grows old, becomes king. Marries Catherine of Aragon, yadda yadda yadda.
Got it. Will you do it for Eddie/Maggie when it reaches it's conclusion?
Ik, and i'll enjoy all of them, just curious if you have already decided on it
Damn, it I already hate Edgar. He got what he deserved!
I knew it! Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England!
I want a whole story about these two, pretty please?
What a great way to end this TL! Congratulations, @pandizzy! You nailed it again!
Ooh very nice, like how you finished this lovely story, good way of getting closure without going into the weeds too much..
Loved the ending! Hopefully Catherine and Richard III get a happy ending here
Although, one thing is kinda wack. These people kinda remind me of the Philippa Langley/Philippa Gregory types who come with out there theories… Ofc, we know that ttl that theory could very well be real. Very interesting
I guess it’s just Margaret and Edouard now!
Although, one thing is kinda wack. These people kinda remind me of the Philippa Langley/Philippa Gregory types who come with out there theories… Ofc, we know that ttl that theory could very well be real. Very interesting
Gurl, I need that story!
It was a great story, although I wish it could continue longer. There are still plenty of stories to tell! But, I suppose all things must come to an end
I guess it’s just Margaret and Edouard now!