I like Richard III. Always have. So I'm really loving his depiction in this show but ..... spoilers for those who know jack about the Plantagenets, this means that the ending will probably be super depressing.
Any other Richard-sympathizers out there? What say you? Should I finish the series or bail out now, having seen his coronation?
ps not sure I can get into the Anne-as-a-harpy depiction.
It rather depends on whether your crush on RIII requires him to walk away from Bosworth alive (nope) or whether it makes him sleeping with his niece acceptable to you - because according to Phillipa Gregory that's exactly what he did, and at Bosworth no less.
And you need to get used to the Anne As Harpy deal because in order to exonerate him from any hint of responsibility for the disappearance of his nephews, he becomes the hen pecked victim of his wife, his mother and anyone else who wants to tell him what to do.
I don't know whether it's in her book, but it was in the episode as aired in the US.
And she starts from the position that RIII and EoY were lovers - in the physical sense - in The White Princess. What she goes on to do in that book I'll leave you to read for yourself.
I was a little surprised that shellieeyre was correct about the Richard and Anne sex scene but it's in my Starz DVDs. It was pretty hot too *fans self* as long as you ignored the whole uncle and niece thing and the unlikelihood that she showed up at Bosworth field.
"It was pretty hot too *fans self* as long as you ignored the whole uncle and niece thing and the unlikelihood that she showed up at Bosworth field. "
Let me guess, 9 months to the day after Bosworth, Elizabeth secretly gives birth to Richard's daughter, Incesta, who is immediately taken from her and whisked away to grow up, live and die in hiding in a cloistered convent in Flanders.
I wouldn't put it past PG. Just change the child's name to something non-cheeky, like Cecily (BTW, what a gorgeous name that is, IMO).
(BTW, if it's a boy, OBVIOUSLY, Margaret kills it. If someone dies in this story and they were an obstacle to Henry Tudor, *especially* a male obstacle, it goes without saying that Margaret did it.)
A boy's best friend is his mother. - Psycho (1960)
(BTW, if it's a boy, OBVIOUSLY, Margaret kills it. If someone dies in this story and they were an obstacle to Henry Tudor, *especially* a male obstacle, it goes without saying that Margaret did it.)
I'm pretty sure she was on the Grassy Knoll too ...
or whether it makes him sleeping with his niece acceptable to you - because according to Phillipa Gregory that's exactly what he did, and at Bosworth no less.
lol. thought you were joking but no.
Those last episodes went straight for telenovela territory. Mexican soap opera to the core. It's a shame because the series had a promising start with the emphasis on female pov. At the beginning, it was clear dialogue etc was made up and the characters broadly drawn, but they were still recognizable as to their historic selves. Those last few episodes though, I kept telling my husband, "it didn't happen this way." Normally talking while watching annoys him but in this case, it probably saved his sanity.
Anne, Cicely, Richard, Henry Tudor etc were all unrecognizable. Well, except I hate Margaret so I didn't mind her being a total toad.
Also [ahem] I didn't really mind Richard being portrayed as a cutie who was totally honorable. A bit of small karmic redress to weigh in against all the Tudor and Shakespearian propaganda. Also, liked the curse against the first male born, explaining how the Tudors fizzled out after only three generations.
But "Tudor propaganda" used what were contempraneous roumours and suspicions, things that were circulating during Richard's lifetime, and which played a role in the abandonment of him by much of the nobility that had hitherto supported him.
Henry VII's firstborn did not die young, and even Arthur had reached majority. If you're talking about legitimate offspring, Richard's son died young; Henry VIII's son made it to the throne.
Three generations and 5 monarchs, one of whom made her mark pretty emphatically I think.
In any case, whatever your opinions of RIII as matinee idol as opposed to ruthless medieval king, he changes in this from doe eyed romantic (see thread on squealing with joy when he declares himself to Anne) to spineless idiot who will screw his (unmarried) niece. Not romantic, not at all honourable, horrible to medieval sensibilities, bodice ripping nonsense.
Gregory goes on to carry out the most astonishing hatchet job on Henry VII in The White Princess, so completely at odds with what is known about Henry and Elizabeth that I'm not sure why she even bothered to use their names.
But "Tudor propaganda" used what were contempraneous roumours and suspicions,
yeah, but that was his time in London. He was an outsider from the North and unused to the political maneuverings of the South. Lacking a political or personal network, Richard would be particularly vulnerable to rumor-mongering. Think Eddard Stark in GoT or ASOIAF. Then Thomas More embroidered and added his own partisan spin. Then came Shakespeare ....and Vincent Price. So really, seriously, it seems only fair that The White Queen went a bit far in the other direction.
In addition, the evidence against Richard for the death of the boys is circumstantial. Yes, he's the most likely candidate because he was the one who was in charge but that's not enough to convict. Plus, you have to postulate some odd behavior on the part of Elizabeth Woodville and Richard's mother Cicely if they believed that Richard had killed them. Ditto with Lord Robert Brackenbury. Finally, the person who benefited the most was Henry Tudor and he had the most motive.
Gregory goes on to carry out the most astonishing hatchet job on Henry VII in The White Princess,
lol, for someone like me that's an inducement to read.
And Elizabeth I certainly made her mark. She's the reason I started reading English history and tbh, I was predisposed to like Henry VII for her sake. However, he got the throne by right of conquest, not by law or legitimate succession and he's not a particularly admirable person so ..... meh.
He was an outsider from the North and unused to the political maneuverings of the South. Lacking a political or personal network, Richard would be particularly vulnerable to rumor-mongering.
You make him sound like some City Councillor who suddenly finds himself Prime Minister. He was absolutely no stranger to the Real Politik of the time, he'd been his brother's right hand man since before EIV became king; his father had aspirations to the throne. He was not without personal or political networks at all, and even if that were true it in no way explains his taking the throne from the boy he'd been appointed to protect and support.
Finally, the person who benefited the most was Henry Tudor and he had the most motive.
No, the person who benefited most was Richard - until his defeat at Bosworth, and no one saw that coming, least of all Richard. All Henry would achieve by offing the two boys would be their uncle taking the throne. If you're going to play the "no political and personal network" card to defend RIII you certainly have to do the same for Henry Tudor, who literally had no personal or political network in England, no resources, no nothing. That people previously loyal to Richard sided with Tudor is, I would suggest, a very clear marker of the revulsion they felt toward him. If they had faith in his innocence the idea that they'd be swayed into changing allegiance by rumours is surely daft. And Richard had it in his power to quash the rumours - he could have produced the two boys. He didn't, so either they were dead or they had somehow vanished. EIther way he seemed not care much.
Richard is ultimately responsible for the deaths of his nephews; he had responsibility for their safety, and if he didn't initiate their deaths he certainly failed to keep them safe. I'd also ask where they were for the 2 years between the summer of 1483, when they were last seen, and August 1485. Did the king not notice they'd gone missing? Didn't he want to know what had happened to them?
lol, for someone like me that's an inducement to read.
Why? Does concocting outrageous fictions about someone (she makes him a serial rapist for God's sake) because they defeated your favourite seem right to you?
I was predisposed to like Henry VII for her sake. However, he got the throne by right of conquest, not by law or legitimate succession and he's not a particularly admirable person so ..... meh.
The succession to the throne had, until HVII passed it to HVIII seldom been the straightforward affair it might appear. The Plantaganets murdered their way onto the throne in the first place, and right of conquest was in fact a legitimate means of acquiring the crown.
As for him not being a particularly admirable person - how so? Can you name me a medieval king who you think was? Richard III extrajudicially killed (ie murdered) Hastings, Rivers and Anthony Woodville; he accused his mother of being unfaithful to his father; he dispossessed his brother's children and failed in his duty to protect them. Edward IV got rid of his own brother; he fathered illegitimate children in large numbers. If Richard III is to be believed he entered into a bigamous marriage.
Henry VII was faithful and loving to his wife; he strengthened England's commercial base, he established alliances in Europe and wherever possible used means other than killing to resolve threats. If you buy the image of a grasping miser you'll find that the records of the time prove that he was anything but.
Romantic favouritism has no place in historical discussion.
Henry VIII's first-born son did NOT make it to the throne. He didn't even make it out of infancy.
On New Year's Day 1511, Queen Katherine of Aragon gave birth to a baby boy at Richmond Palace, named Henry after his father. She'd had one miscarriage already, but this baby was strong and healthy and full-term, and they'd only been married a year and a half. There was every reason to hope that this boy would not only live to reign, but that he would have younger brothers.
The young prince (often remembered as the "New Year's boy") was promptly given his own household away from court. When he was not quite two months old, in the middle of a lavish tournament celebrating his birth, a messenger arrived to report that the baby had died in his cradle.
Later in life, Henry would say it was the cruelest blow he was ever dealt.
Katherine would go one to give birth to one more healthy child, Princess Mary, in February 1516, but other than that one success, her obstetrical history was a litany of stillbirths, miscarriages and disappointment.
Henry wouldn't have another (legitimate) son until 1537, and he would be named Edward, not Henry as one might have expected. Clearly the King had not forgotten that first son.
I maintain that if the New Year's boy have lived to adulthood Henry would never had annulled his marriage to Katherine, never would have broken with the Pope and declared himself head of the English church, and Britain might still be a Catholic country today.
Henry VIII's first-born son did NOT make it to the throne. He didn't even make it out of infancy.
I know that; but Henry VII's first son did not die in infancy; if it comes to that RIII's son also didn't make it to the throne, nor did Edward IV's.
The whole "curse" was a silly bit of business.
I maintain that if the New Year's boy have lived to adulthood Henry would never had annulled his marriage to Katherine, never would have broken with the Pope and declared himself head of the English church, and Britain might still be a Catholic country today.
Very possibly, because he wouldn't have had grounds for looking for another, more fertile wife, or seen his infatuation with Anne Boleyn as anything other than it was.
A bit of small karmic redress to weigh in against all the Tudor and Shakespearian propaganda
Well, this series is just as much a piece of propaganda as what Shakespeare wrote, and at least Shakespeare made it much much more interesting.
reply share