1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The White Princess/White Queen

Discussion in 'TV, Music and Movies' started by The_Dark_Knight, Jun 7, 2017.

  1. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,801
    10,300
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Just finished watching The White Princess series on Starz and went back to watch The White Queen on demand. I was just curious if there were any others that watched these series and what thoughts anyone may have had.

    I love history and the Wars of the Roses era in English history has always fascinated me.
     
  2. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Yeah, really enjoy history myself. Thought this was a pretty good period piece and sets up the story for "The Tudors", which was a separate series.

    Almost didn't watch this as the Cover Art looked like something Disney would have come up with. The only thing I didn't like was how the time lapse was handled. I realize that it's hard to condense almost what was 35 years of war and turmoil into 10 episodes, but it made it a bit hard to follow at times. Also the aging of the actors was uneven. Richard barely seemed to age at all while Jasper Tudor's was well done. Also with all the different director's doing individual episodes, the acting and episodes were sometimes not as good as other's.

    The last episode ended somewhat abruptly. Expected more info or a bit of trivia there.

    All in all though, a decent take on the story that inspired the "Game Of Thrones" series. Richard III's body was discovered back in 2012 after being lost for hundred's of years. They've never found out what happened to the Prince's in the Tower though.
     
  3. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,801
    10,300
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    The mystery surrounding the Princes in the Tower (Edward V and Richard) is one of the greatest mysteries in British history. Who killed (or had killed) the princes? Both Richard III and Henry Tudor had compelling motives for removing any potential threats to their (Richard and Henry) claim to the throne.

    Edward V, the elder son of Edward IV was the legitimate heir to the throne of England. Richard of Gloucester, Edward IV's youngest brother was named Lord Protectorate by the king himself. Henry Tudor was was pursuing his Lancasterian claim to the throne by his continuous war against the house of York. So who had the most to gain by eliminating the young princes? Well both did actually.

    By eliminating the princes, Richard became next in line to the throne which he ultimately usurped.
    By eliminating the princes, Henry Tudor had only one other obstacle in his way in obtaining the crown, Richard of Gloucester.

    So the fundamental question still remains...who killed the princes?

    I can only hypothesize, but based on the fact that Richard, Lord Protector of the new young king had declared both princes illegitimate and thus making him next in line to assume the crown as the logical culprit. It's the only thing that makes sense.

    On the topic of The Tudors, I was really disappointed the series ended with the death of Henry VIII. Although Henry was the most famous (or infamous depending on your point of view), the greatest Tudor was his daughter Elizabeth. The series had plenty of historical meat and potatoes to cover the short reign of Edward VI, the tragedy of Lady Jane Grey, the bloody reign of Mary followed by the Golden Age of Elizabeth. Such a great opportunity lost.
     
  4. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Yup. Agree with you on all accounts. As TWQ was all about the women behind The War of the Roses, they put the boy's deaths on Richard's Queen, Anne, indirectly. It's interesting though that no bodies have ever been discovered. That would lead to believe that the bodies were weighed down and thrown into the river or sea.

    I've watched a number of these sort of historical dramas, including most about Elizabeth. As she was the last in the direct line of the Tudors, upon her death, she allowed the Kingdom to go to the Stuarts, with James, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, as well as a great grandson of the Lancastrian-Tudor line, succeeding her.
     
  5. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,801
    10,300
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Well the skeletons of 2 children were discovered at the base of a stairwell in the Tower in 1674 and it was assumed they were the skeletons of Edward and Richard. They were interned in Westminster Abbey with a dedication assuming they were indeed the remains of Edward and Richard. There have been petitions to exhume the remains for DNA testing however, the British government has refused all requests...and understandably so!

    Imagine if you will the dedication to Edward and Richard which has been in the Abbey for over 300 years proved NOT to be the princes? Not that such a discovery would jeopardize the monarchy as the marriage of Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor united the houses and resolved the Wars of the Roses but for a nation that is so based on tradition, this would truly be a black eye on their history.

    If you also recall, they also put the death of the princes on Margaret Tudor indirectly as well as Queen Anne. Who actually ordered it will go down as an unsolved mystery but for me personally, with Richard III's actions, I place the blame on him.

    As for Elizabeth allowing the throne to go to the Stuarts, she didn't "allow" it per say. James VI of Scotland (who became James I of England) was legitimate heir to the throne as you illustrate...he was the only living Tudor descendant through Henry VIII's older sister Margaret.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2017
  6. cuchulainn

    cuchulainn Táin Bó Cúailnge Club Member

    23,698
    39,847
    113
    Sep 7, 2012
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Yes, but they were listed simply as "children", one much larger than the other, possibly a boy and girl. Also, they weren't the only bones of children found in the tower. It would have been risky for Richard to keep the bodies there.

    Margaret was a religious nutcase and people treated her as a nutter. I didn't see her having the political sway to have pulled off such a thing. Richard is the logical choice though, especially with his showing of doting on the other children and young Elizabeth afterwards.

    Elizabeth was always shrewd. IMO, she knew knew fully well who would assume the throne after her death. I can't see her being careless enough of a country she fought so hard to maintain rule over to be allowed to chance otherwise.
     
  7. The_Dark_Knight

    The_Dark_Knight Defender of the Truth

    11,801
    10,300
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    Rockledge, FL
    Well as far as Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville are concerned, don't confuse actual history with their portrayal in the series. Granted they were both portrayed as shrewd women in the series but historically, they weren't quite as they seemed.

    Margaret Beaufort was a politically influential woman due to her wealth being the Countess of Richmond and Derby, the sole heir of Jon Beaufort, the 1st Duke of Somerset. While she was a very religious woman, it was not uncommon for women of that day to be very religious. Where her religion could have been deemed "nutty" was her vow of chastity upon marrying her last husband, Thomas Stanley. Something too that has to be taken into consideration regarding her chastity, Margaret Beaufort was only 13 when she gave birth to Henry Tudor and it was a difficult pregnancy and birth. I would think that would affect a child detrimentally regarding sex and set the tone for modest sexual desires. But regarding her political influence, on the Lancaster side, she was the mother of the third in line to the throne. Many knew that Henry VI would NEVER reign again due to his mental incapacities and with his son Edward and his mother, Margaret of Anjou being hunted by the Yorks, Margaret Beaufort was able to garner support for her son to battle for the throne of England

    Elizabeth Woodville being a commoner is what actually gave her appeal to the people. She was not of a royal line and popular with the people as she was "one of them". Even after the death of Edward IV, she was often referred to as the Queen of England by the people even after the coronation of Anne Neville and the coronation of her daughter following her marriage to Henry Tudor. Elizabeth Woodville though was quite intelligent though. By coordinating in having her daughter Elizabeth marry Henry Tudor, she ensured a York shared the throne and should either of the princes ever turn up alive, their claim would usurp Henry's claim to the throne however with the popularity of Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York, this scenario would have plunged England back into civil war.

    I do find it intriguing though the series portrayed Elizabeth of York becoming more loyal to Henry than to her own mother, even to the point of the two feuding. From what I have read and recall, chalk that up to creative liberty.
     
    cuchulainn likes this.

Share This Page