#Margaret jasper tudor series

WHAT RESEARCHERS HAVE NOT STATED IS DURING THOSE TIMES CHURCHES WERE 100% CORRUPT! ANYTHING COULD BE BOUGHT INCLUDING MURDER! Margaret Beaufort was a very wealthy woman who COULD BUY ANYTHING INCLUDING THE MURDER OF A YOUNG BOY PRINCE!ĪNOTHER THING NOT MENTIONED IS MARGARET BEAUFORT NOR ANY DESCENDANT of her family could NOT sit upon the throne of England for Richard II signed into law that the BASTARD children of John Guant WERE legitimized HOWEVER NONE COULD NOT EVER HAVE THEIR BACKSIDES ON THE THRONE OF ENGLAND! YES Margaret Beaufort IS 100% GUILTY OF MURDERING EDWARD V. I DISAGREE 100% on your argument that Margaret Beaufort did not murder the Princes in the tower. This entry was posted in #ThoroughlyResearched, Edward IV, Edward V, Margaret Beaufort, Plantagenet, Princes in the Tower, Wars of the Roses and tagged. What do you think geeks? Am I underestimating Margaret’s ambition? Have I been naive to the means or access she might have had? I want to know what YOU think! Only one man had access to the Princes – only one man can reasonably be assumed to have murdered them. Child murder was not something that was likely to appeal to her and even if it had, she could not have had the means. But what we do know suggests she was a kind, generous, pious, if a little austere figure. There’s much we don’t know about Lady Margaret Beaufort. When engaging with people on this debate, I keep hearing people argue Margaret’s guilt with lines such as ‘she was a powerful woman in a man’s world.’ Perhaps she was but it’s disturbing that people are almost suggesting that the murder of two young boys is somehow a display of power that we feminists should be proud of. Women were not the key players in the 15th century. But we do no favours to anyone when we try and make the facts match our values. I consider myself a feminist and I agree that for too long, historians neglected the powerful impact that women have made throughout the ages. I’m worried about the way some people are thinking about the Wars of the Roses at the moment. He was powerful but he was not part of Richard’s inner circle. But it does not equate that he would have access to the Princes. Her husband, Lord Stanley was a mover and shaker at court – Yes he was. I just can’t believe that you would do it under the orders of anyone but the ruler of the day. Killing princes, even ones deem illegitimate, is a pretty risking business – one you would answer for with your head.

But what on earth could she have given Richard’s most trusted men that would trigger abandonment of their master. She was a wealthy woman who could have bribed the guards – She was a woman of some means. How could Margaret possibly have gained access to the Princes, even if she had wanted to? The usual arguments go like this: Only Richard’s loyalist men had access to them in the context of a high security prison. Mancini tells us that Richard dismissed the boys’ servants and drew them closer into the tower. It isn’t even close.Īt the heart of this debate, in my opinion, is a correct understanding of how closely guarded the Princes were. With the sons of Edward IV out the way, nothing would stand in the way of her son making an alliance with Elizabeth of York, uniting their claim to the throne and over throwing the tyrannical Richard.

It is, I believe, credible to suggest that Margaret had a motive.

#Margaret jasper tudor series

I can’t shake the feeling that this view is currently so popular because of the ‘White Queen’ TV series in 2013. An obscure 17th century biographer attempting to redeem Richard III links the deaths to a ‘certain Countess’ (presumably of Richmond) but offers nothing by way of evidence. But until I published my series on Richard III – and incurred the wrath of the Ricardians – I had no idea just how widespread the theory was.Ībsolutely no contemporary source links Margaret to the crime. I’ve always known that a handful of people judge Margaret Beaufort guilty of the death of the Princes in the Tower.