I am fascinated that Henry V111, also unmistakable, so much resembled Edward 1V, Elizabeth's father, being very tall and handsome (in his younger years).

@@marionarnott750 Resembled him in Character as well. Behind a Jolly, Bluff outer persona was a very ruthless one able to order executions without concern.

@@neilbuckley1613 you'd wonder how these characteristics skip a generation and then reappear in the next. The old question occurs-is character formed by Nature or by Nurture? Did Edward share genes with Henry or did he share a situation in life which shaped a personality?

@@neilbuckley1613 Plus, both Edward 4th and Henry 8th were notorious womanizers!!

Marion Arnott Why can it not be both, or even more influences? I rather expect people to be too complex to be that limited.

Once he repealed Titulus Regis, *she* was the heiress to the throne, not Henry.

I wouldn't have thought so as she was a woman and at that time women were not seen as capable of ruling.

If women were thought capable of ruling their son wouldn’t have been so famous. 😂

@@mbgal7758 history would’ve sure been a lot more interesting.

There is such a thing as sharing the crown, you know!

Karin Shepherd well if you want it done right you leave it to the women to do it. 😂

If you use the word "usurper" for Henry VII then you also have to use it on the Yorkists as they deposed Henry VI, and some would obviously use it for Richard III too, and then of course you can go back to Henry IV and so on...

@@anneboleynfiles Absolutely!

@@anneboleynfiles exactly and the same can be said for John I as well, who claimed the crown before his nephew, Prince Arthur, who was the son of John I's older brother, Prince Geoffrey.

​@@michaeldefeo1439 The situation with John and Arthur is actually very similar to Richard III and the Princes in the Tower! John also imprisoned Arthur, who similarly went missing in "mysterious circumstances". As with the later example, Arthur was widely assumed to have been murdered on John's orders, which indeed is probably what happened.

@Nacha255 I know all that. I brought it up bc Henry IV always gets a bad rap from historians for being the member from the Plantagent Dynasty who started the trend of family members usurping the throne from other Plantagent family members, by his usurpation of the throne from the tyrannical Richard II. However I always disagree bc although Henry IV did usurp the crown from the "crowned" King Richard II, it was really there ancestor King John I who was the first one in the Plantragent Dynasty to steal the crown from another family member bc after King Richard I/Richard Lionheart died the next King should have been his nephew Prince Arthur, the legitimate son of King John I's Older brother Prince Geoffrey, however as soon as Richard I/Richard Lionheart died John I secured the crown and had himself declared King before prince Arthur even had a chance to be declared the next rightful King. Then as you said John I captured his nephew prince Arthur and most likely had him killed. The main difference with John I's usurpation compared to Henry IV's and Richatd IIIs was that John I usurped the crown before anyone declared or named Prince Arthur as the rightful King, where as for Henry IV when he usurped the crown, he did it for good reason because of Richard II's Tyrannical Rule, but Richard II was a crowned King and did rule the country for a number of years, as for Richard III when he usurped the crown from Edward V, Edward V was never crowned King but he was originally declared to be the next King after the death of his Father Edward IV, but as said he never got crowned bc Richard III had Parliment declare Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville as invalid bc he was apparently supposed to marry someone else, which then had all of Edward IV's children declared as illegitimate. So main story is this in King John Is reign his usurpation seemed to be accepted bc he was the only option after he got rid of Prince Arthur. Henry IV's usurpation was acception bc of how Tyrannical Richard II's rule was. Edward IV's 2 separate usurptions from Henry VI were deemed necessary bc of how weak of a ruler Henry VI was. And Richard III's usurpation was accepted but only for 2 years bc the way it was done caused a majority of the country to flock to a longshot but the next best alternative, the last living Lancasterian descendant, Henry Tudor/Henry VII. And that is how history goes.

She actually had three or four sons. Sadly two dices as babies, and Arthur died when he was 15.

There's no evidence that he was ever unfaithful to Elizabeth.

I'm not sure, I might be able to.

Fantastic idea!!!!! I would love seeing the faces on portrait brought back to life!! Try it a few times and see how it works!!!

Henry the 8 married his dead brothers wife!

@Smiles and the Twisted MD I disagree with using Mary's nickname like that.yeah she killed hundreds of people but she didn't want to.so she didn't do it because of her desire. court forced her to do it to maintain Catholicism after her jerk father rejected pope and received protestantism.Also Elizabeth killed more than her and it doesn't matter how long difference between their reigns were because even Georgian king Tamari( who was female) banned execution and she was king for almost 40 years.So "bloody" Mary isn't a relevant nickname considering her background. And using her name the way that people may think she was a demon like her father is really unproper and every history expert admits it.other than that u're right.

@Smiles and the Twisted MD first of all,everyone has their opinion and I don't say anything if I don't think I know sm accurately. I've seen so many historians talking about the reasons why Mary killed protestants and I found those reasons logical. It of course doesn't prevent me being wrong or even history on its own. no one knows what really caused what back then and how accurate the facts people know are.Also what I said and what I think can be quite wrong because I still am a student and not English simultaneously,so it's possible that the knowledge I get on the internet is wrong and I understand it.But you,an adult woman( if it's you on your profile picture)always insult others like that only because they might be wrong(according to your opinion)?. Be respectful and give advices the right way. I'm not high and yes I will consider your roughly given advice and look through Mary's reign again to learn more.hope u will change your attitude and will show more respect towards people instead of disrespecting them and making laugh on their "wrong knowledge". P.s I'm not Catholic,I'm orthodox and even if I was is it shame to have your opinion about history?I never choose sides like that. If I think like you u must be atheist who disrespects others because of their opinions based on their beliefs. P.p.s wish u stay safe and healthy.

Zero_BS_Tolerance Margaret Beaufort was one of the most cunning women in history too.

If her portraits are true depictions, Elizabeth Woodville was incredibly beautiful. She also appears to have been amazingly opportunistic, shrewd and calculating. Some of her contemporáries compared her eyes to those of a dragon. That comparison may have been accurate in more ways than one.

Terri Gnazari I don’t doubt for a second she was not only amazingly beautiful but extremely cunning just by fact she got married to the king while the man who put him on the throne Richard Neville earl of Warwick was in France negotiating a foreign marriage that was expected of a king. Warwick was humiliated when it came out that they had married in secret. She was a widow with 2 children, not of a particularly high birth and allied with the Lancastrians. Not the foreign princess that he was expected to marry. Rumor is she pulled this off by refusing to sleep with him unless they married. She was a widow, not some young virgin, it wouldn’t have been unheard of for someone like her to become a mistress and could have done well for herself like that but she wanted more and she got it. Edward IV wanted that booty so bad he cost himself the throne for a year over it when Warwick decided to team up with Margaret of Anjou, another of history’s most crafty women, to put her husband, Henry VI back on the throne. It worked briefly but unfortunately for them Henry VI still sucked so Edward IV took back the throne a year later.

@@mbgal7758 It's too bad that women's history wasn't as documented as men's. We've missed out on so much.

@@mbgal7758 I think it is unfair to describe her as cunning and depict her as manipulating Edward into marrying her. It is not logical, especially considering the factors you pointed out, for us to suspect she ever intended to become Queen. I think we should hold her in high regard. She stood up for her son's inheritance, she refused to be reduced to a mistress, she was a loving wife and mother, and she fought to retain Edward's accomplishments after his death. I think she was an incredible woman.

I'd highly recommend David Cressy's book on birth,death and marriage as it goes into a lot of detail on that.

Teasel was asleep on the sofa we have in this room. She likes to supervise but it all got very tiring.

Yes, it's 365 years old, so has very thick walls. The archway behind is an old window. I'm sat in what was the backyard, but which is now a conservatory. Thank you!

Thank you for responding! I commented on another video just now before I noticed this reply! Thank you, haha. I just love it! I wondered where you were sitting, it sort of reminded me of an old conservatory. Thanks again!

He was supposed to be handsome when he was young.

It's actually a myth that he was a miser. He spent rather a lot on some sumptuous court entertainments, like at Epiphany, and there are the following: 1493 - He paid a dancer £30 (the equivalent of £20,000 in today's money), in 1497 he paid another dancer £12 (£7,991.48), and he spent £2,832 8s. 3d, or £1.8 million in today's money, on Elizabeth of York's funeral.

@@anneboleynfiles Claire, I agree with you: Henry VII wasn't a miser when it came to Court display, but he *was* compulsively avaricious. I believe that Henry *deliberately* used a policy of overtaxing everyone in order to keep nobles & commoners alike under his thumb. Louis XIV controlled *his* nobles by making Versailles irresistible; burying aristos in mindless ceremonies; & insisting they all bankrupt themselves in expensive fashions. Different approaches with identical goals: control the aristocrats.

The Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society thank you I didn’t know that 😂😂😂

Have you read Matthew Lewis's book "The Survival of the Princes in the Tower"? It's very interesting.

The Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society Thanks for the recommendation Claire. I haven’t, but I’ll be sure to get it now to read.

I saw that programme too. Though, i DO wonder about it, I dont see how it could be, as there would be too many people around to see anything untoward happening. It would be very dangerous and though we all love Tony Robinson, he possibly got a bit carried away. Were the dates actually correct as the calendars have changed since then and also in the way the years begin and end.

Happy anniversary!

Regarding the whole Edward IV not being fathered by the Duke of York theory, I don't personally put much store in it. There is a very detailed article on it at www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/Medieval_EdwardIV_01.htm

@@anneboleynfiles Thanks. I wil read it.

@@maryh4650 did you see the part when he says about the looks of Edward IV and that he looked nothing like his father whose stature was rather small (Edward was in the other way a giant) like Richard III who looked exactly like is father, the Duke of York? And then, there is also a part about the christening...why did the firstborn son, an heir had such a small ceremony in side chapel, while a second, Richard had a big with lavish ceremony? This only coroborated rumors from the time...but we will never know...only DNA testing would do the job...

It was common to name offspring after relatives and the current monarch back then as a way of honouring them.

Elizabeth and Henry were distant cousins and, yes, I mention in the talk a dispensation being issued on 16th January 1486 in preparation for the wedding.

Not at all, it was by right of conquest.

Richard III was Elizabeth's uncle, yes, and he was killed by Henry VII's forces at the Battle of Bosworth. Henry and Elizabeth were distantly related.

annette fournier Often questions are answered in the talk. Listening through to the end can help. Luckily, Claire researches her subjects thoroughly and I love the balanced, documented discourses.

@@TheAuntieBa I always listen to the end before asking a question, thank you very much. And just because I may need some clarification doesn't mean that I'm stupid. With dyslexia and being presented with a dizzying amount of information my brain often cannot line up parallels easily and information swirls about until I restate and can get confirmation of layers or steps. I had the same issues with trig and physics. Luckily my professors were more enlightened and did not punish or humiliate me in my efforts to straighten out work and solve problems. It took more effort but I Aced the subjects. Thank God for nonjudgmental historians and teachers. Have a pleasant day and count your blessings.

@@anneboleynfiles Thank you so much Claire. Very kind of you to help me line my ducks in a row. Appreciate it greatly.💖

annette fournier It was not my intention to “punish or humiliate” you, and I certainly never called you stupid or even thought it. I don’t know you; you might have been a kid who was new and unaware of Claire’s excellent documentation. Sorry you have such trouble! I can relate; I have head damage. Not the same as yours but challenging. Hope things get easier for you.

? This is exactly what Claire said in the video.

It's highly unlikely that Elizabeth had any romantic feelings for her uncle considering he declared her parents' marriage invalid and her and her siblings illegitimate, not to mention he was suspected of murdering her brothers.

If there was even a chance Elizabeth of York had been intimate with her uncle, there wouldn't have been a wedding, she'd of been in disgrace in a nunnery for the rest of her days.

Business Finance Coach It was all good...

Well, he didn't do it personally, it was in battle, and there is the theory that Elizabeth's uncle murdered her brothers!

There was certainly no better suspect for ordering the murders of both her brothers who were just children than the uncle you mention. I doubt I’d be shedding a lot of tears over my husband being responsible for his death.

Her father had Henrys uncle bludgeoned to death so maybe they called it a tie lol.

I do, but I have allergies and it's hard going on the throat.

@@anneboleynfiles I never dreamed you would respond I love your channel I really didn’t mean any shade

Yet, Elizabeth's brother Edward was the rightful heir to their father Edward IV, and then Edward's younger brother Richard the next in line. So the way I see it is that after Edward and Richard, the next rightful heir would be Elizabeth of York, and by marrying Henry Tudor her line got back on the throne, and Edward IV's grandson became king, as would have happened if Richard III hadn't stolen the throne from the young Edward V.

Yes they were both ambitious for their children, but in regards to Elizabeth Woodville I think it was more for revenge. Richard III stole the crown from her son, Edward V, stripped all her children with Edward IV's birthright by declaring them illegitimate, locked up her children, Edward V and his younger brother Richard, in the tower, and most likely was the one who had them killed, and had her brother Anthony Rivers, and her one son from her first marriage, Richard Gray, both executed. After doing all that to her and her family I'm sure Elizabeth Woodville would do whatever she could to get revenge on her brother in law, Richard III.

@@michaeldefeo1439 Also Margaret had spent her whole life trying to protect her son and his future in a turbulent time.

@@isobelduncan very true with Margaret Beaufort's grand ambitions for her son she is the one who reached out to Elizabeth Woodville for the alliance that they made to overthrow Richard III and to put both of their children on the throne.