tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post7633902610637904457..comments2024-03-26T13:26:35.282-04:00Comments on Author Samantha Wilcoxson: The Arrest of George of ClarenceSamantha Wilcoxsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04473495253682074133noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post-78633141543240000132015-06-13T07:05:43.864-04:002015-06-13T07:05:43.864-04:00You are right, Liz. Judging any of these monarchs ...You are right, Liz. Judging any of these monarchs by modern standards would find them guilty of murder. Ruthless times, indeed!Samantha Wilcoxsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04473495253682074133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post-75634317866972171212015-06-12T21:42:16.829-04:002015-06-12T21:42:16.829-04:00I agree, Henry VII did not enjoy killing people, c...I agree, Henry VII did not enjoy killing people, contrary to popular belief. When he first came to the throne, he tried to gain Yorkist support. An example is John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Henry treated him well and then he was involved in the rebellion against him (he had been the favorite for Richard's heir so he was likely never to be happy under Tudor rule) Anyway, Warwick's execution was a def low point for Henry's reign for sure (poor Warwick) but Henry's prior actions demonstrate to me that he did not want to kill Warwick or even Perkin Warbeck. It was only when the Spanish alliance that he and Elizabeth both pushed for was threatened. <br />Henry def did some unsavory things but he was not bloodthirsty and I totally agree that Edward IV is not as villinized for his actions, esp the probably murder of Henry VI. (who conveniently died of a broken heart) And don't get me started on Richard III's actions with Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey and William Hastings.<br />Bottom line-they were all quite ruthless!<br />LizAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post-69952705105794188322015-06-11T10:59:10.515-04:002015-06-11T10:59:10.515-04:00Very true. Edward is not as villainized for his ac...Very true. Edward is not as villainized for his actions, even the probable ordered murder of Henry VI and removing men from sanctuary in order to arrest or execute them. Samantha Wilcoxsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04473495253682074133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post-55684634134208138202015-06-11T10:10:26.979-04:002015-06-11T10:10:26.979-04:00agree, it was a tough time. it's just i don...agree, it was a tough time. it's just i don't really understand why people thinks that Henry wanted every plantagenet to be dead when in the end, he didn't kill more plantagenet than... i don't know, Edward IV who killed every Beauforts or Lancatrians he could find for example (Edward who sent as well assasins to kill henry when he was in exile)? they were men trying to defend their dynasty and future i think, and there were sadly innocent victims in this process. but yes, Henry 8 is just the most awful... i just really hate him. a lot ahah :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post-30186309872689330352015-06-11T08:59:59.856-04:002015-06-11T08:59:59.856-04:00The legalized murder of Edward of Warwick is defin...The legalized murder of Edward of Warwick is definitely a low point for Henry. It is an action that, like the dating of his reign to the day before Bosworth, demonstrates his insecurity and willingness to be ruthless. The fact that Edward had been imprisoned for over a decade before his execution does indicate that Henry would have been happy to allow him to remain in that state, but you are correct. Henry was willing to sacrifice both men for the sake of his Spanish alliance.<br /><br />Henry did attempt to restore relationships with some Plantagenets, though Edward was never given a chance. He attempted reconciliation with John and Edmund de la Pole, and saw to the marriages of Elizabeth's sisters and cousin Margaret, though their matches were not as glamorous as they may have once expected. However, he did also send assassins to Europe in search of Richard de la Pole and Reginald Pole, besides the execution of innocent Warwick. That being said, he was not as violently terrified of those with Plantagenet blood as Henry VIII became, but he is a whole separate topic! Even in Elizabeth I's day, the Tudor fear of others with royal blood continued, as can be seen by her treatment of the Grey sisters.Samantha Wilcoxsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04473495253682074133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7353745119638688943.post-8648861512543732582015-06-11T05:04:40.472-04:002015-06-11T05:04:40.472-04:00just a thought. i think that henry VII didn't ...just a thought. i think that henry VII didn't really want to execute Edwar of Warwick. Of course he was a threat but Henry was not very fond of Executions (he didn't execute every Planategenet he found, contrary to his son Henry 8). i think keeping him in the Tower until the end of times would have been perfectly fine for Henry. But then, the Spanish Alliance happened. Queen Isabel and King Ferdinand wrote to Hery VII and told him that they couldn't send their daughter to a land where pretenders are still alive. They definitely put pressure to execute Eward AND Perkin if henry wanted to see his son Arthur marrying Catherie of Aragon. Catherine even years later, in letters, wrote that she felt guilty about Edward's death... poor Warwick: his entire life in jail and then sacrificed for a political Alliance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com