Royalty and magic (black or otherwise). Well, the connection isn’t new, after all, King Arthur had Merlin. And when it suited one’s enemies, a charge of witchcraft was always a guaranteed spanner in the works.
The first section of this article this article deals with Elizabeth Woodville, and is perhaps of most interest to Ricardians. Needless to say Richard doesn’t get a fair deal – there’s a lot of nose-tapping, exaggerated winking and nudge-nudging about how he came to the throne and what happened to the boys in the Tower. No one knows what happened to them, therefore Richard dunnit. Q.E.D. Except that nothing has been demonstrated at all. Richard was as strong a lord as anyone, but I cannot believe he would eliminate two boys who, no matter which side of the blanket they came from, were still his flesh and blood.
But, of course, this article is about “poor” Elizabeth Woodville, for whom everything went diabolically wrong. Once again Richard’s boney, accusing finger points at her. She’s a witch! And this, according to the article, is why she ended up in penury etc. etc. But it is a fact that her mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, was charged with witchcraft. She was found innocent, but mud sticks, as they say. Small wonder that the taint of witchcraft attached to her daughter as well.
Well, charge of witchcraft or not, Richard didn’t condemn her to anything She could have come out of sanctuary (which her daughters did) and lived a nice enough life at court. She didn’t deserve such leniency because she and her family had plotted to be rid of Richard the moment they had the new boy-king, Edward V, in their grasp. And she subsequently plotted with Margaret Beaufort (Argh! Now there’s a witch!) to be rid of Richard again in favour of dear little Henry Tudor.
Now then, if ever a woman made a lousy decision, it was Elizabeth Woodville when she opted for Henry Tudor. He was a cruel, jealous, spiteful little tick, and he didn’t like it that Elizabeth had allowed her daughters to go into Richard’s custody. (Perhaps too he’d caught wind of his wife-to-be (Elizabeth, daughter of Elizabeth Woodville) having been in love with Richard. Maybe he saw the mysterious letter she wrote and which has subsequently disappeared. In it she waxed lyrical about Richard, but at the same time her words could be interrupted in more than one way. So he confiscated Elizabeth Sr’s) property and shoved her off to the wilds of Bermondsey Abbey, where she lived a very meagre life until she died.
I’m sure that this too must have been Richard’s fault, even though he’d been dead since August 1485. We mustn’t blame the golden Tudors for any wrongdoing. Oh no. It can ONLY be that child-murdering monster Richard III.
Bah, humbug! The Tudors were a blot of the English landscape and had no right to be on the throne at all. The odious name Stanley looms large. Their treachery killed Richard and we ended up with Henry VII. Thank you, Stanleys. I’m glad that at least one of you paid the ultimate price for your Judas act.
Anyway, the rest of the article deals with other monarchs, not only in England/Britain, and is quite interesting. But everything is spoiled for me by the gross anti-Richard bias of the first part. Just how much is trustworthy in the rest of it?