Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY, THE CROWNING PLACE OF ENGLISH KINGS
CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III/”I COME NOT TO BE SERVED, BUT TO SERVE”
CORONATION OATH OF KING CHARLES III
The King stands and the Archbishop says:
”Our Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.
Are you willing to take the Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
The King places his hand on the Bible, and the Archbishop administers the Oath
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
The King replies
I solemnly promise so to do.
The Archbishop says
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
The King replies
I will.
The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The King replies
All this I promise to do.
The King places his hand on the Bible and says
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The King kisses the Bible. The Archbishop says
Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe, and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
The King signs copies of the Oaths, presented by the Lord Chamberlain,whilst the choir sings
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
On 6 May 2023, the Coronation of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and
the Commonwealth Realms, took place. [1]
Actually, he acceded the throne on 8 september 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II [2]
At the age of 73, he became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history [3]
His coronation took place at Westminster Abbey, where traditionally
the English monarchs are crowned, [4]
Simultaneously, his wife, Queen Camilla, was also crowned [5],
as is usually the case [6]
ANCIENT MONARCHY/ANCIENT TRADITIONS
A QUICK WALK WITH ASTRID ESSED THROUGH HISTORY!
What I love about this Coronation [and those before] are
the old traditions, which is logically, since the English kings
stand in an impressive tradition of more than thousand years!
The eldest Royal House I can recall is the House of Wessex, in
899 to begin with, under king Alfred the Great! [7]
Before the House of Wessex under Alfred the Great, there was the
”old” House of Wessex, founded by Cerdic of the Gewisse [The West Saxon dynasty], but in those times England was not united, but
consisted of different kingdoms [8]’
[By the way, The House of Wessex was by times interrupted
by the House of Denmark, when England was under Danish control] [9]
It was under Alfred the Great, the first to call himself
”King of the Anglo Saxons [instead of just the West Saxons], that the first steps were
taken to unify England, which was completed by Alfred the Great’s
descendants. [10] The last king from the House of Wessex was king Edward the Confessor [11]I will refer to him later in this Coronation article, with respect to the St Edward’s Crown”…….You will see, o Readers.
And the present English monarchy descents from William the Conqueror,the Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in the Battleof Hastings in 1066, defeating king Harold II [brother in lawof Edward the Confessor], the last Anglo Saxon king [12]
FASCINATING, when you realize, that the Dutch Monarchy only
exists since 1813, being one of the youngest monarchies in
Europe! [13]
I
THE CORONATION CEREMONY
A SACRED CEREMONY
The Coronation Ceremony is firstly a spiritual and sacred one.
But also one of traditional symbols.
Sacred are of course the Oath and the Anointing with the Holy Oil:
THE OATH
ANOINTING THE OIL [Behind Curtains]
THE OATH
The Coronation Ceremony of King Charles III was, like those of
his predecessors, firstly a SACRED Ceremony, which is seen, not only as performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the Kings’ Oath:[The Archbishop]”
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?”
[The King]
”All this I promise to do”
[And the King, placing his hand on the Bible]
”The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.” [14]
Now this Holy Oath has everything to do with the fact, that
king Charles III is Head of the Anglican Church [the Church of England] [15], which is tradition since king Henry VIII, who broke with thePope and subsequently the old Catholic Church [called
”Holy Church” in Medieval England] [16]
Yet apart from that breach with the Holy Church, Coronation Ceremonies were always sacred:
See a part from the Oath that king Edward II, one of the forefathers
of king Charles III, took at his Coronation in 1308:[English translation from the original French text]”
Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God?
[Edward II]
I will preserve them.[17] HOWEVER:Oaths, based on the Church of England or on the Catholic Holy Church or not, those Sacred Customs were all based on the concept ofSacred Kingship, or in Western history: the concept of theDivine Right of Kings [18], which also has a pre Christian tradition [19] and is a universal concept from Old Historian Times. [20] Because in old Times [and perhaps the divine right of kingsis based upon that] there was that concept of a king, who wasalso high priest [21]
II ANOINTING THE OIL [SPIRITUAL] The English Coronation Ceremonies are ancient, very ancient,and main elements of
the coronation service and the earliest form of oath can be traced to the ceremony devised by Saint Dunstan for King Edgar’s coronation in 973 AD at Bath Abbey.
It drew on ceremonies used by the kings of the Franks and those used in the ordination of bishops.[22]
But that was then.
Through the centuries, there were different versions of coronation
services [23], but untill the Reformation, based on catholic traditions [24]
With the Reformation, there were changes [25], but some things,
especially regarding the Place of Coronation, the Holy Oil Anointing,
the Crown, the Chair and other traditions, remained largely unchanged.
I refer to those in a moment, a five minutes reading!
ANOINTING THE OILA MOST SACRED CEREMONY, STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE!
The anointing is the most sacred part of the coronation ceremony, and takes place before the crowning.
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head [26]
And this Anointing Tradition is based on
the Old Days, especially Biblical Ones!
I refer to the Old Testimony, Book ”Kings”
and quote about the Coronation of King Salomon:
”Then Zadok the priest took a horn of
oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon. And they blew the horn, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!”
[Book ”Kings” 1:39] [27]
Anointing was one of the medieval holy sacraments and it emphasised the spiritual status of the sovereign. Until the seventeenth century the sovereign was considered to be appointed directly by God and this was confirmed by the ceremony of anointing. Although the monarch is no longer considered divine in the same way, the ceremony of Coronation also confirms the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. [28]
BEHIND CURTAINS
And since the anointing is considered as that holy
and sacred, it is NOT for others to see, but hidden for public view.
To hide the anointing for public, king Charles III’s
mother, Queen Elizabeth II, used a canopy, while
king Charles III kicked things up a notch with a full-blown screen [29]
Like I said before, the Coronation Ceremony
is firstly a sacred and religious One and emphasizing
the Divine Right of Kings [although that Divine Right Concept is ancient
and historical], the anointing has to be done in private!
See for important facts and events about the Coronation Ceremonies of English kings since the
Anglo Saxon king Edgar [Reign, 959-975] [30], under note 31!Exciting, isn’t it!
THE ANOINTING OILCHANGED TIMES….. Although the Anointing Ceremony of king Charles IIIwas largerly the same as his predecessors, there were some changes, especially in the use of the AnointingOil:
The holy oil that was traditionally used for coronations past contained civet oil, from the glands of the small mammals, and ambergris from whale intestines. The formula was used at Queen Elizabeth’s ceremony and is hundreds of years old. [32]
However, the holy oil that will be used at Charles’ coronation is vegan-friendly, in order to reflect modern anti-animal cruelty sentiments. It is made with olive oil, pressed just outside Bethlehem, and perfumed with essential oils such as sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin and amber and orange blossom. [33]A 21st Century Monarch, Changed timesBut the Essentials of the Coronation are still maintained, despite different personal touchs ofkings throughout the centuries [and sometimes memorable things happened at Coronations] [34] and the change fromthe old Holy Church to the present, protestant Church of England. [35]
III WESTMINSTER ABBEY Interesting historical tradition is, that sincethe ancestor of all English kings [after his conquest ofEngland in 1066], William the Conqueror, allEnglish kings have been crowned at WestminsterAbbey [36] [although according to some sources, the lastAnglo Saxon king, Harold II, who was defeated byWilliam the Conqueror, was also crowned at Westminster Abbey [37]Although…[and forgive me Readers, that my historicalheart takes it over again….] there were apart crowning ceremonies….Because king Henry III, father of the more famous king Edward I and [I mean king Henry III] the son of king John I [alsomentioned ”Lackland”, a brother of kingRichard Coeur de Lion and a greatgreatgrandsonof William the Conqueror] [38], that king Henry III was crowned twice!Firstly at Gloucester Cathedral in 1216 and only in 122o at Westminster Abbey! [39]REASON?When Henry’s father, king John died [Henry was only nine years old], there was stilla rising of noblemen against his father’s government, ”the War with the Barons”, which by the way resulted in the Magna Charta [40]And to make things worse, there was a French invasionalso See for more information, note 41So Henry III was hastily crowned in Gloucester Cathedral in 1216, since at that moment the French occupied London and after more stable times, in 122oin Westminster Abbey! [42]And to make it more fascinating than it already was…..When king Henry had been crowned for the first time,THERE WAS NO ROYAL CROWN!Because during the Baron’s War the Crown had been lost, probably lost as king John crossed oneof the tidal estuaries which empties into the Walsh,being sucked in by quicksand and whirpools…[43]So at his first Coronation, Henry had no Crown andtherefore was crowned with a golden Corolla[headdress] [44], belonging to his mother Isabella ofAngouleme! [45]Interesting, isn’t it? IV ST EDWARD’S CROWN!We’ll stay in the king Henry III times awhile! Because when he was crowned at the second time,and now in Westminster Abbey [See above], he neededa real crown, since his father John’s crown was lost during the Baron’s War.And since king Henry III was a great admirer of Edward the Confessor, one of the last Anglo Saxon kings [the direct predecessor of King Harold, the king who was defeated by William the Conqueror in 1066], he calledthe crown, that was made for him ”St Edward’s Crown”[46]According to some sources it really WAS the crownof Edward the Confessor, but that is open todiscussion I think [47]HOWEVER, the crown with which king Charles III iscrowned, is called ”St Edward’s Crown, but not theoriginal, since a new Crown was made for king Charles II, since after the deposition and executionof his father King Charles I most of the British CrownJewels, the Crown included, were destroyed, broken upor sold off. [48]So the Crown, that is used by the Coronationof king Charles III is the crown of king Charles II from the 17th Century! [49] V CORONATION SPEECH IN ENGLISH! What I found really exciting to learn was this:KingHenry IV, who by the way usurped the thronefrom his cousin Richard II [50] which eventually would cause the Wars of the Roses [51], was the firstEnglish king, who at his Coronation made a speechin English! [52]
Before this, the official language of the court was French, ever since William I conquered England [53]
VI
MORE TRADITIONS AND SYMBOLS AT THE CORONATION
CEREMONY/THE SPOON, THE ANCIENT SPOON!
THE SPOON
What makes the Coronation so fascinating, are,
as I said before, the ancient traditions.
Like the use of the Coronation Spoon, dated from the 12th century and probably made for either king
Henry II or his son king Richard Coeur de Lion
[respectively the father and brother of king John, alsonamed ”Lackland”, from whom all present Englishkings descent] It is also the only
piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from the 12th century! [54]
So unique!
The spoon is first recorded in 1349 as preserved among St Edward’s Regalia in Westminster Abbey. Already at this date it is described as a spoon of ‘antique forme’ [55]
About the role of the Coronation Spoon:
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) [the ampulla was made for the
Coronation of king Charles II] into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head. [56]
Interesting is, that the Spoon may originally have been used for mixing wine and water in a chalice, but it was certainly used for anointing the sovereign during the coronation of James I in 1603, son of the executed Mary, Queen of Scots, successor
of Queen Elizabeth I and the first Sovereign from the House of
Stuart and a unified England and Scotland, and at every subsequent coronation. [57]
VII
THE CHAIR/THE CORONATION CHAIR!
Also a very ancient and fascinating symbol
is the 700 years old Coronation Chair!
The Coronation Chair was made by order of Edward I [58] to enclose the famous Stone of Scone [59], which he brought [stole, remark bij Astrid Essed see note 60] from Scotland to the Abbey in 1296, where he placed it in the care of the Abbot of Westminster.
The Stone of Scone had been used by Scottish kings for centuries to sit upon when they were crowned! [61]
The Chair has been in use at the coronation ceremony since 1308 although opinion is divided as to when it was actually used for the crowning, but this was certainly the case from 1399 when
Henry IV was crowned in the Chair. [62]And after king Henry IV, nearly all English kings were crownedin that Chair [63] Just fascinating, when you think that the present king Charles III is crowned in a Chair, that his ancestor king Edward I has ordered to make at the beginning of the 14th century! [64]
VIII AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:THE KING’S CHAMPION! I described some fascinating symbols and aspects ofthe Coronation, which is [see above] a Sacred CeremonySee about yet more details, note 65 However, the last fascinating aspect I want to share with you,o Readers, is ….”The King’s Champion!”……. which is atypically Medieval symbol! [66] As far as my investigation reaches, King’s Championtraditions stems from William the Conqueror, that Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066 and laid the foundation of the present British Monarchy [all subsequent kingsare his descendants] [67] This is how it went and how the King’s Champion tradition took shape:
When William, the Conqueror seized the English throne in 1066, he asked his friend Robert Marmion to act as his Champion. Marmion’s role was to literally throw down the gauntlet, openly challenging anyone doubting the new king’s legitimacy, to prove their case through armed combat. [68]
This was not a formality or a mere ceremony in the Middle Ages, but,
given the violent times then, a real Danger……
To make a long story short, out of gratitude for risking his life, Marmion was given an estate at Scrivelsby, in
Lincolnshire.
The grant for this sets out that:
”The manor of Scrivelsby is holden … the service of finding on the day of Coronation, an armed knight who shall prove by his body, if need be, that the King is true and rightful heir to the kingdom.” [69]
Interesting is, that over the centuries, not only
the tradition of ”The King’s Champion” survived, but
that the role of King’s Champion remained with
Marmion’s descendants, who, since 1350, have been
the Dymoke Family [70]
Their family motto is the Latin phrase ”Pro Rege Dimico”
a play on their name, implying ”I contend for the King” [71]
See under note 72 the role of the Dymoke Family at theCoronation of King Edward IV [during the Wars of the Roses, with the Astrid Essed remark, that the PlantagenetBranch of the House of Edward IV, the House of York,had a superior claim to the English throne [73] THE KING’S CHAMPION IN ACTION! I already referred to the violent ancient times in whichthe role of the King’s Champion was notjust a ceremony.The last time however, the King’s Champion reallyperformed the ancient role of throwing down the gauntletwas at the coronation of King George IV! [74] THE KING’S CHAMPIONMODERN TIMES We are living in modern times now and F
rancis Dymoke won’t ride into King Charles III’s coronation on horseback and challenge any pretender to the throne to single combat as his ancestor did in 1066, but he will carry the Royal Standard into Westminster Abbey. [75]
Dymoke, a 67-year-old farmer from eastern England, will be the King’s Champion at the coronation, fulfilling a role performed by members of his family since William the Conqueror was crowned nearly 1,000 years ago……
An old tradition, anyway, although not so ”romantic” anymore
like in the ancient times……
Although I like Dymoke’s comment on his ceremonial
role as ”King’s Champion”
”“This is the one moment in my life that really matters,” ,
as he had told the Daily Telegraph [76]
Apart from the modern times we live in, one of
the reasons the King’s Champion doesn’t fullfill his
original role is this:
The King’s Champion originally rode into the coronation banquet on horseback, threw down a gauntlet and challenged anyone who doubted the king or queen’s right to rule.
BUT:
there hasn’t been a coronation banquet since 1821, so Champions now perform other roles, usually bearing a flag or standard, the palace said. [77]
MODERN TIMES…..END You and I, readers, have watched the Coronation ofthe new English king, Charles III [78], followedthe symbols and traditions.Travelled through the Ages in which the Coronationstook shape, with the fascinating history of the CrownJewels, the 12th century Coronation Spoon, the 700years old Coronation Chair, the St Edward’s Crown,the King’s Champion, all those ancient andmeaningful traditions, from the Middle Ages untillModern Times. Much is changed, yet the tradition and the Bond with History remains.I will end with the words, king Charles III uttered at his Coronation:”I come not to be served, but to serve” [79] Readers, it was nice to travel with you to history againand….end in those modern times! Hope you enjoyed it [I CERTAINLY DID!] See to my next article Then I travel with you to the Middle Ages againThe Time of the Wars of the Roses! My next article will be about Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker! [80] See you then ASTRID ESSED NOTES NOTES 1 AND 2
RICHARD NEVILLE [LINKS] EN ZIJN NEEF KONING EDWARD IV
FICTIE:
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE
DE KINGMAKER EN ZIJN DOCHTERS LADY ANNE EN LADYISOBEL [UIT DE SERIE ”THE WHITE QUEEN]
In 2019 las ik in het nummer van Ontdek Magazine, ”De Geschiedenis
achter the Game of Thrones”, in hun gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen [
blz 20-25], een opmerking over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville,
de 16e Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”de Kingmaker” genoemd [1]
Ziehier de opmerking in ”Ontdek”, op blz 24, links bovenaan
””VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON
De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Omdat ik deze opmerking, historisch gezien, grote onzin vond, heb ik
”Ontdek Magazine” hierover aangeschreven [2] en hierop,
ik zou haast zeggen natuurlijk, geen reactie ontvangen, wat mijn
gelijk alleen maar heeft bevestigdIk wil graag de originele mail aan Ontdek met u delenZie dus direct onder de noten!En veel leesplezier! ASTRID ESSED
HISTORISCHE MISSER TAV RICHARD NEVILLE, DE 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK, GENAAMD ”DE KINGMAKER”
[Door omstandigheden is de mail in 2021, twee jaar na de uitgave van
het nummer van Ontdek, opgestuurd]
Astrid Essed <astridessed@yahoo.com>Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:28 AMTo: “winkel@vipmedia.nl” <winkel@vipmedia.nl>AANDe Redactie van Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of ThronesUitgegeven in 2019[Wegens drukke werkzaamheden is deze historische kritiek nu, september 2021, aan u verstuurd.Onderstaand magnum opus, want zo mag ik het wel noemen, is door mij aangevangen in september 2019, kort na lezing van uw tijdschriftDuik dus even in uw archieven]Onderwerp:Onzininformatie over Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, beter bekend als ”The Kingmaker”Geachte Redactie,Alvorens met mijn kritiek los te barsten, een oprecht woord van waardering.Als groot fan van de nu afgelopen grootse serie ”Game of Thrones” heb ik het buitengewoon gewaardeerd, dat u een uitgebreide achtergrondspecial hebt samengesteld, waarin u op een diversiteit aan aspecten over de serie zelf, maarook op een aantal historische perioden, zoals de Vikingen, de eerste christenen, kaliefen in het Midden-Oosten en andere onderwerpen, bent ingegaan.Of het allemaal historisch klopt, wat u schrijft, heb ik nog niet in detail kunnen nagaan, omdat ik nog niet alles heb gelezen [aanstonds zult u begrijpen, waarom ik dit naar voren breng], maar wat ik er wel van gelezen heb, komtals redelijk betrouwbaar en goed doorwrocht over.Totdat ik bij het gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen kwam [blz 20 t/m 25 van uw Magazine] en, excusez les mots,op een aantal ronduit onzinopmerkingen van uw kant stuitte.Kijk, DAT u de Rozenoorlogen in uw special hebt betrokken, vind ik interessant en is bijna vanzelfsprekend, omdat The Game of Thrones er in belangrijke mate op is gebaseerd.Of beter uitgedrukt:Schrijver George R.R. Martin heeft zich door die Rozenoorlogen in belangrijke mate laten inspireren, met hoog kwalitatief resultaat!Maar als u nader op die Rozenoorlogen ingaat, mag verwacht worden, dat u met historisch juiste informatie komt.Anders zeg ik:Schrijf er dan niet over.Ik ben nog niet in de gelegenheid geweest, alles en detail te lezen [wel enkele passages], wat u over die Rozenoorlogen geschreven hebt, vanwege een druk bezette agenda [misschien komt er nog een aanvullende brief, waarin ik u daarover te grazen neem, als ik dat nodig acht], maar ronduit belachelijk en historisch totale NONSENS [nogmaals, excusez lets mots] was, wat u over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville, 16 de Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”the Kingmaker” genoemd [1], hebt neergeschreven.UW SCHRIJFSEL OVER RICHARD NEVILLE, DE KINGMAKEREerst maar eens uw schrijfsel over Richard Neville, de Kingmaker, wat te lezen is.Ik lees [en u nu met mij] bladzijde 24, links bovenaan:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROONDe Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”Einde uw tekstDit, waarde Redactie, is een warwinkel van nonsens, taalverwarring en historische inaccuratesse.TEN EERSTE:Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, liep, hoewel aanvankelijk inderdaadeen ”aanhanger” van koning Hendrik VI [van het Huis van Lancaster, klopt], NIETover naar het Huis van York, NADAT zijn neef Eduard, 7e Earl [Graaf] of Marchen zoon van Richard, de hertog van York, als Eduard IV tot koning werd gekroond:Neen, hij [Richard Neville dus] was al jaren in oppositie tegen koning Hendrik VI, waarbij hij samenwerkte met zijn eigen vader Richard, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en de hertog van York, vader van de latere Eduard IV [vanaf hier aangeduid als Edward, het was tenslotte een Engelse koning!]Bovendien was hij juist de grote voortrekker van de kroning van neef Edward totkoning Edward IV! [2]Ik kom hierop aanstonds uitgebreider terug.TEN TWEEDE:U schrijft”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”Dat ..machtswellust” is een zeer kort door de bocht en simplistische verklaringvoor de oorzaken tot het latere conflict tussen koning Edward IV en Richard Neville [van nu af aan aangeduid met de Graaf Warwick of Warwick], waarover aanstonds uitleg volgt.Het klopt, dat Warwick de koning gevangen nam, maar het is aperte nonsens om neer te pennen, dat Warwick zelf op de Engelse troon wilde komen!Hij had [en dat was erg belangrijk in de Middeleeuwen!] in geen enkel opzicht, niet eens in de verte, recht op die troon, omdat hij niet tot het Huis Plantagenet behoorde en er ook niet zijdelings van afstamde.Kortom:Naar Middeleeuwse mores zou niemand voor hem gevochten hebben en al evenmin was er een schijn van kans, dat hij als koning zou zijn geaccepteerd.Wel probeerde hij, door een slimme wijze van uithuwelijking van zijn tweewettige dochters [hij had ook nog een onwettige dochter, Margaret]. [3],zo dicht bij de troon te komen, dat hij effectief macht kon uitoefenen.Hierop kom ik terug.TEN DERDE:Taalverwarring:U schrijft”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen”Uit bovenstaande zin wordt volstrekt niet duidelijk om welke koning het nu ging en om welke veldslag.U had moeten aangeven, dat het hier ging om koning Edward IV [want zoalsu het hebt neergeschreven, kon het ook wel om koning Hendrik VI, vanaf nu aangeduid als Henry VI, gaan] en dat het ging om de volgende veldslag:The Battle of Edgecote in 1469, waaraan de slimme Warwick overigens niet zelf deelnam….] [4]Dergelijke duidelijkheid is van groot belang, omdat het anders de toch al ingewikkelde verwikkelingen rond de Rozenoorlogen nog gecompliceerder maakt!ACHTERGRONDGRAAF WARWICK EN DE ROZENOORLOGENOm Graaf Warwick te kunnen begrijpen, moet hij gezien worden tegen het licht van de Rozenoorlogen, waarin hij zo’n belangrijke rol speelde.Om de Rozenoorlogen te kunnen begrijpen, moet je iets afweten van het toenmalige recht van opvolging op de Engelse troon en de verwikkelingenrond de regering van koning Richard II. [5]Want de Rozenoorlogen wortelen diep en zijn in feite gezaaid door de afzettingvan Richard II.[6]ROZENOORLOGEN:We beginnen met de voorgeschiedenis van de Rozenoorlogen, waarover u al geschreven hebt in uw Magazine.Globaal lezend heb ik echter gezien, dat u weliswaar de Rozenoorlogen alssuccessiestrijd aanmerkt, maar niet duidelijk hebt gemaakt, hoe het zat met de exacte claims van de Huizen Lancaster en York [De Tweede en Derde Zoon problematiek, zie onderstaand] en ook niet naar de wortels van het conflict gegaan bent.Daarom krijgt u hier deze informatie gratis en voor niets.Eigenlijk zou u mij hiervoor moeten betalen, HAHAHAHAHADe Rozenoorlogen, ook wel ”the Cousins War” genoemd [7] [pas een eeuw na het conflict raakte de term ”Rozenoorlogen;’ in zwang] waren een 30 jaar lang durend binnenlands militair conflict [burgeroorlog dus] tussen tweetakken van het toenmalige Engelse Koningshuis, het Huis Plantagenet[aan de macht vanaf 1154 tot 1485], de Huizen Lancaster en York.Een ”adellijke” burgeroorlog, die hoogst bloedig werd uitgevochten, waarbijde diverse adellijke families partij kozen voor Lancaster en York , weer van kant wisselden, als het hen zo uitkwam en verraad, kuiperijen, intriges en bloedige veldslagen elkaar afwisselden.Voor meer verdieping en informatie [die u ook deels hebt beschreven] zie noot 8GEZAAID ZAADMaar het conflict begon niet bij de eerste militaire veldslag of liever gezegd schermutseling, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans in 1455 [9]Ook niet bij het gerezen en hoogopgelopen conflict tussen de vrouw vande vreedzame en geestelijk labiele koning Henry VI, de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou [10]en haar gunsteling, Edmund Beaufort, Duke [hertog] of Somerset [behorend tot de Beauforts, de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster en neef van de Lancaster koning Henry VI] enerzijds en anderszijdsRichard, de hertog van York [vader van de latere koning Edward IV], ook een [weliswaar verdere] neef van koning Henry VI[11]Neen, het wortelde in de afzetting van koning Richard II door zijn neef, de latere koning Henry IV. [12]RICHARD II/PRIMOGENITUUR RECHTIk heb weleens gekscherend opgemerkt, dat de diepere oorzaken van de Rozenoorlogen scholen in het feit, dat Edward III, de Engelse koning, die deHonderdjarige oorlog tegen Frankrijk startte, ook een soort successiestrijd [13],teveel zoons had.Het uiteindelijke Rozenoorlog conflict woedde dan ook tussen de nakomelingenvan de tweede zoon van Edward III [van wie de hertog van York van moederskant afstamde] en de derde zoon van Edward III [waartoe het Huis van Lancaster behoorde, de wettige tak en de onwettige tak]Genoemde Koning Richard II was een zoon Edward of Woodstock, beter bekend als ”’De Zwarte Prins” [14] de oudste zoon van Edward III en volgde zijn grootvader Edward III op tienjarige leeftijd op, omdat zijn eigen vader reeds was overleden.En bij de Engelse troonopvolging gold het primogenituur recht [recht van de eerstgeborene] [15]Als de koning overleed, volgde zijn oudste zoon op.Wanneer deze overleed, diens zoon/nageslachtEn pas als zijn dynastie was uitgestorven, kwam de lijn van de tweede zoon aan de beurt,En zo ging het door.Vrouwen hadden in Engeland het recht op troonsopvolging, maar door de uitgesproken patriarchale samenleving in Middeleeuws Engeland probeerde men dat zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen. [16]Door een aantal oorzaken en hoogoplopende conflicten met zijn edelen liep het helemaal mis met de regering van Richard II en werd deze uiteindelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke [Bolingbroke, naar het kasteel waar hij geboren was], afgezet [Richard II was kinderloos] [17] en liet Bolingbroke zichzelf kronen tot Henry IV en werd daarmee de grootvader van Henry VI, die koning was tijdens het begin van de Rozenoorlogen. [18]EN DAAR WRONG DE SCHOEN!Niet alleen, dat de wettige koning van Engeland, Richard II, werd afgezet, was van doorslaggevend belang [19] maar ook door wie, namelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, zoon van de DERDE zoon vanEdward III, John of Gaunt [Jan van Gent, hij was in Gent geboren gedurende Edward III’s oorlog tegen Frankrijk], hertog van Lancaster [die titel had hij gekregen via zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche van Lancaster, die de dochter was van de hertog van Lancaster] [20]Maar in feite waren er nog de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp [Lionel van Antwerpen, in Antwerpen geboren] [21], die dus een sterkere claim hadden op de Engelse troon.Lionel of Antwerp had echter geen zoons gehad, maar een dochter, Philippa Plantagenet [22] en Philippa’s kleinzoon [zij was al overleden tijdens de afzetting van neef Richard II] Edmund was ten tijde van de afzetting van Richard II een kind van acht jaar en kon dus gemakkelijk opzij geschoven worden. [23]TWEEDE EN DERDE ZOON VAN EDWARD IIIWaar het dus op neer kwam was, dat de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III [Lionel of Antwerp], door die van de DERDE zoon [John of Gaunt dus] opzijgeschoven waren, terwijl in feite die ”tweede zoon” nakomelingen een groter recht hadden op de Engelse troon!En Richard, de hertog van York, die met bondgenoten uiteindelijk de strijd tegenLancaster aan zou gaan, was via zijn moeders kant [Anne Mortimer] [24], een afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp![Richard’s moeder, Anne Mortimer, was via de kant van haar vader, Roger Mortimer, de achterkleindochter van Lionel of Antwerp, zie de stamboom onder noot 25]Om het lekker simpel te houden was Richard, de hertog van York [ik kan er ook niets aan doen, dat ze allemaal onder elkaar trouwden] van vaderskant ook nog eens de kleinzoon van de VIERDE ZOON van Edward III, Edmund of Langley, hertog van York.Maar zijn recht op de troon, dat superieur was boven Lancaster, kwam van zijn MOEDERSKANT!, afstammende van de TWEEDE zoon! [25]Dus samengevat:De hertog van York, vader van de latere koningen Edward IV en Richard III [die de laatste Plantagenet koning was], had een sterkere claim op de troon dan Lancaster, omdat hij van moederskant afstamde van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III en Lancaster van de DERDE zoon.LANCASTERS OP DE TROONWat het nog simpeler maakte was echter, dat de regerende koningen sinds de afzetting van Richard III dus uit het Huis Lancaster kwamen en al vanaf 1399 koning waren, wat ze een zekere legitimiteit gaf.Onder koning Henry IV, de feitelijke usurpator [26] van de Engelse troon,brak er nog geen dynastieke twist uit [denk eraan, dat de claimant van deEngelse troon, zoals gezegd, een jongen van 8 jaar was bij afzettingvan Richard II] [27], maar bij zijn zoon Henry V, de grote militaire leider inde nog voortwoedende Honderdjarige Oorlog, gestart door overgrootvader Edward III [28], zag je al het prille begin, belichaamd in het Southampton complot in 1415, waarbij onder andere Richard Conisburgh, de derde Graaf van Cambridge en de vader van Richard, de latere hertog van York met handlangers had geprobeerd, koning Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [ Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, de broer van zijn vrouw Anne Mortimer [Edmund was [de ”achtjarige jongen” met de grotere claim, ten tijde van de afzetting vanRichard II en oom van moederskant van de latere Richard, hertog van York.]Dat hele complot mislukte en de complotteurs werden geexecuteerd. [29]R.I.P. [30]KONING HENRY VI/HET FEEST KAN BEGINNEN/ROZENOORLOGENMaar het werd pas echt hommeles onder koning Henry VI, kleinzoon van usurpator koning Henry IV [onze ”Bolingbroke]Belangrijke oorzaak was de ontevredenheid, ontstaan door hetvoor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige Oorlog, het feit,dat de vreedzame Henry VI het tegenovergestelde was van een flinke militaire leider EN vooral het feit, dat de arme man ernstige psychische problemen had, waardoor ambitieuze mannen probeerden zichzelf en hun familie naar voren te schuiven en grip op de macht te krijgen.Waardoor de Engelse troon een speelbal werd in handen van mannen met echte en vermeende claims.Tegen deze achtergrond laaide de strijd op tussen de Huizen Lancaster en York,aanvankelijk nog om de controle over de koning, maar gaandeweg om de troomzelf.Grote tegenstanders waren bij het uitbreken van de strijd enerzijds Richard, derde hertog van York, als afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III[Lionel of Antwerp] [31] de man met de sterkste claim op de troon.Anderszijds Edmund Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, behorend tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster [32], die namens koning Henry VI optrad en gunsteling was van diens strijdbare vrouw, Margaret of Anjou.[33]Gaandeweg echter werd het steeds openlijker een strijd tussen York en zijn bondgenoten enerzijds en Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van de koning [de koning kon door zijn psychische problemen vaak niet effectief regeren] en haar bondgenoten anderszijds, zeker na cde geboorte van haar en de koning’s zoon in 1453.Het verbale en politieke steekspel tussen de heren [York en Somerset], die beurtelings ”protectors of the realm” [een soort regenten, vervangers van de koning] waren in de tijd, dat koning Henry VI niet kon regeren [staat voor: geestelijke inzinking] [34] duurde voort tot de eerste militaire confrontatie in de Rozenoorlogen, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans [35], waarin Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, sneuvelde [36]Daarna ging het van Kwaad tot Erger [lees noot 37] , ondanks EEN poging om de partijen te verzoenen, de door de vreedzame koning Henry VI goedbedoelde maar te laat gekomen geinstigeerde ”Loveday]] [door u genoemd in uw artikel: complimenten, niet veel mensen kennen deze gebeurtenis!] [38], maar daarna ging het al snel helemaal mis!En vanaf het sluiten van het Act of Accord [tussen York en koning Henry VI] [39] al snel gevolgd door de Slag bij Wakefield, waarin de hertog van York omkwam [40], ging het er niet meer om, wie koning Henry VI controleerde, maar een keihard gevecht om de troon.GAME OF THRONES! [41]When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground….” [42]Ja, DAT bewezen die Rozenoorlogen wel!Het tijdperk brak aan van de door u ook genoemde koning Edward IV, de Rozenoorlogkoning [43], die een redelijk stabiel bewind gevoerd heeft, slechts onderbroken door de Warwick opstand [44], waarover straks meer.Edward IV werd, niet geheel volgens wet en recht, opgevolgd door zijn broer Richard [Richard III]. [45]En tijdens zijn regering werden de Rozenoorlogen definitief beslecht in de Slag bij Bosworth in 1485 [46] tussen Richard III en Henry Tudor [de latere koning Hendrik VII][47], zoon van Margaret Beaufort [48] [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Bosworth werd gewonnen door Henry Tudor, waarbij niet alleen een definitief einde kwam aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ook aan het Huis Plantagenet. [49]en in feite aan de Engelse Middeleeuwen.Richard III was de laatste koning uit het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors [50] brak aan.Henry Tudor, die zichzelf in feite koning maakte ”by right of conquest” [51] was, bezegelde zijn legitimiteit als kining door te trouwen met Elisabeth of York, oudste dochter van koning Edward IV. [52]Slimme politieke zet:Want feite had Elisabeth of York [zoals zij werd genoemd en ook heette] natuurlijk koningin moeten worden, als dochter van Edward IV,die niet alleen koning geweest was, maar via zijn vader de hertog van York die superieure claim op de troon had geerfd, boven Lancaster en zeker boven de Beauforts, die onwettige [en later gewettigde tak van het Huis van Lancaster [53] [superieure York claim, weet u nog: via de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp….] [54]Maar ja, Elisabeth of York was geen strijdbare Margaret of Anjou [55], anders had ze wel gevochten voor haar recht op de troon!Nu werd zij in plaats van Queen by right [heersend monarch], Queen consort [echtgenote van de ko ning][56]Militaire overwinningen, he….Overigens waren Henry Tudor [Henry VII] en Elisabeth of York de ouders vande latere Henry VIII en dus de grootouders van koningin Elisabeth I.EN de voorouders van alle latere Engelse koningen!Nou Redactie, was dat een mooi college over de Rozenoorlogen of niet somsHAHAHAHAHA!NU naar Graaf Warwick, waar het om was begonnen en ZIJN plaats in die Rozenoorlogen.RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK/DE KINGMAKER/THE STORYDe geschiedenis van de Kingmaker is fascinerend en door uw redactie deelsverkeerd verteld en neergeschreven.Dat heb ik hierboven al gecorrigeerd:Nu een uitgebreider curriculum vitae, om een modern woord te gebruiken:Geboren als Richard Neville in 1428, was hij de zoon van Richard Neville,[door zijn huwelijk, via het recht van zijn vrouw] 5e Graaf van Salisbury [57] en Alice Montegu, 5e Gravin van Salisbury [Salisbury was in feite haar bezit en haar wettelijke titel] [58]Richard Neville stamde uit het Geslacht Neville, een oud-adellijke geslacht [teruggaand van nog voor Willem de Veroveraar] [59], dat als bondgenoten vanRichard, hertog van York, een doorslaggevende rol zou spelen in de Rozenoorlogen. [60]De Nevilles waren ook verwant aan de hertog van York!Want de tante van Richard Neville [de zuster van zijn vader] Cecily Neville, wasgetrouwd met de hertog van York. [61]Dus simpeler gezegd:Richard Neville, onze latere ”Kingmaker” was de volle neef van de latere koning Edward IV [zoon dus van de hertog van York en Lady Cecily Neville]De titel ”Graaf van Warwick” verwierf Richard Neville door zijn huwelijk metLady Anne Beauchamp, de dochter van de dertiende Graaf van Warwick.Door een aantal sterfgevallen binnen de Familie Warwick, werd Richard Neville[jure uxoris: bij het recht van zijn vrouw] [62], de 16e Graaf van Warwick.Genoeg over de ingewikkelde erfelijkheidskwesties binnen de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel.Nu waar het om begonnen is:De Rozenoorlogen.DIE ROZENOORLOGEN EN DE ROL VAN GRAAF WARWICK, IN VOGELVLUCHTDe wortels van de Rozenoorlogen, dat gewapende conflict tussen de HuizenLancaster en York, dat broeder tegen broeder en neef tegen neef opzette [63] en de mannelijke lijn van zowel het Huis van Lancaster als York zou uitroeien [64], alsmede een groot deel van de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel, lagen, zoals ik al schreef, in het verleden en wel bij de afzetting van Richard II door zijn neef, Henry of Bolingbroke [de latere Henry IV] [zie uitgebreid relaas, hierboven] En zie noot 65Maar hoewel het zaad reeds in 1399 [bij de afzetting van Richard II dus] was gezaaid, brak het feitelijke conflict uit tijdens de regering van Henry VI, kleinzoon van Henry IV, hoewel het al voorbodes had in the Southampton plot [66],waarbij de vader van de hertog van York, Richard Conisburgh [derde Graaf van Richmond] had geprobeerd [zonder enig succes!], Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [Richard of Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, 5e Graaf van March en feitelijke troonopvolger van Richard II, die in 1399 aan de kant was geschoven door de neef van zijn [Edmund’s] moeder, Henry of Bolingbroke [latere Henry IV] [67]GOEDHet gewapende conflict brak dus uit onder de regering van Henry VI, in 1455,56 jaar na de afzetting van Richard II.Uiteraard gingen er groeiende spanningen aan vooraf, met name tussenEdward IV’s vader Richard, de [derde, zal ik niet steeds meer vermelden] hertog van York, die in feite de superieure rechten op de troon had [als neef van Edmund Mortimer en via moederszijde afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp] [68], met als grote tegenspeler Edmund Beaufort [behorend dus tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster], tweede hertog van Somerset. [69]Tussen die twee, van wie Edmund Beaufort een grote gunsteling was van de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou, vrouw van Henry VI, barstte vanaf eind veertiger jaren tot 1455 [toen Somerset sneuvelde in de Eerste Slag bij St Albans] [70] een verbitterde machtsstrijd uit, waarbij op een zeker moment edelen partij gingen kiezen.Grote spelers waren dus de hertog van York en de hertog van Somerset, waarbij de sympathie van de Kroon [in feite Margaretha van Anjou] duidelijk aan de kant van Somerset lag en er een steeds grotere vijandschap ontstond tussen Margaretha van Anjou en de hertog van YorkEen machtsstrijd tussen twee machtige mannen dus, die in feite escaleerde door het feit, dat Henry VI een vrome en zachtmoedige man,[In de Middeleeuwen was zachtmoedigheid niet bepaald handig voor een koning, die een keihard leider en een bekwaam militair moest zijn, wilde hij zijn macht handhaven], geen spoor van overwicht had.Rampzalig was bovendien, dat de man heftige psychische problemen had [71], waardoor hij hele periodes niet kon regeren en er een soort Regentschap[Protectoraat] werd ingesteld, beurtelings ingevuld door Somerset en York. [72]Wat Henry VI miste aan vastberadenheid en overwicht, was aanwezig in Margaretha van Anjou, maar in die tijd was er voor een vrouw geen directe regeermacht weggelegd [wat ze wel graag wilde] [73], wat haar echter niet belette, het vuurtje flink op te stoken [zo zat zij nu eenmaal in elkaar], waardoor het conflict alleen maar excaleerde.Naast de zwakke regering van de onevenwichtige Henry VI en de daaruitvolgende spanningen tussen de adel, speelde het slechte verloopvan de Honderdjarige Oorlog en sociale onrust ook een belangrijke rol. [74]WHERE THE EARL OF WARWICK IS COMING INWat opvalt aan de Rozenoorlogen was, dat de keuze, die edellieden maakten[voor Lancaster, dus trouw aan koning Henry VI] of voor York [een bondgenoot van de hertog van York [die steeds openlijker tegenover de koning kwam te staan, hoewel hij zijn trouw aan de koning bleef volhouden] [75], niet zozeer gebaseerd was op principes [het al dan niet erkennen van de betere claim op de troon, die de hertog van York inderdaad had] [76] en zelfs niet op het feit, dat ”s konings positie steeds onhoudbaarder werd door zijn psychische problemen [77], maar door hetzij eigen persoonlijke belangen, hetzij conflicten met andere edellieden.Het is niet teveel gezegd, dat heel veel edellieden tot begin vijftiger jaren nog de kat uit de boom keken.Zo ook Warwick, die het aanvankelijke protest en verzet in 1452, van zijn aangetrouwde oom, de hertog van York [de man van Warwick’s tante van vaderszijde, Cecily Neville] niet steunde, zoals vrijwel alle edelen, die trouw bleven aan Henry VI. [78]Maar dat zou om diverse redenen veranderen, waardoor Warwick EN zijn vader, ook een Richard Neville, de 5de Graaf van Salisbury, de trouwste bondgenoten werden van de hertog van York.Drie Richards, door historische fictie-schrijver Con Iggulden in zijn serie over de Rozenoorlogenaangeduid [hij refereerde aan de vijftiger jaren van die vijftiende eeuw] metde aparte benaming ”Trinity” in het Nederlands [correcter] vertaald als ”Het Drievoudig Verbond” [79]Maar goed:Wat Warwick triggerde om gaandeweg te belanden in het kamp van zijn aangetrouwde oom Richard, de hertog van York, was zijn conflict met zijn zwager, de 2de hertog van Somerset.[Somerset was getrouwd met de halfzuster van Warwick’s vrouw Anne Beauchamp.Zij heette Eleanor Beauchamp] [80]JA, dezelfde Somerset, die de aartsvijand/rivaal was van de hertog van York en een diehard gunsteling van Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van koning Henry VI.Dat Warwick/Somerset conflict ging, zoals zo vaak bij de Middeleeuwse adel, over land en dreef Warwick in de armen van de hertog van York. [81]Hierdoor, maar ook naarmate het conflict tussen de hertog van York en Somerset [lees ook de koning en vooral zijn vrouw Margaretha van Anjou] verder opliep en York [tijdelijk] Protector of the Realm [een soort regent] werd[de koning was weer eens uitgeschakeld], kwam ook de vader van Warwick [dus de broer van York’s vrouw Cecily Neville] steeds meer in het kamp van York [82] en vormden deze drie Richards, Richard, de hertog van York, Richard Neville, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en diens zoon, Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, een geducht bondgenootschap in de vijftiger jaren van de vijftiende eeuw!Daarnaast woedde ook nog een vernietigend conflict tussen de Huizen Neville[met aan het hoofd Warwick’s vader] en Henry Percy, 2de Graaf van Northumberland, over land, wat de geschiedenis in zou gaan als de Percy-Neville feud [de Percy Neville vete] [83]En de Percy’s waren felle verdedigers van de Kroon, dus langs deze lijnen ontvouwde het conflict zich ook nog eens.En alles liep zo hoog en fel op, dat in de eerste Rozenoorlog veldslag, de Eerste Slag om St Albans, Warwick’s vader [en zijn zoon en York] tegenover Henry Percy en de hertog van Somerset zouden komen te staan, die beiden sneuvelden, waardoor het zaad van verbittering en haat [hun zoons wilden wraak] verder werd gezaaid. [84][Extra pijnlijk, omdat die Henry Percy weer getrouwd was met een zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Eleanor, waardoor ook de neven tegenover elkaar kwamen te staan!]”[85]Maar samengevatHet voor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige oorlog, de mentale instabiliteit van de koning, dat Percy Neville conflict en allerlei andere conflicten tussen edelen, triggerden die Rozenoorlogen. [86]En in deze atmosfeer maakte een man als Warwick zijn carriere!WARWICK EN KONING EDWARD IVTOEN NOG THICK AS BROTHERS………….Wat in de vijftiger jaren begon als een schermutseling tussen de aanhangers van de hertog van York [met als bondgenoten Warwick en zijn vader ook een Richard Neville, weet u nog?] enerzijds en de getrouwen van koning Henry VI anderszijds [87], De zogenaamde Eerste Slag bij St Albans [88], werd gaandeweg steeds grimmiger, wat uiteindelijk uitmondde in een verbitterde burgeroorlog en een regelrechte strijd om de troon.Zie voor dat verloop noot 89, waarin de strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, steeds meer de leider van de Lancaster Partij werd.Ook wel begrijpelijk:Ze verdedigde niet alleen haar incapabele echtgenoot, maar ook de rechten van haar in 1453 geboren zoon, de toenmalige Prince of Wales, Edward of Westminster [90]Om een lang en bitter verhaal kort te maken:Na de nederlaag in de Slag bij Ludlow Bridge in 1459 waren de drie Richards gedwongen, in ballingschap te gaan, York en zijn tweede zoon Edmund, Earl of Rutland, naar Ierland, Warwick, zijn vader en York’s oudste zoon Edward, Earl of March [later Edward IV] naar Calais [91], ze kwamen terug, overwonnen aanvankelijk [92], waarna York koning Henry het recht van troonsopvolging afdwong [93], maar leden een bittere nederlaag in Wakefield, waarbij de hertog van York sneuvelde [of na afloop van de strijd gedood], zijn tweede zoon Edmund werd geexecuteerd, Warwick’s vader werd geexecuteerd en Warwick’s broer Sir Thomas Neville, sneuvelde. [94]Een militaire ramp dus, maar ook een persoonlijke tragedie,voor Warwick en Edward [latere Edward IV], die op dat moment pas 18 jaar oud was.Want beiden waren hun vader en een broer kwijt.Natuurlijk triggerde deze rampzalige verliezen deze twee heren, zowel om wraak te willen nemen als wel om nu echt voor de troon te gaan, wat in 1461 lukte, toen Edward, mede door inspanning van Warwick, tot koning werd gekroond na een aantal klinkende York overwinningen! [95]De nieuwe, jongere generatie York Leiders was dus aanmerkelijk harder en ging verder.Voor vader York was de troonsopvolging van Henry VI genoeg [96], de zoon echter ging direct voor de hoofdprijs.DE TROON!EDWARD EN WARWICKPARADISE?OR TROUBLE IN PARADISE…..THE BEGINNING:In het begin van de heerschappij van Edward IV leek alles nog zo goed te gaan.Warwick was king’s best ally and trusted advisor[97], bekwaam als hij was op diplomatiek gebied.Vooral op de Fransen maakte hij indruk.Zo merkte de Gouverneur van Abbeville op in een brief aan de Franse koningLouis XI [Lodewijk XI]:[vertaald naar het Engels]””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.” [98] Naar mijn mening vulden Warwick en zijn koning Edward IV elkaar perfect aan.Warwick had het politieke inzicht en hoewel een redelijk goed militair, was het Edward IV, die een brilliant legeraanvoerder was en zelden een veldslag verloor.Zelfs op zijn achttiende had hij in de slag bij St Mortimers Cross in 1461, kort na de dood van zijn vader en broer [99] Jasper Tudor [oom van de latere koning Henry VII] , halfbroer [van moederskant] van koning Henry VI, verslagen en een zeer ervaren legeraanvoerder. [100] Zelf schrijf ik in mijn artikel ”The Causes of the wars of the Roses/A travel to the Past:”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.” [101]Het was een Golden Couple:Edward IV, jong en een van de mooiste mannen van zijn tijd, een brilliant legeraanvoerder en Warwick, charmant, geslepen, zeer ervaren, een goed militair maar een nog veel betere diplomaat.Helaas…..het mocht niet duren….Het is nu eenmaal zo”When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.There is no middleground” [102]Maar naast die machtsstrijd, die er ook tussen hen was, was het breekpunt het Geheime Huwelijk, dat Edward IV sloot met Elizabeth Woodville, weduwe van nota bene een Lancaster supporter, de edelman John Grey, die in de Tweede Slag om St Albans was gesneuveld [1461, uitgevochten tussen Warwick en Margaretha van Anjou/supporters, beslissende Lancaster overwinning] [103]Warwick was aan het onderhandelen over een politiek zeer voordelig huwelijk met de Franse prinses Bona, schoonzuster van de Franse koning Louis XI, toen bleek, dat de koning [zonder Warwick in kennis te stellen, al met Elizabeth Woodville getrouwd was. [104]Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick’s ego, die in het buitenland voor gek stond, de dame was ook nog eens weduwe van een man, die supporter geweest was van de Lancaster erfvijand!En tot overmaat van ramp begon de koning de aanzienlijke familie van zijn koningin, de Wooodvilles, te bevoordelen en aanzienlijke posities te geven, waardoor Warwick aan macht inboette! [105]Van Warwick’s kant dus wel begrijpelijk, dat zijn wrok gevoed werd en daarmee zijn zijn vervolgstappen beter te verklaren.Wat uw opmerking:”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.’ [106], dus wel zeer simplistisch maakt!HEBT U ZOVER NOG MEEGELEZEN?/MOOI!/DAN STAAT U ECHT OPEN VOOR KRITIEK EN BENT U BEREID, BIJ TE LEREN:VERVOLG:EDWARD AND WARWICKDE BREUKOndanks de strubbelingen over het Geheime Huwelijk van de koningen de toenemende invloed van de Woodvilles [de familie van Edward IV’s koningin], hield, om het even populair te zeggen, Edward IV nog van Warwick.Zo werd zijn broer, George Neville, tot Aartsbisschop van York benoemd en in juli 1465, toen de tragische [voormalige] koning Henry VI gevangen genomen werd, begeleidde Warwick hem naar gevangenschap in The Tower. [107]MAAR TOEN KWAM DE KLAPPER [OF KLAPPERS], DIE WARWICK EN EDWARD IV UIT ELKAAR DREEF!Terwijl Warwick de Koninklijke Opdracht kreeg, zowel met de Fransen en de Boergondiers [elkaars vijanden, de Bourgondiers waren de bondgenoten van de Engelsen geweest gedurende de Honderdjarige Oorlog] [108] te onderhandelen over een huwelijk van de zuster van de koning [Margaret] met een van de twee partijen en Warwick langzamerhand de aandacht verschoof naar de Fransen, bij wie hij een uitstekende reputatie genoot [109], sloot Edward IV een geheim verdrag met de Bourgondiers [uiteindelijk werd Margaret uitgehuwelijkt aan de Boergondische Graaf Karel de Stoute] [110], waardoor Warwick weer voor Gek stond!Zaken liepen nog meer uit de hand, omdat de schoonvader van de koning, Richard Woodville, Graaf Rivers, fel voor de verbintenis met de Boergondiers was. [111]Maar los daarvan:Het WAS verstandige en wijze politiek van Warwick, de voorkeur te geven aan een Franse alliantie:Frankrijk was een machtige monarchie en de voormalige tegenstander in de door Engeland begonnen Honderdjarige Oorlog [112] en als bondgenoot veel waardevoller dan het Graafschap Boergondie!MAAR ER GEBEURDE MEER TUSSEN WARWICK EN EDWARD IVWant tot overmaat van ramp weigerde Edward IV een huwelijk goed te keuren tussen Warwick’s oudste dochter en zijn [Edward IV’s] broer George, de hertog van Clarence. [113]Waarmee de maat voor Warwick vol was en duidelijk werd, dat Graaf Rivers [de schoonvader van Edward IV] de machtsstrijd had gewonnen.Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick persoonljk, maar ook voor de gehele Familie Neville, waarvan Warwick het Hoofd was. [114]Om een lang Verhaal kort te maken:Warwick stoorde zich niet aan het verbod van de koning, maar huwelijkte zijn dochter Isabel vrolijk uit aan ’s Konings broer George, hertog van Clarence, die ook al zo zijn eigen ambities had en graag met Warwick opliep, ook al omdat hij de illusie had [en misschien was dat ook Warwick’s intentie], dat Warwick Edward IV door hem zou willen vervangen als koning [115] [en vergeet ook niet, dat Warwick, na de koning, de rijkste man in Engeland was en dat een huwelijk met zijn dochter een zeer lucratieve zaak was. [116]Het Paar trouwde in 1469 in Calais, met de zegen van de Aartsbisschop van York, George Neville, broer van Warwick. [117]Daarna escaleerde de Zaak snel en een wervelwind aan gebeurtenissen volgdeWarwick orchestreerde een opstand in het Noorden, waarmee hij schijnbaar niets te maken had [slim!], onder leiding van een mysterieuze ”Robin van Redesdale” [118], keerde [in 1469] met schoonzoon George PLantagenet terug naar Engeland, ’s koning’s troepen werden door Robin of Redesdale verslagen in de slag bij Edgecote [119], waarna de vader en broer van deKoningin gevangengenomen werden en geexecuteerd [120] Drama ging door:Later werd de koning zelf gevangengezet, weer vrijgelaten door Warwick [121], een tijd leek dat dan weer redelijk te gaan tussen de koning en Warwick [de koning had Warwick en George hun verraad vergeven] [122], totdat de bom weer barstte, Warwick en George opnieuw in opstand kwamen en de koning gedwongen was, Engeland te verlaten en met een kleine groep getrouwen, waaronder zijn toen zeer loyale broer Richard. hertog van Gloucester en zijn boezemvriend, Lord Hastings [123].De koning ging in ballingschap naar Bourgondie, waar zijn zuster Margaret inmiddels met Graaf van Bourgondie Karel de Stoute getrouwd was. [124] Warwick sloot intussen een bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou en plaatste de geestelijk instabiele koning Henry VI opnieuw op de troon [maar Warwick regeerde uiteraard] [125]Hiermee was Warwick definitief naar de kant van Lancaster overgelopen,iets wat enkele jaren daarvoor nog ondenkbaar was [zijn eigen vader en broer waren omgekomen tijdens de strijd in 1461] [126]Zijn bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou werd bezegeld [voor wat, hoort wat!] door het huwelijk tussen Warwick’s jongste dochter Anne Neville en Margaretha’s en Henry VI’s zoon, Edward of Westminster, de Lancaster Prince of Wales. [127]Het Einde verliep tragisch, want Warwick’s periode van macht was een korte vreugde.Edward IV [wat was ook anders te verwachten] keerde naar Engeland terug met een leger [geholpen door zijn zwager Graag Karel de Stoute van Bourgondie] en versloeg Warwick in de slag bij Barnet [128], waarbij Warwick en zijn broer John, de Eerste Markies van Montagu, sneuvelden.Warwick’s schoonzoon George Plantagenet had zich inmiddels weer verzoend met broer Edward, waarschijnlijk gepiqueerd omdat Warwick zijnkaarten niet meer op hem als koning zette. [129]Zie voor een zeer interessant overzicht van Warwick’s carriere de documentaire van de Britse historicus Dan Jones [130]Met de dood van Warwick kwam feitelijk een einde aan de machtspositie van de Familie Neville.Erbij gezegd moet nog worden, dat zij tot een van de weinige adellijke Families behoorden, die aan de kant van het Huis van York stonden.De meeste adelsfamilies waren Lancaster, en dus koning Henry VI, trouw gebleven. [131]Want de monarchie was nog praktisch sacraal en het afzetten van een koning, ook al was dat al wel gebeurd met Edward II [hoewel ten gunste van zijn eigen zoon] en Richard II [usurpatie door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, waarmee die het zaad van die ellende van de Rozenoorlogen werd gezaaid] [132], het afzetten van een koning dus, was nog net geen heiligschennis.Margaretha van Anjou, die ook met een troepenmacht naar Engeland was gezeild, maar helaas voor de Lancaster zaak te laat in Engeland aankwam om samen met Warwick Edward IV in een militaire tangpositie te nemen, werd in mei 1471 door Edward IV verslagen in de slag bij Tewkesbury, waarbij de kans op een Lancaster heerschappij verkeken was. [133]Tijdens het leven van Edward IV, althans.Na de dood van Edward IV bemachtigde zijn broer Richard, de hertog vanGloucester, de troon, als Richard III [Zie noot 45]] en werd hij, na twee jaar koningschap, zoals ikal in bovenstaande had vermeld, in de slagbij Bosworth verslagen door Henry Tudor, de latere Hendrik VII, zoon van Margaret Beaufort [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Hiermee kwam niet alleen definitief een einde aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ookaan het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors brak aan. [Zie noten 46 t/m 50]EPILOOGAanleiding tot mijn schrijven, een Opus, dat ik in september 2019 ben begonnen en nu heb voltooid, is uw ongenuanceerde uitspraakover een van de belangrijkste Spelers tijdens de Rozenoorlogen, Richard Neville,16e Graaf van WarwickNogmaals herhaald mijn reden tot kritiek:Op bladzijde 24 van uw uitgave ”De geschiedenis achter de Game of Thrones”,schreef u dus:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROONDe Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”Einde uw tekstIn bovenstaande heb ik u niet alleen uitgelegd, waarom deze Passage uituw tijdschrift kort door de bocht, verward en historisch onjuist is [ik verwijsnaar het begin van mijn schrijven], ook heb ik u meegenomen opeen Reis door de Tijd, met uitgebreide informatie over de achtergrondenvan de Rozenoorlogen, tegen welks licht de carriere van Richard Neville,bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” gezien moet worden.Mensen zijn complexe wezens en zelden is iemand alleen ”de verrader” en handelt/zij hij alleen ”uit machtswellust”Handelingen van mensen, zeker uit voorbije tijden, die qua wereldbeelden opvattingen ver afstaan van de onze, moeten bekeken worden vanuitde complexiteit, die zij verdienen.Ik hoop, dat ik met dit commentaar ertoe heb bijgedragen, dat u inhet vervolg complexe historische gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingenniet zult afdoen met goedkope one liners, maar recht doetaan de tijd, waarin een en ander dient te worden geplaatst en deafwegingen die iemand tot zijn gedrag hebben bewogen, ook meeweegt.Alleen dan doet u recht aan de historische werkelijkheid, voor zover wij die kennen.Een gecompliceerd en veelzijdig carrierepoliticus [om maar eenmodern woord te gebruiken] als de Graaf van Warwick verdient beter.Vriendelijke groetenAstrid Essed Amsterdam NOTENVoor uw gemak heb ik de bijbehorende noten in links ondergebrachtZie voor noten 1 t/m 133LINKShttps://www.astridessed.nl/noten-1-t-m-133-bij-brief-aan-het-historische-tijdschrift-ontdek-over-verkeerde-historische-informatie-over-de-rozenoorlogen/
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Rozenoorlogen/Originele mail Astrid Essed aan Ontdek Magazine over een historische misser
Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.
OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890”
THAT WAS THEIR REACTION!
You can understand I was a little proud on that and see the
text about the House of York you can read now!
SEE TEXT ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA UNDER NOTE 1
[NOTE 1, A]
And as an extra Source, under Note 1, my whole Correspondence with the Encyclopaedia Britannica
The house was founded by King Edward III’s fifth son, Edmund of Langley (1341–1402), 1st Duke of York, but Edmund and his own son, Edward, 2nd Duke of York, had for the most part undistinguished careers. Edward, dying childless, passed on the dukedom to his nephew Richard (whose mother was a descendant of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence). Richard, 3rd Duke of York (1411–60), was the initial Yorkist claimant to the crown, in opposition to the Lancastrian Henry VI. It may be said that his claim, when it was advanced, was rightly barred by prescription, the house of Lancaster having then occupied the throne for three generations, and that it was really owing to the misgovernment of Queen Margaret of Anjou and her favourites that it was advanced at all. Yet it was founded upon strict principles of lineal descent, for the 3rd Duke of York was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second surviving son of Edward III, whereas the house of Lancaster came of John of Gaunt, a younger brother of Lionel. One thing that might possibly have been considered an element of weakness in Richard’s claim was that it was derived through females—an objection actually brought against it by Chief JusticeJohn Fortescue (probably a reflection of the increasingly common practice among the English nobility of passing on their estates to a male heir). But apart from strict legality, Richard’s claim was probably supported in the popular view by the fact that he was descended from Edward III through his father no less than through his mother.
After seeking for many years to correct the weakness of Henry VI’s government, Richard first took up arms and at length claimed the crown in Parliament as his right. The Lords, or those who did not purposely stay away from the House, admitted that his claim was unimpeachable but suggested as a compromise that Henry should retain the crown for life and that Richard and his heirs succeed after his death. This was accepted by Richard, and an act to that effect received Henry’s own assent. But the act was repudiated by Margaret of Anjou and her followers, and Richard was slain at Wakefield fighting against them. In little more than two months, however, his son was proclaimed king at London by the title of
Edward IV, and the bloody victory in the Battle of Towton immediately after drove his enemies into exile and paved the way for his coronation.
After his recovery of the throne in 1471, Edward IV had little more to fear from the rivalry of the house of Lancaster. But the seeds of distrust had already been sown among the members of his own family, and in 1478 his brother Clarence was put to death—secretly, indeed, within the Tower of London, but still by his authority and that of Parliament—as a traitor. In 1483 Edward himself died; and his eldest son, Edward V, after a nominal reign of two months and a half, was put aside by his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, who became Richard III, and then, it is said, caused him and his brother Richard, Duke of York, to be murdered. But in little more than two years Richard was slain at Bosworth Field by the Tudor Earl of Richmond, who, being proclaimed king as Henry VII, shortly afterwards fulfilled his pledge to marry the eldest daughter of Edward IV and so unite the houses of York and Lancaster.
Here the dynastic history of the house of York ends, for its claims were henceforth merged in those of the house of Tudor.
This article was most recently revised and updated by Jeff Wallenfeldt. END OF NOTE 1
B
MY CORRESPONDENCE IN EMAIL WITH THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
ADDED
MY LAST REACTION ABOUT THE CHANGES OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA
Please see below the feedback from the Editorial Team regarding the feedback that you have given.
OK, we’ve made a couple of small changes to this article, based on the reader’s message. Here’s the description of the revision in the article history (http://www.britannica.com/top ic/653692/history):
“Changing ‘usurped’ to ‘overthrown’ to acknowledge the contention of the legitimacy of the York claim based on the ‘Mortimer Claim.’ Also mentioned the 14th century practice among the nobility of privileging heir-male claims over heir-general claims.”
”House of York, younger branch of the house of Plantagenet of England. In the 15th century, having overthrown the house of Lancaster, it provided three kings of England—Edward IV, Edward V, and Richard III—and, in turn defeated, passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty.”
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
______________________________ __ From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com] Sent: 25 February 2015 04:38 To: ukcustomerservice Subject: Re: (ESSED, Astrid) Britannica [AM]
TO BRITANNICA CUSTOMER SERVICE
Dear Sir/Madam,
You’re welcome. I passed this feedback to you with great pleasure. Thanks very much for your reaction and the trouble you have taken to pass my feedback to your Editorial Team.
To make things easier I send you the letter to Encyclopaedia Britannica as posted on my website, as a later comment on the same subject
See
THE WARS OF THE ROSES/LANCASTER AND YORK/ USURPATION AND THE RIGHT TO THE THRONE BY FEMALES/LETTER TO ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
We have passed your comprehensive feedback on to our Editorial Team for review. Thank you for taking the time to review this content and provide all of this feedback. When they have reviewed your comments we will let you know their response.
Kind regards
Britannica Customer Service
If you can include any previous message history in your reply it will speed up the time it takes to reply.
We hope that this is of some help to you. If you require further assistance with this, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0800 282433 or +44 207 500 7843 for customers outside the UK.
Encyclopædia Britannica (UK) Ltd Registered in England and Wales: Number 3830890
______________________________ __ From: Astrid Essed [astridessed@yahoo.com<mailto: astridessed@yahoo.com>] Sent: 16 February 2015 22:19 To: enquiries – General Enquiries at Britannica.co.uk Subject: Comments on your Page about the House of York
TO THE EDITORS OF ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THE HOUSE OF YORK SOME COMMENTS
Dear Editors,
At first I want to express my great admiration for your large scale History Page about ther various periods of human history,
I especially paid attention on your contributions to the English Late Medieval History and visited your page about the Hundred Years War between England and France with pleasure, learning much of your information
However I want to make some comments on your contribution, referring to your remarks about the ”usurpation” of the House of Lancaster by the House of York, as the ”weakness” of the claim to the throne by Richard, Duke of York, being derived by females.
But first, the usurpation:
FIRST:
USURPATION OF THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER BY THE HOUSE OF YORK
I think you are wrong here, since, according to my opinion, there was no ”usurpation” here, in the classic meaning of the definition. To go to the definition of ”usurpation”:
”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.” [3]
I will not go extensively into your remark that the House of York ”passed on its claims to the Tudor dynasty”, which is wrong. Because, although there was a certain [not Tudor, but Beaufort/Lancaster] claim to the English throne [4], the House of York had a far stronger claim to the throne. I refer to that later. And smart Henry Tudor [who became King Henry VII and was undoubtedly aware of that stronger York claim] claimed the throne as ”right of conquest”,not by ”right of inheritance”, after his victory in the Battle of Bosworth, where he defeated the Yorkist King Richard III. [5] And as a ”right of conquest” the legality of Henry’s kingship was considered generally. [6]
I said it before According the definition, usurpation is ”illegal seizure and occupation of a throne.”
That means not only deposing a King (which was almost a deadly sin in the Middle Ages), but also through someone who had none or lesser right to the throne.
In this case, at first there was no deposal of the throne at all, since there was ”the Act of Accord” and later, when King Edward IV ascended the throne, the deposal of King Henry VI was not as ”illegal” as it seemed, because of two factors: The stronger claim of the House of York to the throne, [the Mortimer claim to the throne], as the fact, that the House of Lancaster itself rose into power by usurpation. But first the Act of Accord
I referred to the fact, that there was no deposal at all at first, mentioning the Act of Accord in 1460. [8]. that included, that King Henry VI remained King of England, but that Richard, Duke of York and his heirs would succeed Henry, thus desinheriting Henry´s son, Edward of Westminster. [9]
Of course one can put questions by disinheriting the Kings´s son, but that’s another story. The Act of Accord was a legal document, as a result of negociations between the Duke of York and the Parliament.(10), after his come back from Ireland and (indeed) seemed to have tried to seize the throne.[11]
Admitted, that [the deal of the Duke of York with the Parliament] was power play, since the party of the Duke of York was on the winning hand in the Wars of the Roses at that moment, but the Act of Accord did not come ´´out of the blue´´ either.
ACT OF ACCORD WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE
Susan Higginbotham, historical fictional writer of Margaret Anjou, mentions the Act of Accord as ´´York, after all, had bullied her husband (Henry VI, my remark) into disinheriting his own son in favor of York´´ (12) and it is her right to see it like that, but I have another vision, because I take the whole history, which preceeded the Accord Act. into consideration.
Since King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, died in 1447, Richard, Duke of York, was heir presumptive to the then childless King Henry VI. [13] But from various reasons, King Henry VI, and his wife, Queen Margaret of Anjou [14] favourited the party of the Duke’s adversary, Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset [who was of the Lancaster Swynford line] [15] and sent Richard as Lieutenant to Ireland, obviously in a sort of exile.[16] Tensions grew high in the 50ths between York and the Duke of Somerset [with the Queen as his ally], the King got mental ill and in 1453 became father, which ended York’s position as heir presumptive, but due to the mental illness of the King, he became Protector of the Realm twice. Enmity between York and Somerset [and Margaret of Anjou] rose farther and probably they wanted York to be arrested, so he and his allies armed themselves. A military confrontation was enevitable and broke out between York [with his brother in law and his nephew, Warwick the Kingmaker as allies] and the King [actually the Queen and Somerset], which was the start of the Wars of the Roses. After several bloody battles, in 1459, the Coventry Parliament [probably instigated by Margaret of Anjou] attainted York and his allies [declared them to ”traitors” without trial] and forfeited their lives and estates [17], which left York [according to my opinion] no choice than first flee to Ireland and later trying to seize the throne, resulting in the Act of Accord.
I don’t think either York, however ambitious, was after the throne, before 1460. He had enough opportunities to have taken the throne before that [especially when the King was in his power after the First Battle of St Albans in 1455], but he never made an attempt untill he was pushed to the edge by the attainder of 1459. [18]
THE ACT OF ACCORD AFTERMATH BLOODY WAR, WAKEFIELD
When the Act of Accord had been accepted by the Lancastrian party, probably King Henry should have remained King till his death, but the bloody battles intensified. Understandably, Margaret of Anjou was furious about her son’s disinheritance and refused to accept it. She went to Scotland, asking Mary of Guelders, the Queen Regent, military support against the Yorkist party[19] and the military confrontations went on. In her absence, the Battle of Wakefield took place,where the Duke of York [higly probable] died in battle and his son Edmund Earl of Rutland, as the Dukes brother in law, the 5th Earl of Salisbury [the father of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the ”Kingmaker], were executed after the battle. [20] Unlike popular belief, Margaret of Anjou was not present at Wakefield, so she couldn’t have ordered their executions. [21] She returned to England and defeated Warwick in the 2nd Battle of St Albans [22], where she was responsible for the executions following. [23] However, she spared the life of John Neville, brother of the Earl of Warwick, probably since the brother of her commander the 3rd Duke of Somerset [son to the late 2nd Duke of Somerset, enemy of Richard of York] was a captive in Yorkist hands. [24]
But relieved as she might have been to get rid of the Duke of York, she had a more formidable military adversary in his son and heir Edward, now Duke of York, who defeated the Lancastrian forces in the bloody and decisive Battle of Towton. [25]
THE ACT OF ACCORD/AFTERMATH THE DUKE OF YORK’S SON AND HEIR’S ASCENDANCY TO THE THRONE KING EDWARD IV
Edward of York was not like his father, who had a loyalty to the throne till he was pushed to the extremes. Probably hardened by the loss of his father and brother at Wakefield [where Warwick also lost his father and brother Edward’s maternal uncle and cousin],as by an attitude of machiavellistic politics, he was not inclined to hold on to the Act of accord, remaining Henry VI King of England. In fact, since his mental instability, as the reality of Edward’s victories, he wouldn’t have ruled anyway. He was imprisoned in the Tower.
At march 1461, Edward was declared King of England, fulfilling his father’s wishes for his sons.
USURPATION OR NOT? THE CLAIMS TO THE THRONE OF THE HOUSE OF YORK
Although you call the overthrowing of the Act of Accord an usurpation, to my opinion it is no usurpation at all, since the Lancasters should not have to be kings all along, due to the superior claim to the throne of York, as the Lancaster usurpation of King Richard II. [26]
The claims to the throne first.
Richard, Duke of York had superior claims to the throne. He was the grandson of Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of King Edward III, but that was not his superior claim, since the House of Lancaster [The ”King Henry’s” as the Beauforts} descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of King Edward III. But it was his mother” side, that gave him the superior claim.[27]
York’s maternal grandfather, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, was the materrnal grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, the SECOND son of King Edward III and that gave him a greater claim than that of the Lancaster. See the Family Tree
King Edward III
Lionel of Antwerp [second son to Edward III]
Philippa P lantagenet [Lionel’s daughter], married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd 3th Earl of March
Roger, 4th Earl of March [Philippa Plantagenet’s son]
Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March [son to Roger]
Anne Mortimer [daughter to Roger], maried Richard Conisburtgh [son of Edmund of Langley, first Duke of York]
Richard, Duke of York [son to Anne Mortimer, descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward II]
Isabel Plantagenet [daughter to Anne Mortimer and sister to Richard, Duke of York] [28]
MORTIMERS CLAIM TO THE THRONE
But there was more, which asserted the superior York claims. Since King Richard II was childless, he appointed as his heir presumptive, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March [Richard of York’s maternal grandfather]. Roger was the son of Richard II’s cousin Philippa [Richard II and Philippa were the children of two brothers, The Black Prince and Lionel of Antwerp, the first and second son of King Edward III]. [29]
Roger Mortimer never became King, since he died a year before Richard II, but his heir presumptive right passed to his son, Edmund, 5th Earl of March, who was the maternal uncle of Richard of York. [30]
However, since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from Richard II, Edmund, only a boy, was overlooked, so also his superior right to the throne. [31] However, when Edmund Mortimer [brother to Richard the Duke’s mother, Anne Mortimer]died childless, York not only inherited his lands and estates, as his titles, but also his heir presumptive right.
After the death of King Henry VI’s uncle, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, [brother of his father Henry V],York became heir presumptive till the birth of Henry’s son in 1453, Edward of Westminster. [32]
WHO WERE THE REAL USURPERS? LANCASTER USURPATION OF RICHARD II
I have shown above, that it was Henry IV, founder of the House of Lancaster, who usurped not only the throne of England by deposing the rightful King Richard II [33], but also overlooked the rightful heir presumptive, Edmund Mortimer. When the right to the throne was justly followed, not King Henry IV, but Edmund Mortimer had ascended the throne and was probably succeeded by his nephew Richard, Duke of York.
Therefore it is [with all respect] utter nonsense to speak of an ”usurpation of the throne” by Edward, son of Richard of York, in 1461. The only usurpators were the Lancasters.
Amitted, due to the military succesful reign of King Henry V [34], the usurpation was forgotten, but that didn’t make it undone. Therefore it were the Mortimers and their descendant Richard of York, who should have been Kings from the beginning.
I think that was the reason, that York was ousted of power and sent to Ireland in the late 40s. And probably the reason, Margaret of Anjou didn’t trust him. [35]
SECOND:
THE ”WEAKNESS” OF THE CLAIM OF RICHARD OF YORK, SINCE IT WAS DERIVED FROM FEMALES?
You justly confirmed the superior claim of York to the House of Lancaster, as you correctly state, that was the reign of Henry VI succesful, the claim was never advanced at all. I also think, that the only reason York advanced his claim was the unsuccesful rule of Henry VI, due to his mental problems, his corrupt advisors, as the great losses in the Hundred Years War.
But I disagree with you on the point, that the weakness in the claim of York was, that it was derived from females.
Because although men had the first rights to the throne, there was no Salic Law in England, that exclude women from the throne, nor from claims to the throne, which passed through their descendants.
For example Queen Maud [mother to the later King Henry II and daughter to King Henry I, who was the son to William the Conqueror] was declared heiress to the throne by her father after the death of his only son. [36] Granted, the Norman barons didn’t accept her after the death of her father and civil war burst out [37], but were women excluded, her father should not have declare his daughter heiress.
But moreover, claiming rights to the throne from female line is done in English history at several occasions and was considered legally and valid.
FOUR IMPORTANT HISTORICAL OCCASIONS BY WHICH MEN CLAIMED OR INHERITED THE THRONE FROM FEMALE LINE
There are at least four important occasions by which men claimed the throne from female descent.
First: Stephen of Blois, cousin to Queen Maud [daughter of King Henry I and heiress to the throne], who claimed the right to the throne through female line [being a maternal grandson to William the Conqueror]
The first was in the time of Queen Maud [called also ”Empress Maud because of her earlier marriage with the Holy Roman Emperor]. Her right to the English throne was challenged by her cousin, Stephen of Blois, who claimed the throne through his grandfather, William the Conqueror, who was his maternal grandfather. [38] He had men enough, prepared to support his maternal claim, took the throne, drove his cousin Mathilda and her husband Henry of Anjou out of the country and a yearlong military struggle, the anarchy, started. [39] Eventually, after the death of Stephen’s son and heir, a deal was made, that Stephen would rule, but had to recognise Maud’s son, Henry of Anjou, as his heir. [40]
Second: Henry of Anjou [King Henry II], son to Queen Maud, who inherited the throne through his mother.
After Stephen’s death, Henry of Anjou would become King Henry II [41], father to Richard Lion Heart [Richard I] (42) and John, King of England [John Lackland] [43] Henry II was the founder of the Plantagenet Dynasty. [44]
So here are two men who claimed or inherited their throne from females. Stephen of Blois, claiming the throne as a grandson of William the Conqueror from his mother’s side as King Henry II, who inherited the throne from his mother’s side. No ”weakness” here.
Third King Edward III, who claimed the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France Resulting in the Hundred Years War with France, being the maternal grandson of the French King Philip IV.
Perhaps most famous is the claim to the French throne, laid by King Edward III [45], through is mother, Queen Isabella of France (46), who was the daughter of the French King, Philip IV (47) That made Edward III the maternal grandson to a French King. When the last son of King Philip IV, named Charles IV (48), died in 1328 without a male heir, the question was Who is going to be the new King! His sister Isabella, mother of Edward III, claimed the throne for her son, but problem was, that since 1316 the Salic Law was introduced in France (which excluded women as heirs to the throne). (49) This was no coincidence, but due to an adultery scandal, involving the wives of Charles IV and his brother Louis X (50), The Tour de Nesle Affair (51), questioning the paternity of the sons of the King. This was particularly urgent after the death of Louis X, since the legitimacy of his daughter Joan was in question, (52) due to her mother´s alleged adultery. (53)
Anyway, Isabella´s claim to the throne for Edward III was rejected, since she, being a woman, was excluded from the rights to the throne and couldn´t transmit a right what she didn´t possess. (54) But that was the French Law. Point I want to make is, that claiming through a female was quite strong in England, which didn´t know the Salic Law. Eventually Edward III would claim the French throne anyway [55], which was one of the causes of the Hundred Year´s war with France. And that´s my second point I want to state. Since no one in England questioned Edward´s claim through a female and the nobles wholeheartedly supported him in the war with France, female claims were neither unusual nor ´´weak´´.
FOURTH LANCASTER CLAIM TO THE THRONE THROUGH FEMALE LINE/THE QUESTION EDMUND CROUCHBACK
Since Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne of Richard II in 1399, becoming King Henry IV, a Lancaster right to the throne was of the greatest importance, that was superior to that of Richard II, son of the first son of Edward III as the Mortimer right to the throne [descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III. So Henry IV was clever enough not to base his claim on his fathers side, since John of Gaunt [his father] was the third son of Edward III. In stead of that, he based it on the side of his mother, Blanche, of Lancaster [56], who was the great granddaughter of Edmund Crouchback.[57] And Edmund Crouchback was the son of King Henry III [58] and the younger brother of King Edward I. [59] One could say? So what about the claim. Well, here it is. According to Henry IV [Lancastrian views], this Edmund Crouchback was not the second son of Henry III, but his first son in stead of Edward I, but disinherited because of his bodily deformity [a twisted back]
You see the consequences? That makes King Edward I, II, III and Richard II a sort of usurpers and the rights to the throne of Richard II as the Mortimers claim null and void, since Edward III would be an usurper king. However, it’s a pity for Henry IV and the other Lancasters, who claimed the Crouchback case, that there is no proof whatsoever, that Edward I was not the first son of King Henry III. So its pure Lancastrian propaganda. [60]
I mentioned this ”Edmund Crouchback claim” as the fourth historfical example of men, who based their claims on females or inherited the throne by females.
A proof, that deriving a right to the throne from females, as has done by Richard, Duke of York, was not ”weak” at all, but has proven valid and generally accepted through English history.
EPILOGUE
To my opinion, the deposing of King Henry VI by Edward of York, son of Richard, Duke of York, was no usurpation, since The Duke of York [who passed the right to the throne to his eldest son, Edward] had a superior right to the throne than King Henry VI, [called the Mortimer claim] being the descendant of Lionel of Antwerp, second son of Edward III, while Henry was the descendant of the third son of Edward III, John of Gaunt. In fact, after the death of King Richard II, the Dukes uncle, Edmund Mortimer, who was heir presumptive to Richard II should have become King of England. So by deposing Henry VI, Edward of York took his rightful place on the throne.
The reason why Edmund Mortimer didn’t become King was lain in the usurpation of Henry IV [grandfather to Henry VI] of the throne of Richard II, which was not only illegitimate, but also overlooking the superior Mortimer claim of Edmund Mortimer.
You also remarked the ”weak point” of the Mortimer claim [York’s right to the throne] his deriving from females. I’ve shown you four historical examples, by which claims to the throne [or even inheritance] by females were made, the most famous Edward III claim to the French throne by his mother, Queen Isabella [wife to Edward II] I think I have stated clearly, that the female right is valid and not weak.
I wrote this letter out of appreciation with your work. Thank you for reading it.
Much succes with your wortful historical research.
Kind greetings
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam The Netherlands
NOTES
[1]
ENGLISH HISTORY/THE WARS OF THE ROSES/ MARGARET OF ANJOU, TWO MAJOR PLAYERS ASTRID ESSED
The Swynford branch of the Lancaster line [the children of John of Gaunt, son to Edward III and his mistress Kathryn Swynford], called the ”Beauforts”, were legitimised first by King Richard II and later by King Henry IV [as legitimate son of John of Gaunt, the halfbrother of the Beauforts], on condition that they should not claim the throne.
”So Henry VII didn’t claim the throne through right of inheritance: he claimed it through the right of conquest, not through any of his own royal lineage.”
WOMEN’S HISTORY LEGITIMATE ENOUGH HERITAGE? TUDOR’S CLAIM TO THE THRONE [1485]
” Henry VII acknowledged the necessity of marrying Elizabeth of York to ensure the stability of his rule and weaken the claims of other surviving members of the House of York<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/House_of_York>, but he ruled in his own right and claimed the throne by right of conquest and not by his marriage to the heir of the House of York.”
”Margaret undoubtedly rejoiced over York’s death—York, after all, had bullied her husband into disinheriting his own son in favor of York, and Margaret had every reason to fear for her husband’s future in a government controlled by York—but she did not have what to her might well have been the pleasure of seeing her enemy fall.”
”The death of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, in 1447 left York next in line for succession to the throne, and the Beauforts had him sent—virtually banished—to Ireland<http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/293754/Ire land> as lord lieutenant.”
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA RICHARD, 3RD DUKE OF YORK
Kings favouritism of the Somerset and Suffolk party [which was the ”peace” party to France, more open for negociations] against the Gloucester [the Kings uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester] and York party [the war party to France]
”His attitude toward the Council’s surrender of Maine<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Maine_(province_of_France )>, in return for an extension of the truce with France and a French bride for Henry, must have contributed to his appointment on 30 July as Lieutenant of Ireland<http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Lord_Lieutenant_of_Irel and>. In some ways it was a logical appointment, as Richard was also Earl of Ulster<http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Earl_of_Ulster> and had considerable estates in Ireland, but it was also a convenient way of removing him from both England and France.”
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”In December 1459 York, Warwick and Salisbury had suffered attainder<http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Attainder>. Their lives were forfeit, and their lands reverted to the king; their heirs would not inherit.”
”On this day in 1459 the ‘Wars of the Roses’ between the houses of Lancaster and York took on an increased ferocity. Parliament had not met for three and a half years, since March 1456, when it had been dissolved following the resignation of Richard, duke of York, as Protector and the nominal resumption of authority by the mentally-unstable Henry VI. That summer the seat of government was effectively removed to Coventry, in the Lancastrian heart-lands, and the chief offices of state were allotted to intimates of the queen, Margaret of Anjou.” ON THIS DAY, 20 NOVEMBER 1459, THE ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS ASSEMBLES AT COVENTRY HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT ONLINE http://www.historyofparliament online.org/periods/medieval/ day-20-november-1459- parliament-devils-assembles- coventry
”While Mary was still mourning the death of King James II<http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/James_II_of_Scotland>, the Lancastrian Queen Margaret of Anjou<http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou> fled north across the border seeking refuge from the Yorkists. Mary sympathetically aided Margaret and took Edward of Westminster<http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminst er> into her household to keep them out of Yorkist hands. Mary’s dealings with Margaret were mainly to provide aid to the deposed queen. Mary gave a number of Scottish troops to help Margaret and the Lancastrian cause”
”John Neville had been captured but was spared execution, as the Duke of Somerset feared that his own younger brother who was in Yorkist hands might be executed in reprisal”
”Though Parliament conceded that Richard had the better claim to the throne, they were unwilling to depose him outright. A compromise was reached, and that compromise was the Act of Accord.”
´´Louis’ second wife Clementia was pregnant at the time of his death, leaving the succession in doubt. A son would have primacy over Louis’ daughter, Joan<http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Joan_II_of_Navarre>.[32]<h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo uis_X_of_France#cite_note-32> A daughter, however, would have a weaker claim to the throne, and would need to compete with Joan’s own claims – although suspicions hung over Joan’s parentage following the scandal in 1314´´
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Encyclopaedia Britannica versus Astrid Essed about the superior claim of the House of York on the English throne/Encyclopaedia Britannica corrects a mistake [2015]
King Charles III has officially delivered his first speech as British monarch. In an address recorded in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace earlier this afternoon, Charles spoke of his beloved mother, who he said always saw the best in people, and promised his lifelong service.
“I shall endeavor to serve you with loyalty, respect, and love,” he said.
Here, read King Charles
Here, read King Charles III’s first speech in full:
I speak to you today with feelings of profound sorrow. Throughout her life, Her Majesty The Queen – my beloved Mother – was an inspiration and example to me and to all my family, and we owe her the most heartfelt debt any family can owe to their mother; for her love, affection, guidance, understanding and example. Queen Elizabeth was a life well lived; a promise with destiny kept and she is mourned most deeply in her passing. That promise of lifelong service I renew to you all today.
Alongside the personal grief that all my family are feeling, we also share with so many of you in the United Kingdom, in all the countries where The Queen was Head of State, in the Commonwealth and across the world, a deep sense of gratitude for the more than seventy years in which my Mother, as Queen, served the people of so many nations.
In 1947, on her twenty-first birthday, she pledged in a broadcast from Cape Town to the Commonwealth to devote her life, whether it be short or long, to the service of her peoples. That was more than a promise: it was a profound personal commitment which defined her whole life. She made sacrifices for duty. Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss. In her life of service we saw that abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as Nations. The affection, admiration and respect she inspired became the hallmark of her reign. And, as every member of my family can testify, she combined these qualities with warmth, humour and an unerring ability always to see the best in people.
I pay tribute to my Mother’s memory and I honour her life of service. I know that her death brings great sadness to so many of you and I share that sense of loss, beyond measure, with you all. When The Queen came to the throne, Britain and the world were still coping with the privations and aftermath of the Second World War, and still living by the conventions of earlier times. In the course of the last seventy years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths. The institutions of the State have changed in turn. But, through all changes and challenges, our nation and the wider family of Realms – of whose talents, traditions and achievements I am so inexpressibly proud – have prospered and flourished. Our values have remained, and must remain, constant.
The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain, as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England – the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted. In that faith, and the values it inspires, I have been brought up to cherish a sense of duty to others, and to hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government. As The Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation. And wherever you may live in the United Kingdom, or in the Realms and territories across the world, and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love, as I have throughout my life.
My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply. But I know this important work will go on in the trusted hands of others. This is also a time of change for my family. I count on the loving help of my darling wife, Camilla. In recognition of her own loyal public service since our marriage seventeen years ago, she becomes my Queen Consort. I know she will bring to the demands of her new role the steadfast devotion to duty on which I have come to rely so much.
As my Heir, William now assumes the Scottish titles which have meant so much to me. He succeeds me as Duke of Cornwall and takes on the responsibilities for the Duchy of Cornwall which I have undertaken for more than five decades. Today, I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru, the country whose title I have been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life and duty. With Catherine beside him, our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the centre ground where vital help can be given. I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.
In a little over a week’s time we will come together as a nation, as a Commonwealth and indeed a global community, to lay my beloved mother to rest. In our sorrow, let us remember and draw strength from the light of her example. On behalf of all my family, I can only offer the most sincere and heartfelt thanks for your condolences and support. They mean more to me than I can ever possibly express.
And to my darling Mama, as you begin your last great journey to join my dear late Papa, I want simply to say this: thank you. Thank you for your love and devotion to our family and to the family of nations you have served so diligently all these years. May “flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest”..
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor First Speech of king Charles III as a Monarch/Tribute to his mother Queen Elizabeth II
HISTORISCHE ACCURATESSE IS HET EERSTE VEREISTE BIJDE BESCHRIJVING VAN HISTORISCHE GEBEURTENISSEN!DAARAAN ONTBRAK HET IN TIJDSCHRIFT ”ONTDEK” MET ALSTHEMA THE GAME OF THRONES
750 × 447Images may be subject to copyright. Find out moreImage credits AFBEELDING/HISTORISCHE FICTIERICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK [ACHTERIN] MET ZIJNNEEF EN KONING, EDWARD IV [VOORAAN], VAN WIE HIJ DE EERSTEJAREN VAN ZIJN KONINGSCHAP DE VOORNAAMSTE ADVISEUR ENBONDGENOOT WAS TOTDAT ZIJ DOOR EEN SAMENSPEL VAN FACTOREN GEBROUILLEERD RAAKTEN EN RICHARD NEVILLE OVERLIEP NAAR HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER, DE AARTSVIJANDEN VAN EDWARD IV[DIE TOT HET HUIS VAN YORK BEHOORDE]DE LANCASTERS EN DE YORKS, BEIDEN BEHOREND TOT HET ENGELSE KONINGSHUIS PLANTAGENET, VOERDEN EEN DERTIG JAAR DURENDE, VERBITTERDE STRIJD OM DE ENGELSE TROON, DE ROZENOORLOGEN OF COUSINS WAR GENOEMD https://www.astridessed.nl/the-wars-of-the-rosescauses-of-the-wars-of-the-rosesa-travel-to-the-past/
AFBEELDING HISTORISCHE FICTIEKONING EDWARD IV MET AAN DE ZIJKANT MARGARET BEAUFORT, MOEDERVAN HENRY TUDOR [DE LATERE HENRY VII, DIE NA ZIJN OVERWINNINGIN DE SLAG BIJ BOSWORTH IN 1485, HET OFFICIELE EINDE VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN, TROUWDE MET ELISABETH OF YORK, EDWARD IV”S OUDSTE DOCHTER, WAARMEE DE HUIZEN VAN LANCASTER EN YORKWAREN VERENIGD.HENRY VI EN ELISABETH OF YORK WAREN DE OUDERS VAN DE LATERE HENRY VIII]NAAST MARGARET BEAUFORT [BEHOREND TOT DE ONWETTIGE TAK VAN HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER, DE BEAUFORTS], HAAR DERDE MANTHOMAS STANLEY, EERSTE GRAAF VAN DERBY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Margaret_Beaufort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby
Warwick as drawn in the Rous Roll. He displays on his shield the arms of Montagu quartering Monthermer. The bull’s head is the crest of the Neville family, the eagle is the crest of Montagu.
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK, WITH ON THE BACKGROUND HIS WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERSHISTORICAL FICTIONRICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, MET OP DE ACHTERGROND ZIJN VROUW EN DOCHTERS/HISTORISCHE FICTIE
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, DE KINGMAKERHISTORISCHE FICTIE
DE KINGMAKER EN ZIJN DOCHTERS LADY ANNE EN LADYISOBEL [UIT DE SERIE ”THE WHITE QUEEN]
HISTORISCHE FICTIE [AFBEELDING]RICHARD NEVILLE, 16 DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, AAN DE VOORAVOND VAN DE SLAG BIJ BARNET IN 1471 [DE DEFINITIEVE EINDSTRIJD TUSSEN HEM EN ZIJN NEEF KONING EDWARD IV, VAN WIE HIJ DE VOORMALIGE EN BELANGRIJKSTE ADVISEUR WAS.IN DEZE SLAG SNEUVELDE WARWICK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet
Late 15th-century artistic portrayal of the battle: Edward IV (left), wearing a circlet and mounted on a horse, leads the Yorkist charge and pierces the Earl of Warwick (right) with his lance; in reality, Warwick was not killed by Edward.
DE UITEINDELIJKE STRIJD TUSSEN RICHARD NEVILLE EN KONING EDWARD IV, WAS EEN ONDERDEEL VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN, DE 30 JAAR DURENDE STRIJD OM DE ENGELSE TROON TUSSEN HET HUIS VAN LANCASTER EN HET HUIS VAN YORK, TWEE TAKKEN VAN HET ENGELSE KONINGSHUIS PLANTAGENET [DAT HEERSTE VAN 1154 TOT 1485]DE ROZENOORLOGEN DUURDEN VAN 1455 TOT 1485, WAARMEE EENEINDE KWAM AAN HET HUIS PLANTAGENET
ZIE VOOR ACHTERGRONDINFORMATIE EN OORZAKEN VAN DE ROZENOORLOGEN
ROZENOORLOGEN TUSSEN HUIZEN YORK EN LANCASTER/ONZININFORMATIE OVER HOOFDROLSPELER RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK ”DE KINGMAKER”
AANDe Redactie van Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of ThronesUitgegeven in 2019 [Wegens drukke werkzaamheden is deze historische kritiek nu, september 2021, aan u verstuurd.Onderstaand magnum opus, want zo mag ik het wel noemen, is door mij aangevangen in september 2019, kort na lezing van uw tijdschriftDuik dus even in uw archieven] Onderwerp: Onzininformatie over Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, beter bekend als ”The Kingmaker”
Geachte Redactie, Alvorens met mijn kritiek los te barsten, een oprecht woord van waardering.Als groot fan van de nu afgelopen grootse serie ”Game of Thrones” heb ik het buitengewoon gewaardeerd, dat u een uitgebreide achtergrondspecial hebt samengesteld, waarin u op een diversiteit aan aspecten over de serie zelf, maarook op een aantal historische perioden, zoals de Vikingen, de eerste christenen, kaliefen in het Midden-Oosten en andere onderwerpen, bent ingegaan.Of het allemaal historisch klopt, wat u schrijft, heb ik nog niet in detail kunnen nagaan, omdat ik nog niet alles heb gelezen [aanstonds zult u begrijpen, waarom ik dit naar voren breng], maar wat ik er wel van gelezen heb, komtals redelijk betrouwbaar en goed doorwrocht over. Totdat ik bij het gedeelte over de Rozenoorlogen kwam [blz 20 t/m 25 van uw Magazine] en, excusez les mots,op een aantal ronduit onzinopmerkingen van uw kant stuitte.Kijk, DAT u de Rozenoorlogen in uw special hebt betrokken, vind ik interessant en is bijna vanzelfsprekend, omdat The Game of Thrones er in belangrijke mate op is gebaseerd.Of beter uitgedrukt:Schrijver George R.R. Martin heeft zich door die Rozenoorlogen in belangrijke mate laten inspireren, met hoog kwalitatief resultaat! Maar als u nader op die Rozenoorlogen ingaat, mag verwacht worden, dat u met historisch juiste informatie komt.Anders zeg ik:Schrijf er dan niet over. Ik ben nog niet in de gelegenheid geweest, alles en detail te lezen [wel enkele passages], wat u over die Rozenoorlogen geschreven hebt, vanwege een druk bezette agenda [misschien komt er nog een aanvullende brief, waarin ik u daarover te grazen neem, als ik dat nodig acht], maar ronduit belachelijk en historisch totale NONSENS [nogmaals, excusez lets mots] was, wat u over een van de hoofdrolspelers, Richard Neville, 16 de Graaf van Warwick, ook wel ”the Kingmaker” genoemd [1], hebt neergeschreven. UW SCHRIJFSEL OVER RICHARD NEVILLE, DE KINGMAKER Eerst maar eens uw schrijfsel over Richard Neville, de Kingmaker, wat te lezen is.Ik lees [en u nu met mij] bladzijde 24, links bovenaan: ”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.” Einde uw tekst Dit, waarde Redactie, is een warwinkel van nonsens, taalverwarring en historische inaccuratesse. TEN EERSTE: Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, liep, hoewel aanvankelijk inderdaadeen ”aanhanger” van koning Hendrik VI [van het Huis van Lancaster, klopt], NIETover naar het Huis van York, NADAT zijn neef Eduard, 7e Earl [Graaf] of Marchen zoon van Richard, de hertog van York, als Eduard IV tot koning werd gekroond:Neen, hij [Richard Neville dus] was al jaren in oppositie tegen koning Hendrik VI, waarbij hij samenwerkte met zijn eigen vader Richard, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en de hertog van York, vader van de latere Eduard IV [vanaf hier aangeduid als Edward, het was tenslotte een Engelse koning!] Bovendien was hij juist de grote voortrekker van de kroning van neef Edward totkoning Edward IV! [2] Ik kom hierop aanstonds uitgebreider terug. TEN TWEEDE: U schrijft ”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.” Dat ..machtswellust” is een zeer kort door de bocht en simplistische verklaringvoor de oorzaken tot het latere conflict tussen koning Edward IV en Richard Neville [van nu af aan aangeduid met de Graaf Warwick of Warwick], waarover aanstonds uitleg volgt. Het klopt, dat Warwick de koning gevangen nam, maar het is aperte nonsens om neer te pennen, dat Warwick zelf op de Engelse troon wilde komen!Hij had [en dat was erg belangrijk in de Middeleeuwen!] in geen enkel opzicht, niet eens in de verte, recht op die troon, omdat hij niet tot het Huis Plantagenet behoorde en er ook niet zijdelings van afstamde.Kortom:Naar Middeleeuwse mores zou niemand voor hem gevochten hebben en al evenmin was er een schijn van kans, dat hij als koning zou zijn geaccepteerd.Wel probeerde hij, door een slimme wijze van uithuwelijking van zijn tweewettige dochters [hij had ook nog een onwettige dochter, Margaret]. [3],zo dicht bij de troon te komen, dat hij effectief macht kon uitoefenen. Hierop kom ik terug. TEN DERDE:Taalverwarring: U schrijft ”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen” Uit bovenstaande zin wordt volstrekt niet duidelijk om welke koning het nu ging en om welke veldslag.U had moeten aangeven, dat het hier ging om koning Edward IV [want zoalsu het hebt neergeschreven, kon het ook wel om koning Hendrik VI, vanaf nu aangeduid als Henry VI, gaan] en dat het ging om de volgende veldslag:The Battle of Edgecote in 1469, waaraan de slimme Warwick overigens niet zelf deelnam….] [4] Dergelijke duidelijkheid is van groot belang, omdat het anders de toch al ingewikkelde verwikkelingen rond de Rozenoorlogen nog gecompliceerder maakt!
ACHTERGRONDGRAAF WARWICK EN DE ROZENOORLOGEN Om Graaf Warwick te kunnen begrijpen, moet hij gezien worden tegen het licht van de Rozenoorlogen, waarin hij zo’n belangrijke rol speelde. Om de Rozenoorlogen te kunnen begrijpen, moet je iets afweten van het toenmalige recht van opvolging op de Engelse troon en de verwikkelingenrond de regering van koning Richard II. [5]Want de Rozenoorlogen wortelen diep en zijn in feite gezaaid door de afzettingvan Richard II.[6]
ROZENOORLOGEN: We beginnen met de voorgeschiedenis van de Rozenoorlogen, waarover u al geschreven hebt in uw Magazine.Globaal lezend heb ik echter gezien, dat u weliswaar de Rozenoorlogen alssuccessiestrijd aanmerkt, maar niet duidelijk hebt gemaakt, hoe het zat met de exacte claims van de Huizen Lancaster en York [De Tweede en Derde Zoon problematiek, zie onderstaand] en ook niet naar de wortels van het conflict gegaan bent.Daarom krijgt u hier deze informatie gratis en voor niets.Eigenlijk zou u mij hiervoor moeten betalen, HAHAHAHAHA De Rozenoorlogen, ook wel ”the Cousins War” genoemd [7] [pas een eeuw na het conflict raakte de term ”Rozenoorlogen;’ in zwang] waren een 30 jaar lang durend binnenlands militair conflict [burgeroorlog dus] tussen tweetakken van het toenmalige Engelse Koningshuis, het Huis Plantagenet[aan de macht vanaf 1154 tot 1485], de Huizen Lancaster en York.Een ”adellijke” burgeroorlog, die hoogst bloedig werd uitgevochten, waarbijde diverse adellijke families partij kozen voor Lancaster en York , weer van kant wisselden, als het hen zo uitkwam en verraad, kuiperijen, intriges en bloedige veldslagen elkaar afwisselden.Voor meer verdieping en informatie [die u ook deels hebt beschreven] zie noot 8 GEZAAID ZAAD Maar het conflict begon niet bij de eerste militaire veldslag of liever gezegd schermutseling, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans in 1455 [9]Ook niet bij het gerezen en hoogopgelopen conflict tussen de vrouw vande vreedzame en geestelijk labiele koning Henry VI, de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou [10]en haar gunsteling, Edmund Beaufort, Duke [hertog] of Somerset [behorend tot de Beauforts, de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster en neef van de Lancaster koning Henry VI] enerzijds en anderszijdsRichard, de hertog van York [vader van de latere koning Edward IV], ook een [weliswaar verdere] neef van koning Henry VI[11]Neen, het wortelde in de afzetting van koning Richard II door zijn neef, de latere koning Henry IV. [12]
RICHARD II/PRIMOGENITUUR RECHT Ik heb weleens gekscherend opgemerkt, dat de diepere oorzaken van de Rozenoorlogen scholen in het feit, dat Edward III, de Engelse koning, die deHonderdjarige oorlog tegen Frankrijk startte, ook een soort successiestrijd [13],teveel zoons had.Het uiteindelijke Rozenoorlog conflict woedde dan ook tussen de nakomelingenvan de tweede zoon van Edward III [van wie de hertog van York van moederskant afstamde] en de derde zoon van Edward III [waartoe het Huis van Lancaster behoorde, de wettige tak en de onwettige tak] Genoemde Koning Richard II was een zoon Edward of Woodstock, beter bekend als ”’De Zwarte Prins” [14] de oudste zoon van Edward III en volgde zijn grootvader Edward III op tienjarige leeftijd op, omdat zijn eigen vader reeds was overleden.En bij de Engelse troonopvolging gold het primogenituur recht [recht van de eerstgeborene] [15]Als de koning overleed, volgde zijn oudste zoon op.Wanneer deze overleed, diens zoon/nageslachtEn pas als zijn dynastie was uitgestorven, kwam de lijn van de tweede zoon aan de beurt,En zo ging het door.Vrouwen hadden in Engeland het recht op troonsopvolging, maar door de uitgesproken patriarchale samenleving in Middeleeuws Engeland probeerde men dat zoveel mogelijk te voorkomen. [16] Door een aantal oorzaken en hoogoplopende conflicten met zijn edelen liep het helemaal mis met de regering van Richard II en werd deze uiteindelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke [Bolingbroke, naar het kasteel waar hij geboren was], afgezet [Richard II was kinderloos] [17] en liet Bolingbroke zichzelf kronen tot Henry IV en werd daarmee de grootvader van Henry VI, die koning was tijdens het begin van de Rozenoorlogen. [18] EN DAAR WRONG DE SCHOEN! Niet alleen, dat de wettige koning van Engeland, Richard II, werd afgezet, was van doorslaggevend belang [19] maar ook door wie, namelijk door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, zoon van de DERDE zoon vanEdward III, John of Gaunt [Jan van Gent, hij was in Gent geboren gedurende Edward III’s oorlog tegen Frankrijk], hertog van Lancaster [die titel had hij gekregen via zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche van Lancaster, die de dochter was van de hertog van Lancaster] [20] Maar in feite waren er nog de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp [Lionel van Antwerpen, in Antwerpen geboren] [21], die dus een sterkere claim hadden op de Engelse troon.Lionel of Antwerp had echter geen zoons gehad, maar een dochter, Philippa Plantagenet [22] en Philippa’s kleinzoon [zij was al overleden tijdens de afzetting van neef Richard II] Edmund was ten tijde van de afzetting van Richard II een kind van acht jaar en kon dus gemakkelijk opzij geschoven worden. [23] TWEEDE EN DERDE ZOON VAN EDWARD III Waar het dus op neer kwam was, dat de nakomelingen van de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III [Lionel of Antwerp], door die van de DERDE zoon [John of Gaunt dus] opzijgeschoven waren, terwijl in feite die ”tweede zoon” nakomelingen een groter recht hadden op de Engelse troon!En Richard, de hertog van York, die met bondgenoten uiteindelijk de strijd tegenLancaster aan zou gaan, was via zijn moeders kant [Anne Mortimer] [24], een afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp![Richard’s moeder, Anne Mortimer, was via de kant van haar vader, Roger Mortimer, de achterkleindochter van Lionel of Antwerp, zie de stamboom onder noot 25]
Om het lekker simpel te houden was Richard, de hertog van York [ik kan er ook niets aan doen, dat ze allemaal onder elkaar trouwden] van vaderskant ook nog eens de kleinzoon van de VIERDE ZOON van Edward III, Edmund of Langley, hertog van York. Maar zijn recht op de troon, dat superieur was boven Lancaster, kwam van zijn MOEDERSKANT!, afstammende van de TWEEDE zoon! [25] Dus samengevat: De hertog van York, vader van de latere koningen Edward IV en Richard III [die de laatste Plantagenet koning was], had een sterkere claim op de troon dan Lancaster, omdat hij van moederskant afstamde van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III en Lancaster van de DERDE zoon.
LANCASTERS OP DE TROON Wat het nog simpeler maakte was echter, dat de regerende koningen sinds de afzetting van Richard III dus uit het Huis Lancaster kwamen en al vanaf 1399 koning waren, wat ze een zekere legitimiteit gaf. Onder koning Henry IV, de feitelijke usurpator [26] van de Engelse troon,brak er nog geen dynastieke twist uit [denk eraan, dat de claimant van deEngelse troon, zoals gezegd, een jongen van 8 jaar was bij afzettingvan Richard II] [27], maar bij zijn zoon Henry V, de grote militaire leider inde nog voortwoedende Honderdjarige Oorlog, gestart door overgrootvader Edward III [28], zag je al het prille begin, belichaamd in het Southampton complot in 1415, waarbij onder andere Richard Conisburgh, de derde Graaf van Cambridge en de vader van Richard, de latere hertog van York met handlangers had geprobeerd, koning Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [ Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, de broer van zijn vrouw Anne Mortimer [Edmund was [de ”achtjarige jongen” met de grotere claim, ten tijde van de afzetting vanRichard II en oom van moederskant van de latere Richard, hertog van York.]Dat hele complot mislukte en de complotteurs werden geexecuteerd. [29]R.I.P. [30] KONING HENRY VI/HET FEEST KAN BEGINNEN/ROZENOORLOGEN Maar het werd pas echt hommeles onder koning Henry VI, kleinzoon van usurpator koning Henry IV [onze ”Bolingbroke]Belangrijke oorzaak was de ontevredenheid, ontstaan door hetvoor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige Oorlog, het feit,dat de vreedzame Henry VI het tegenovergestelde was van een flinke militaire leider EN vooral het feit, dat de arme man ernstige psychische problemen had, waardoor ambitieuze mannen probeerden zichzelf en hun familie naar voren te schuiven en grip op de macht te krijgen.Waardoor de Engelse troon een speelbal werd in handen van mannen met echte en vermeende claims. Tegen deze achtergrond laaide de strijd op tussen de Huizen Lancaster en York,aanvankelijk nog om de controle over de koning, maar gaandeweg om de troomzelf. Grote tegenstanders waren bij het uitbreken van de strijd enerzijds Richard, derde hertog van York, als afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III[Lionel of Antwerp] [31] de man met de sterkste claim op de troon.Anderszijds Edmund Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, behorend tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster [32], die namens koning Henry VI optrad en gunsteling was van diens strijdbare vrouw, Margaret of Anjou.[33]Gaandeweg echter werd het steeds openlijker een strijd tussen York en zijn bondgenoten enerzijds en Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van de koning [de koning kon door zijn psychische problemen vaak niet effectief regeren] en haar bondgenoten anderszijds, zeker na cde geboorte van haar en de koning’s zoon in 1453. Het verbale en politieke steekspel tussen de heren [York en Somerset], die beurtelings ”protectors of the realm” [een soort regenten, vervangers van de koning] waren in de tijd, dat koning Henry VI niet kon regeren [staat voor: geestelijke inzinking] [34] duurde voort tot de eerste militaire confrontatie in de Rozenoorlogen, de Eerste Slag bij St Albans [35], waarin Beaufort, de tweede hertog van Somerset, sneuvelde [36] Daarna ging het van Kwaad tot Erger [lees noot 37] , ondanks EEN poging om de partijen te verzoenen, de door de vreedzame koning Henry VI goedbedoelde maar te laat gekomen geinstigeerde ”Loveday]] [door u genoemd in uw artikel: complimenten, niet veel mensen kennen deze gebeurtenis!] [38], maar daarna ging het al snel helemaal mis!En vanaf het sluiten van het Act of Accord [tussen York en koning Henry VI] [39] al snel gevolgd door de Slag bij Wakefield, waarin de hertog van York omkwam [40], ging het er niet meer om, wie koning Henry VI controleerde, maar een keihard gevecht om de troon.GAME OF THRONES! [41]
When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground….” [42]Ja, DAT bewezen die Rozenoorlogen wel!
Het tijdperk brak aan van de door u ook genoemde koning Edward IV, de Rozenoorlogkoning [43], die een redelijk stabiel bewind gevoerd heeft, slechts onderbroken door de Warwick opstand [44], waarover straks meer.Edward IV werd, niet geheel volgens wet en recht, opgevolgd door zijn broer Richard [Richard III]. [45]En tijdens zijn regering werden de Rozenoorlogen definitief beslecht in de Slag bij Bosworth in 1485 [46] tussen Richard III en Henry Tudor [de latere koning Hendrik VII][47], zoon van Margaret Beaufort [48] [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Bosworth werd gewonnen door Henry Tudor, waarbij niet alleen een definitief einde kwam aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ook aan het Huis Plantagenet. [49]en in feite aan de Engelse Middeleeuwen.Richard III was de laatste koning uit het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors [50] brak aan. Henry Tudor, die zichzelf in feite koning maakte ”by right of conquest” [51] was, bezegelde zijn legitimiteit als kining door te trouwen met Elisabeth of York, oudste dochter van koning Edward IV. [52]Slimme politieke zet:Want feite had Elisabeth of York [zoals zij werd genoemd en ook heette] natuurlijk koningin moeten worden, als dochter van Edward IV,die niet alleen koning geweest was, maar via zijn vader de hertog van York die superieure claim op de troon had geerfd, boven Lancaster en zeker boven de Beauforts, die onwettige [en later gewettigde tak van het Huis van Lancaster [53] [superieure York claim, weet u nog: via de TWEEDE zoonvan Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp….] [54] Maar ja, Elisabeth of York was geen strijdbare Margaret of Anjou [55], anders had ze wel gevochten voor haar recht op de troon!Nu werd zij in plaats van Queen by right [heersend monarch], Queen consort [echtgenote van de ko ning][56] Militaire overwinningen, he….Overigens waren Henry Tudor [Henry VII] en Elisabeth of York de ouders vande latere Henry VIII en dus de grootouders van koningin Elisabeth I.EN de voorouders van alle latere Engelse koningen! Nou Redactie, was dat een mooi college over de Rozenoorlogen of niet somsHAHAHAHAHA! NU naar Graaf Warwick, waar het om was begonnen en ZIJN plaats in die Rozenoorlogen.
RICHARD NEVILLE, 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK/DE KINGMAKER/THE STORY De geschiedenis van de Kingmaker is fascinerend en door uw redactie deelsverkeerd verteld en neergeschreven.Dat heb ik hierboven al gecorrigeerd: Nu een uitgebreider curriculum vitae, om een modern woord te gebruiken:Geboren als Richard Neville in 1428, was hij de zoon van Richard Neville,[door zijn huwelijk, via het recht van zijn vrouw] 5e Graaf van Salisbury [57] en Alice Montegu, 5e Gravin van Salisbury [Salisbury was in feite haar bezit en haar wettelijke titel] [58]Richard Neville stamde uit het Geslacht Neville, een oud-adellijke geslacht [teruggaand van nog voor Willem de Veroveraar] [59], dat als bondgenoten vanRichard, hertog van York, een doorslaggevende rol zou spelen in de Rozenoorlogen. [60] De Nevilles waren ook verwant aan de hertog van York!Want de tante van Richard Neville [de zuster van zijn vader] Cecily Neville, wasgetrouwd met de hertog van York. [61]Dus simpeler gezegd: Richard Neville, onze latere ”Kingmaker” was de volle neef van de latere koning Edward IV [zoon dus van de hertog van York en Lady Cecily Neville] De titel ”Graaf van Warwick” verwierf Richard Neville door zijn huwelijk metLady Anne Beauchamp, de dochter van de dertiende Graaf van Warwick.Door een aantal sterfgevallen binnen de Familie Warwick, werd Richard Neville[jure uxoris: bij het recht van zijn vrouw] [62], de 16e Graaf van Warwick.Genoeg over de ingewikkelde erfelijkheidskwesties binnen de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel.Nu waar het om begonnen is:De Rozenoorlogen. DIE ROZENOORLOGEN EN DE ROL VAN GRAAF WARWICK, IN VOGELVLUCHT De wortels van de Rozenoorlogen, dat gewapende conflict tussen de HuizenLancaster en York, dat broeder tegen broeder en neef tegen neef opzette [63] en de mannelijke lijn van zowel het Huis van Lancaster als York zou uitroeien [64], alsmede een groot deel van de Middeleeuwse Engelse adel, lagen, zoals ik al schreef, in het verleden en wel bij de afzetting van Richard II door zijn neef, Henry of Bolingbroke [de latere Henry IV] [zie uitgebreid relaas, hierboven] En zie noot 65 Maar hoewel het zaad reeds in 1399 [bij de afzetting van Richard II dus] was gezaaid, brak het feitelijke conflict uit tijdens de regering van Henry VI, kleinzoon van Henry IV, hoewel het al voorbodes had in the Southampton plot [66],waarbij de vader van de hertog van York, Richard Conisburgh [derde Graaf van Richmond] had geprobeerd [zonder enig succes!], Henry V af te zetten ten gunste van zijn [Richard of Conisburgh’s] zwager, Edmund Mortimer, 5e Graaf van March en feitelijke troonopvolger van Richard II, die in 1399 aan de kant was geschoven door de neef van zijn [Edmund’s] moeder, Henry of Bolingbroke [latere Henry IV] [67]
GOEDHet gewapende conflict brak dus uit onder de regering van Henry VI, in 1455,56 jaar na de afzetting van Richard II. Uiteraard gingen er groeiende spanningen aan vooraf, met name tussenEdward IV’s vader Richard, de [derde, zal ik niet steeds meer vermelden] hertog van York, die in feite de superieure rechten op de troon had [als neef van Edmund Mortimer en via moederszijde afstammeling van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, Lionel of Antwerp] [68], met als grote tegenspeler Edmund Beaufort [behorend dus tot de onwettige tak van het Huis van Lancaster], tweede hertog van Somerset. [69]Tussen die twee, van wie Edmund Beaufort een grote gunsteling was van de strijdbare Margaretha van Anjou, vrouw van Henry VI, barstte vanaf eind veertiger jaren tot 1455 [toen Somerset sneuvelde in de Eerste Slag bij St Albans] [70] een verbitterde machtsstrijd uit, waarbij op een zeker moment edelen partij gingen kiezen. Grote spelers waren dus de hertog van York en de hertog van Somerset, waarbij de sympathie van de Kroon [in feite Margaretha van Anjou] duidelijk aan de kant van Somerset lag en er een steeds grotere vijandschap ontstond tussen Margaretha van Anjou en de hertog van York Een machtsstrijd tussen twee machtige mannen dus, die in feite escaleerde door het feit, dat Henry VI een vrome en zachtmoedige man,[In de Middeleeuwen was zachtmoedigheid niet bepaald handig voor een koning, die een keihard leider en een bekwaam militair moest zijn, wilde hij zijn macht handhaven], geen spoor van overwicht had.Rampzalig was bovendien, dat de man heftige psychische problemen had [71], waardoor hij hele periodes niet kon regeren en er een soort Regentschap[Protectoraat] werd ingesteld, beurtelings ingevuld door Somerset en York. [72] Wat Henry VI miste aan vastberadenheid en overwicht, was aanwezig in Margaretha van Anjou, maar in die tijd was er voor een vrouw geen directe regeermacht weggelegd [wat ze wel graag wilde] [73], wat haar echter niet belette, het vuurtje flink op te stoken [zo zat zij nu eenmaal in elkaar], waardoor het conflict alleen maar excaleerde. Naast de zwakke regering van de onevenwichtige Henry VI en de daaruitvolgende spanningen tussen de adel, speelde het slechte verloopvan de Honderdjarige Oorlog en sociale onrust ook een belangrijke rol. [74] WHERE THE EARL OF WARWICK IS COMING IN Wat opvalt aan de Rozenoorlogen was, dat de keuze, die edellieden maakten[voor Lancaster, dus trouw aan koning Henry VI] of voor York [een bondgenoot van de hertog van York [die steeds openlijker tegenover de koning kwam te staan, hoewel hij zijn trouw aan de koning bleef volhouden] [75], niet zozeer gebaseerd was op principes [het al dan niet erkennen van de betere claim op de troon, die de hertog van York inderdaad had] [76] en zelfs niet op het feit, dat ”s konings positie steeds onhoudbaarder werd door zijn psychische problemen [77], maar door hetzij eigen persoonlijke belangen, hetzij conflicten met andere edellieden.Het is niet teveel gezegd, dat heel veel edellieden tot begin vijftiger jaren nog de kat uit de boom keken.Zo ook Warwick, die het aanvankelijke protest en verzet in 1452, van zijn aangetrouwde oom, de hertog van York [de man van Warwick’s tante van vaderszijde, Cecily Neville] niet steunde, zoals vrijwel alle edelen, die trouw bleven aan Henry VI. [78]Maar dat zou om diverse redenen veranderen, waardoor Warwick EN zijn vader, ook een Richard Neville, de 5de Graaf van Salisbury, de trouwste bondgenoten werden van de hertog van York.Drie Richards, door historische fictie-schrijver Con Iggulden in zijn serie over de Rozenoorlogenaangeduid [hij refereerde aan de vijftiger jaren van die vijftiende eeuw] metde aparte benaming ”Trinity” in het Nederlands [correcter] vertaald als ”Het Drievoudig Verbond” [79]Maar goed:Wat Warwick triggerde om gaandeweg te belanden in het kamp van zijn aangetrouwde oom Richard, de hertog van York, was zijn conflict met zijn zwager, de 2de hertog van Somerset.[Somerset was getrouwd met de halfzuster van Warwick’s vrouw Anne Beauchamp.Zij heette Eleanor Beauchamp] [80]JA, dezelfde Somerset, die de aartsvijand/rivaal was van de hertog van York en een diehard gunsteling van Margaretha van Anjou, de vrouw van koning Henry VI.Dat Warwick/Somerset conflict ging, zoals zo vaak bij de Middeleeuwse adel, over land en dreef Warwick in de armen van de hertog van York. [81]Hierdoor, maar ook naarmate het conflict tussen de hertog van York en Somerset [lees ook de koning en vooral zijn vrouw Margaretha van Anjou] verder opliep en York [tijdelijk] Protector of the Realm [een soort regent] werd[de koning was weer eens uitgeschakeld], kwam ook de vader van Warwick [dus de broer van York’s vrouw Cecily Neville] steeds meer in het kamp van York [82] en vormden deze drie Richards, Richard, de hertog van York, Richard Neville, de vijfde Graaf van Salisbury en diens zoon, Richard Neville, de 16e Graaf van Warwick, een geducht bondgenootschap in de vijftiger jaren van de vijftiende eeuw!Daarnaast woedde ook nog een vernietigend conflict tussen de Huizen Neville[met aan het hoofd Warwick’s vader] en Henry Percy, 2de Graaf van Northumberland, over land, wat de geschiedenis in zou gaan als de Percy-Neville feud [de Percy Neville vete] [83]En de Percy’s waren felle verdedigers van de Kroon, dus langs deze lijnen ontvouwde het conflict zich ook nog eens.En alles liep zo hoog en fel op, dat in de eerste Rozenoorlog veldslag, de Eerste Slag om St Albans, Warwick’s vader [en zijn zoon en York] tegenover Henry Percy en de hertog van Somerset zouden komen te staan, die beiden sneuvelden, waardoor het zaad van verbittering en haat [hun zoons wilden wraak] verder werd gezaaid. [84][Extra pijnlijk, omdat die Henry Percy weer getrouwd was met een zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Eleanor, waardoor ook de neven tegenover elkaar kwamen te staan!]”[85] Maar samengevatHet voor Engeland rampzalige verloop van de Honderdjarige oorlog, de mentale instabiliteit van de koning, dat Percy Neville conflict en allerlei andere conflicten tussen edelen, triggerden die Rozenoorlogen. [86]En in deze atmosfeer maakte een man als Warwick zijn carriere!
WARWICK EN KONING EDWARD IVTOEN NOG THICK AS BROTHERS…………. Wat in de vijftiger jaren begon als een schermutseling tussen de aanhangers van de hertog van York [met als bondgenoten Warwick en zijn vader ook een Richard Neville, weet u nog?] enerzijds en de getrouwen van koning Henry VI anderszijds [87], De zogenaamde Eerste Slag bij St Albans [88], werd gaandeweg steeds grimmiger, wat uiteindelijk uitmondde in een verbitterde burgeroorlog en een regelrechte strijd om de troon.Zie voor dat verloop noot 89, waarin de strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, steeds meer de leider van de Lancaster Partij werd.Ook wel begrijpelijk:Ze verdedigde niet alleen haar incapabele echtgenoot, maar ook de rechten van haar in 1453 geboren zoon, de toenmalige Prince of Wales, Edward of Westminster [90] Om een lang en bitter verhaal kort te maken:Na de nederlaag in de Slag bij Ludlow Bridge in 1459 waren de drie Richards gedwongen, in ballingschap te gaan, York en zijn tweede zoon Edmund, Earl of Rutland, naar Ierland, Warwick, zijn vader en York’s oudste zoon Edward, Earl of March [later Edward IV] naar Calais [91], ze kwamen terug, overwonnen aanvankelijk [92], waarna York koning Henry het recht van troonsopvolging afdwong [93], maar leden een bittere nederlaag in Wakefield, waarbij de hertog van York sneuvelde [of na afloop van de strijd gedood], zijn tweede zoon Edmund werd geexecuteerd, Warwick’s vader werd geexecuteerd en Warwick’s broer Sir Thomas Neville, sneuvelde. [94]Een militaire ramp dus, maar ook een persoonlijke tragedie,voor Warwick en Edward [latere Edward IV], die op dat moment pas 18 jaar oud was.Want beiden waren hun vader en een broer kwijt. Natuurlijk triggerde deze rampzalige verliezen deze twee heren, zowel om wraak te willen nemen als wel om nu echt voor de troon te gaan, wat in 1461 lukte, toen Edward, mede door inspanning van Warwick, tot koning werd gekroond na een aantal klinkende York overwinningen! [95]De nieuwe, jongere generatie York Leiders was dus aanmerkelijk harder en ging verder.Voor vader York was de troonsopvolging van Henry VI genoeg [96], de zoon echter ging direct voor de hoofdprijs.DE TROON!
EDWARD EN WARWICKPARADISE?OR TROUBLE IN PARADISE…..THE BEGINNING: In het begin van de heerschappij van Edward IV leek alles nog zo goed te gaan.Warwick was king’s best ally and trusted advisor[97], bekwaam als hij was op diplomatiek gebied.Vooral op de Fransen maakte hij indruk.Zo merkte de Gouverneur van Abbeville op in een brief aan de Franse koningLouis XI [Lodewijk XI]:[vertaald naar het Engels]””They have but two rulers, M. de Warwick and another whose name I have forgotten.” [98] Naar mijn mening vulden Warwick en zijn koning Edward IV elkaar perfect aan.Warwick had het politieke inzicht en hoewel een redelijk goed militair, was het Edward IV, die een brilliant legeraanvoerder was en zelden een veldslag verloor.Zelfs op zijn achttiende had hij in de slag bij St Mortimers Cross in 1461, kort na de dood van zijn vader en broer [99] Jasper Tudor [oom van de latere koning Henry VII] , halfbroer [van moederskant] van koning Henry VI, verslagen en een zeer ervaren legeraanvoerder. [100] Zelf schrijf ik in mijn artikel ”The Causes of the wars of the Roses/A travel to the Past:”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.” [101] Het was een Golden Couple: Edward IV, jong en een van de mooiste mannen van zijn tijd, een brilliant legeraanvoerder en Warwick, charmant, geslepen, zeer ervaren, een goed militair maar een nog veel betere diplomaat. Helaas…..het mocht niet duren…. Het is nu eenmaal zo ”When you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.There is no middleground” [102] Maar naast die machtsstrijd, die er ook tussen hen was, was het breekpunt het Geheime Huwelijk, dat Edward IV sloot met Elizabeth Woodville, weduwe van nota bene een Lancaster supporter, de edelman John Grey, die in de Tweede Slag om St Albans was gesneuveld [1461, uitgevochten tussen Warwick en Margaretha van Anjou/supporters, beslissende Lancaster overwinning] [103]Warwick was aan het onderhandelen over een politiek zeer voordelig huwelijk met de Franse prinses Bona, schoonzuster van de Franse koning Louis XI, toen bleek, dat de koning [zonder Warwick in kennis te stellen, al met Elizabeth Woodville getrouwd was. [104]Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick’s ego, die in het buitenland voor gek stond, de dame was ook nog eens weduwe van een man, die supporter geweest was van de Lancaster erfvijand!En tot overmaat van ramp begon de koning de aanzienlijke familie van zijn koningin, de Wooodvilles, te bevoordelen en aanzienlijke posities te geven, waardoor Warwick aan macht inboette! [105]Van Warwick’s kant dus wel begrijpelijk, dat zijn wrok gevoed werd en daarmee zijn zijn vervolgstappen beter te verklaren.Wat uw opmerking:”Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.’ [106], dus wel zeer simplistisch maakt! HEBT U ZOVER NOG MEEGELEZEN?/MOOI!/DAN STAAT U ECHT OPEN VOOR KRITIEK EN BENT U BEREID, BIJ TE LEREN: VERVOLG: EDWARD AND WARWICKDE BREUK Ondanks de strubbelingen over het Geheime Huwelijk van de koningen de toenemende invloed van de Woodvilles [de familie van Edward IV’s koningin], hield, om het even populair te zeggen, Edward IV nog van Warwick.Zo werd zijn broer, George Neville, tot Aartsbisschop van York benoemd en in juli 1465, toen de tragische [voormalige] koning Henry VI gevangen genomen werd, begeleidde Warwick hem naar gevangenschap in The Tower. [107]
MAAR TOEN KWAM DE KLAPPER [OF KLAPPERS], DIE WARWICK EN EDWARD IV UIT ELKAAR DREEF! Terwijl Warwick de Koninklijke Opdracht kreeg, zowel met de Fransen en de Boergondiers [elkaars vijanden, de Bourgondiers waren de bondgenoten van de Engelsen geweest gedurende de Honderdjarige Oorlog] [108] te onderhandelen over een huwelijk van de zuster van de koning [Margaret] met een van de twee partijen en Warwick langzamerhand de aandacht verschoof naar de Fransen, bij wie hij een uitstekende reputatie genoot [109], sloot Edward IV een geheim verdrag met de Bourgondiers [uiteindelijk werd Margaret uitgehuwelijkt aan de Boergondische Graaf Karel de Stoute] [110], waardoor Warwick weer voor Gek stond!Zaken liepen nog meer uit de hand, omdat de schoonvader van de koning, Richard Woodville, Graaf Rivers, fel voor de verbintenis met de Boergondiers was. [111]Maar los daarvan:Het WAS verstandige en wijze politiek van Warwick, de voorkeur te geven aan een Franse alliantie:Frankrijk was een machtige monarchie en de voormalige tegenstander in de door Engeland begonnen Honderdjarige Oorlog [112] en als bondgenoot veel waardevoller dan het Graafschap Boergondie! MAAR ER GEBEURDE MEER TUSSEN WARWICK EN EDWARD IV Want tot overmaat van ramp weigerde Edward IV een huwelijk goed te keuren tussen Warwick’s oudste dochter en zijn [Edward IV’s] broer George, de hertog van Clarence. [113]Waarmee de maat voor Warwick vol was en duidelijk werd, dat Graaf Rivers [de schoonvader van Edward IV] de machtsstrijd had gewonnen.Niet alleen een klap voor Warwick persoonljk, maar ook voor de gehele Familie Neville, waarvan Warwick het Hoofd was. [114] Om een lang Verhaal kort te maken: Warwick stoorde zich niet aan het verbod van de koning, maar huwelijkte zijn dochter Isabel vrolijk uit aan ’s Konings broer George, hertog van Clarence, die ook al zo zijn eigen ambities had en graag met Warwick opliep, ook al omdat hij de illusie had [en misschien was dat ook Warwick’s intentie], dat Warwick Edward IV door hem zou willen vervangen als koning [115] [en vergeet ook niet, dat Warwick, na de koning, de rijkste man in Engeland was en dat een huwelijk met zijn dochter een zeer lucratieve zaak was. [116]Het Paar trouwde in 1469 in Calais, met de zegen van de Aartsbisschop van York, George Neville, broer van Warwick. [117] Daarna escaleerde de Zaak snel en een wervelwind aan gebeurtenissen volgde Warwick orchestreerde een opstand in het Noorden, waarmee hij schijnbaar niets te maken had [slim!], onder leiding van een mysterieuze ”Robin van Redesdale” [118], keerde [in 1469] met schoonzoon George PLantagenet terug naar Engeland, ’s koning’s troepen werden door Robin of Redesdale verslagen in de slag bij Edgecote [119], waarna de vader en broer van deKoningin gevangengenomen werden en geexecuteerd [120] Drama ging door:Later werd de koning zelf gevangengezet, weer vrijgelaten door Warwick [121], een tijd leek dat dan weer redelijk te gaan tussen de koning en Warwick [de koning had Warwick en George hun verraad vergeven] [122], totdat de bom weer barstte, Warwick en George opnieuw in opstand kwamen en de koning gedwongen was, Engeland te verlaten en met een kleine groep getrouwen, waaronder zijn toen zeer loyale broer Richard. hertog van Gloucester en zijn boezemvriend, Lord Hastings [123].De koning ging in ballingschap naar Bourgondie, waar zijn zuster Margaret inmiddels met Graaf van Bourgondie Karel de Stoute getrouwd was. [124] Warwick sloot intussen een bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou en plaatste de geestelijk instabiele koning Henry VI opnieuw op de troon [maar Warwick regeerde uiteraard] [125]Hiermee was Warwick definitief naar de kant van Lancaster overgelopen,iets wat enkele jaren daarvoor nog ondenkbaar was [zijn eigen vader en broer waren omgekomen tijdens de strijd in 1461] [126]Zijn bondgenootschap met Margaretha van Anjou werd bezegeld [voor wat, hoort wat!] door het huwelijk tussen Warwick’s jongste dochter Anne Neville en Margaretha’s en Henry VI’s zoon, Edward of Westminster, de Lancaster Prince of Wales. [127]
Het Einde verliep tragisch, want Warwick’s periode van macht was een korte vreugde.Edward IV [wat was ook anders te verwachten] keerde naar Engeland terug met een leger [geholpen door zijn zwager Graag Karel de Stoute van Bourgondie] en versloeg Warwick in de slag bij Barnet [128], waarbij Warwick en zijn broer John, de Eerste Markies van Montagu, sneuvelden.Warwick’s schoonzoon George Plantagenet had zich inmiddels weer verzoend met broer Edward, waarschijnlijk gepiqueerd omdat Warwick zijnkaarten niet meer op hem als koning zette. [129]
Zie voor een zeer interessant overzicht van Warwick’s carriere de documentaire van de Britse historicus Dan Jones [130] Met de dood van Warwick kwam feitelijk een einde aan de machtspositie van de Familie Neville.Erbij gezegd moet nog worden, dat zij tot een van de weinige adellijke Families behoorden, die aan de kant van het Huis van York stonden.De meeste adelsfamilies waren Lancaster, en dus koning Henry VI, trouw gebleven. [131]Want de monarchie was nog praktisch sacraal en het afzetten van een koning, ook al was dat al wel gebeurd met Edward II [hoewel ten gunste van zijn eigen zoon] en Richard II [usurpatie door zijn neef Henry Bolingbroke, waarmee die het zaad van die ellende van de Rozenoorlogen werd gezaaid] [132], het afzetten van een koning dus, was nog net geen heiligschennis.
Margaretha van Anjou, die ook met een troepenmacht naar Engeland was gezeild, maar helaas voor de Lancaster zaak te laat in Engeland aankwam om samen met Warwick Edward IV in een militaire tangpositie te nemen, werd in mei 1471 door Edward IV verslagen in de slag bij Tewkesbury, waarbij de kans op een Lancaster heerschappij verkeken was. [133]Tijdens het leven van Edward IV, althans. Na de dood van Edward IV bemachtigde zijn broer Richard, de hertog vanGloucester, de troon, als Richard III [Zie noot 45]] en werd hij, na twee jaar koningschap, zoals ikal in bovenstaande had vermeld, in de slagbij Bosworth verslagen door Henry Tudor, de latere Hendrik VII, zoon van Margaret Beaufort [uit het Huis van Beaufort en achterkleindochter van John of Gaunt en Katherine Swynford en aldus behorende tot de onwettige tak van het Huis Lancaster, die later was gewettigd].Hiermee kwam niet alleen definitief een einde aan de Rozenoorlogen, maar ookaan het Huis Plantagenet.Het tijdperk van de Tudors brak aan. [Zie noten 46 t/m 50] EPILOOG Aanleiding tot mijn schrijven, een Opus, dat ik in september 2019 ben begonnen en nu heb voltooid, is uw ongenuanceerde uitspraakover een van de belangrijkste Spelers tijdens de Rozenoorlogen, Richard Neville,16e Graaf van WarwickNogmaals herhaald mijn reden tot kritiek:Op bladzijde 24 van uw uitgave ”De geschiedenis achter de Game of Thrones”,schreef u dus:”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.” Einde uw tekst In bovenstaande heb ik u niet alleen uitgelegd, waarom deze Passage uituw tijdschrift kort door de bocht, verward en historisch onjuist is [ik verwijsnaar het begin van mijn schrijven], ook heb ik u meegenomen opeen Reis door de Tijd, met uitgebreide informatie over de achtergrondenvan de Rozenoorlogen, tegen welks licht de carriere van Richard Neville,bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” gezien moet worden. Mensen zijn complexe wezens en zelden is iemand alleen ”de verrader” en handelt/zij hij alleen ”uit machtswellust”Handelingen van mensen, zeker uit voorbije tijden, die qua wereldbeelden opvattingen ver afstaan van de onze, moeten bekeken worden vanuitde complexiteit, die zij verdienen. Ik hoop, dat ik met dit commentaar ertoe heb bijgedragen, dat u inhet vervolg complexe historische gebeurtenissen en ontwikkelingenniet zult afdoen met goedkope one liners, maar recht doetaan de tijd, waarin een en ander dient te worden geplaatst en deafwegingen die iemand tot zijn gedrag hebben bewogen, ook meeweegt. Alleen dan doet u recht aan de historische werkelijkheid, voor zover wij die kennen. Een gecompliceerd en veelzijdig carrierepoliticus [om maar eenmodern woord te gebruiken] als de Graaf van Warwick verdient beter. Vriendelijke groeten Astrid EssedAmsterdam NOTEN Voor uw gemak heb ik de bijbehorende noten in links ondergebrachtZie voor noten 1 t/m 133 LINKS
Richard Neville, de 16de Graaf van Warwick, werd bekend als ”the Kingmaker”omdat hij twee koningen in het zadel heeft geholpen, eerst zijn neef Edward, de 7de Earl [Graaf] of March en zoon van Richard, hertog van York.Edward werd na een aantal overwinningen op de Lancasters, in 1461,tot koning gekroond, waarbij Warwick een beslissende rol speelde.Nadat er een breuk was ontstaan met zijn neef, koning Edward IV, trachtte Warwick George Plantagenet, de broer van Edward IV, die inmiddels metWarwick’s dochter getrouwd was [tegen de wil van Edward IV], op de troon te brengen.Toen dat mislukte, liep Warwick over naar de kant van Lancaster, zette de in 1461 afgezette koning Hendrik VI weer op de troon en bracht een huwelijktot stand tussen zijn jongste dochter Anne Neville en de zoon van koning Hendrik VI en zijn strijdbare vrouw, Margaretha van Anjou, Edward van Westminster.Tenslotte sneuvelde Warwick in de slag bij Barnet, de eindstrijd tegen zijnneef, koning Edward IV [die vanuit ballingschap in Bourgondie met een leger naar Engeland was teruggekeerd. ZIE OP WIKIPEDIA: ”After a failed plot to crown Edward’s brother, George, Duke of Clarence, Warwick instead restored Henry VI to the throne.” WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick
”Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood” WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall
Door tijdgenoten werd het conflict ”Cousins war” genoemd, omdat de Huizen Lancaster en York aan elkaar verwant waren, beiden behorend tot het Huis Plantagenet, en zij cousins [neven, vaak verre neven] van elkaar waren.De term ”Rozenoorlogen”, verwijzend naar de symbolen de Witte Roos [Huis van York] en de Rode Roos [Huis van Lancaster] is pas een eeuw later in zwang gekomen, met name door Shakespeare’s koningsdrama ”Henry VI, bestaande uit drie delenIn deel 1 romantiseert Shakespeare de gebeurtenissen [er is geen enkel historisch bewijs voor, dat het ook zo is gegaan] door de vertegenwoordigers van het Huis van York en Het Huis van Lancaster een respectievelijk witte en rode roos te laten plukken als ”strijd” symbool: ‘PLANTAGENET
Since you are tongue-tied and so loath to speak, In dumb significants proclaim your thoughts: Let him that is a true-born gentleman And stands upon the honour of his birth, If he suppose that I have pleaded truth, From off this brier pluck a white rose with me.
SOMERSET
Let him that is no coward nor no flatterer, But dare maintain the party of the truth, Pluck a red rose from off this thorn with me.
WARWICK
I love no colours, and without all colour Of base insinuating flattery I pluck this white rose with Plantagenet.
SUFFOLK
I pluck this red rose with young Somerset And say withal I think he held the right.
VERNON
Stay, lords and gentlemen, and pluck no more, Till you conclude that he upon whose side The fewest roses are cropp’d from the tree Shall yield the other in the right opinion.
SOMERSET
Good Master Vernon, it is well objected: If I have fewest, I subscribe in silence. RICHARD
PLANTAGENET
And I.
VERNON
Then for the truth and plainness of the case. I pluck this pale and maiden blossom here, Giving my verdict on the white rose side.
SOMERSET
Prick not your finger as you pluck it off, Lest bleeding you do paint the white rose red And fall on my side so, against your will.
VERNON
If I my lord, for my opinion bleed, Opinion shall be surgeon to my hurt And keep me on the side where still I am.
SOMERSET
Well, well, come on: who else?
Lawyer
Unless my study and my books be false, The argument you held was wrong in you:
To SOMERSETIn sign whereof I pluck a white rose too. RICHARD
PLANTAGENET
Now, Somerset, where is your argument?
SOMERSET
Here in my scabbard, meditating that Shall dye your white rose in a bloody red. RICHARD
PLANTAGENET
Meantime your cheeks do counterfeit our roses; For pale they look with fear, as witnessing The truth on our side. SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART ONE, SCENE IV, LONDON, THE TEMPLE GARDEN http://shakespeare.mit.edu/1henryvi/full.html
”PLANTAGENET” IS RICHARD PLANTAGENET, DE HERTOG VAN YORK, MET ALS SYMBOOL DE WITTE ROOS SOMERSET, HENRY BEAUFORT, POLITIEKE TEGENSTANDER VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK EN BEHOREND TOT DE ONWETTIGE TAK VAN HET HUIS LANCASTER, MET ALS SYMBOOL DE RODE ROOS
”Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset,[a]KG ( c. 1406 – 22 May 1455), was an English nobleman and an important figure in the Wars of the Roses and in the Hundred Years’ War. He also succeeded in the title of 4th Earl of Somersetand was created 1st Earl of Dorset and 1st Marquess of Dorset (previously held by his father and later forfeited), and Count of Mortain. He was known for his deadly rivalry with Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York.”
Toen de laatste koning uit het Franse geslacht Capet, koning Charles IV overleed, was zijn naaste mannelijke bloedverwant de zoon van zijn zusterIsabella of France, de Engelse koning Edward IIIDe Franse troon werd door zijn moeder Isabella [die toen de macht achter de troon was] voor hem geclaimd, maar aangezien vrouwen in Frankrijk waren uitgesloten van de erfopvolging, kon de zoon van een vrouw [Isabella was de dochter van de in 1314 overleden koning Philips IV en zuster van Charles IV]ook niet opvolgen Gevolg was uiteindelijk, dat Edward III later de Honderdjarige Oorlog startteom de Franse troon te bemachtigen
[16] KONING HENRY I, ZOON VAN WILLEM DE VEROVERAAR, LIET DE EDELEN ZWEREN, ZIJN ENIG OVERGEBLEVEN KIND, DOCHTER MATHILDA, TE ERKENNEN ALS KONINGIN VAN ENGELANDDIT DEDEN ZE ZEER TEGEN HUN ZIN, MAAR NA DE DOOD VAN HENRY I KWAMEN DE EDELEN DAARTEGEN IN OPSTAND EN CLAIMDE DE NEEF VAN MATHILDA, STEPHEN VAN BLOIS, EEN KLEINZOON VAN WILLEN DE VEROVERAAR VAN MOEDERSKANT, DE TROONEEN JARENLANGE STRIJD TUSSEN MATHILDA EN STEPHEN BRANDDE LOS, DE ANARCHY GENAAMD, MAAR EINDIGDE TOCH IN EEN OVERWINNING VOOR MATHILDA, OMDAT IN HET VERDRAG VAN WALLINFORD [OOK WEL BEKEND ALS VERDRAG VAN WINCHESTER] WERD BEPAALD, DAT STEPHEN TIJDENS ZIJN LEVEN KONING ZOU ZIJN, MAAR DAT MATHILDA’S ZOON, DE LATERE HENRY II [VADER VAN RICHARD LEEUWENHART EN JAN ZONDER LAND] HEM ZOU OPVOLGEN ZIE:
”Meanwhile, Matilda’s younger brother, William Adelin, died in the White Ship disaster of 1120, leaving Matilda’s father and England facing a potential succession crisis. On Emperor Henry V’s death, Matilda was recalled to Normandy by her father, who arranged for her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou to form an alliance to protect his southern borders. Henry I had no further legitimate children and nominated Matilda as his heir, making his court swear an oath of loyalty to her and her successors, but the decision was not popular in the Anglo-Norman court. Henry died in 1135, but Matilda and Geoffrey faced opposition from Anglo-Norman barons. The throne was instead taken by Matilda’s cousin Stephen of Blois, who enjoyed the backing of the English Church. Stephen took steps to solidify his new regime but faced threats both from neighbouring powers and from opponents within his kingdom.”
”Stephen announced the Treaty of Winchester in Winchester Cathedral: he recognised Henry FitzEmpress as his adopted son and successor, in return for Henry doing homage to him. Other conditions included:
Stephen promised to listen to Henry’s advice, but retained all his royal powers;
Stephen’s remaining son, William, would do homage to Henry and renounce his claim to the throne, in exchange for promises of the security of his lands;
Key royal castles would be held on Henry’s behalf by guarantors, whilst Stephen would have access to Henry’s castles;
The numerous foreign mercenaries would be demobilised and sent home.[4]
‘Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood” WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall
YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODIEST DYNASTYTYRANNYPART 4 OF 4[RICHARD II]
”Henry IV (15 April 1367 – 20 March 1413), also known as Henry Bolingbroke (/ˈbɒlɪŋbrʊk/), was King of England from 1399 to 1413.” WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England
[18]
WIKIPEDIAHENRY IV OF ENGLAND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_England
[19] Voor het eerst in de geschiedenis van het Huis Plantagenet was met afzetting van een koning de erfelijke lijn verbroken:Er was al eerder een koning afgezet, koning Edward II, door toedoen van zijn van hem vervreemde vrouw, Isabella of France en haar bondgenoot [wellicht minnaar] Roger Mortimer, maar dat was geweest ten gunste van zijn [Edward II’s] eigen zoon, de latere Edward III, waarmee de opvolgingslijn niet werd verbroken WIKIPEDIAEDWARD II OF ENGLAND
JOHN OF GAUNT, OFTEWEL JAN VAN GENT, WERD HERTOG VAN LANCASTER ”JURE UXORIS”/BIJ HET RECHT VAN ZIJN VROUWZIJN VROUW, BLANCHE VAN LANCASTER, WAS DE DOCHTER VAN HENRY GROSMONT, HERTOG VAN LANCASTER EN JOHN OF GAUNT ERFDE BIJ DE DOOD VAN ZIJN SCHOONVADER DIENS HERTOGELIJKE TITELBLANCHE OF LANCASTER WAS DE MOEDER VAN DE LATERE KONING HENRY IV [HENRY OF BOLINGBROKE], DIE ZIJN NEEF,KONING RICHARD II, AFZETTE ALS KONING
ZIE ”Jure uxoris (a Latin phrase meaning “by right of (his) wife”[1][2]) is a title of nobility used by a man because his wife holds the office or title suo jure (“in her own right”). Similarly, the husband of an heiress could become the legal possessor of her lands. For example, married women in England were legally incapable of owning real estate until the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.
WIKIPEDIAJURE UXORIS
WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt
”On 19 May 1359 at Reading Abbey, John married his third cousin, Blanche of Lancaster, younger of the two daughters of Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Both shared a common descent from King Henry III. The wealth she brought to the marriage was the foundation of John’s fortune. Blanche died on 12 September 1368 at Tutbury Castle, while her husband was overseas. WIKIPEDIAJOHN OF GAUNT/MARRIAGES
‘Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood” WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall
Anne’s father was a descendant of Lionel, Duke of Clarence, second surviving son of King Edward III of England, an ancestry which made Mortimer a potential heir to the throne during the reign of the childless King Richard II. Upon Roger Mortimer’s death in 1398, this claim passed to his son and heir, Anne’s brother Edmund, Earl of March.[5] In 1399, Richard II was deposed by Henry IV, of the House of Lancaster, making Edmund Mortimer a dynastic threat to the new king, who in turn placed both Edmund and his brother Roger under royal custody.”
ANNE DE MORTIMER, DOCHTER VAN ROGER MORTIMER, 4RD EARLOF MARCH EN ALIANORE HOLLAND [Married Richard of Conisburgh, Third Earl of Cambridge en zoonvan Edmund of Langley, First Duke of York,, vierde zoon van Edward III ]
RICHARD, THIRD DUKE OF YORK [Titel erfde hij van de oudere broervan zijn vader Richard Conisburgh, genaamd Edmund, second Duke of York,die kinderloos overleed][Married Cecily Neville, uit de beroemde en invloedrijke familie Neville]
In 1415, when his son, Richard (later duke of York), was four years old, Richard, earl of Cambridge, was “accused of a treasonable conspiracy, indicted, convicted and beheaded” (p45). This has come to be known as the Southampton Plot. During his captivity he wrote two letters to the king, Henry V: a letter of confession and a plea for mercy, “but neither had any effect upon Henry” (p45).
Cambridge’s letter of confession:
My most dredfulle and sovereyne lege Lord, lyke to yowre hynesse to wete touchyng the purpose cast ageyns ʒowre hye estate. Havyng ye Erle of Marche by his aune assent, and by the assent of myself, Wher of y most me repent of all worde [worldly] thyng and by the acord of the lord Scrop and Sir Thomas Grey, to have hadde ye forseyd erle into the lond of Walys wyth outyn yowre lycence, takying upon hym the sovereynte of ʒys lond; ʒyf yondyr manis persone wych they callyn kynge Richard hadde nauth bene alyve, as Y wot wel yat he nys not alyve, for the wyche poynt I putte me holy in ʒowre grace. And as for ye forme of a proclamacyon wych schulde hadde bene cryde in ye Erle name, as he heyre to the Corowne of Ynglond ageyns ʒow, my lege lord, calde by auntreu [untrue] name Harry of Lancastre usurpur of Yngland, to the entent to hadde made the more people to hadde draune to hym and from ʒow, of the wych crye Scrop knew not of by me, but Grey dyd, havyng wyth the erle a baner of ye Armes of Ynglond, havyng also ye coroune of Speyne on a palet, wych, my lege Lord, is one of ʒowre weddys, for ye wych offence y put me holy in ʒowre grace. And as for ye p’pose takyn by Unfrevyle and Wederyngtoun for ye bryngyng in of that persone whych they namyd kyng Richard, and Herry Percye oute of Scotland wyth a power of Scottys, and theyre power togedyrs neyming to theyme able to geve ʒow a bataylle, of ye wych entent Sir Thomas Grey wyste of, and i also, but nauth Scrop as by me; of ye wych knawing i submytte me holy into ʒowre grace. And as touchyng the Erle of Marche, and Lusy hys man, they seyden me both yat the Erle was nauth schreven of a great whyle, but at all hys confessours putte hym in penaunce to clayme yat yey callyddyn hys ryth that wold be that tyme that every iknew, heny thyng yat ever to hym longyd … … … Of ye which poynttes and artycles here befor wretyn, and of al odyr wych now arne nauth in mynde, but treuly as oft as heny to myn mynd fallyn i schal deuly and treuly certefye now thee of, besekyng to now, my lege Lord, for hys love yat syffyrd passyoun on ye good fryday see compassyoun on me ʒowre lege men, and yf heny of thes persones whos names arne contenyd in ʒyz tyme, i schalle be redy wyth the myth of god to make hyt good, as ʒee my lege Lord will awarde me.
_____________________
_____________________
A plea for mercyMyn most dredfull and sovereyne Lege Lord, i Richard York ʒowre humble subgyt and very lege man, beseke ʒow of Grace of al maner offenses wych y have done or assentyd to in heny kynde, by steryng of odyr folke eggynge me yer to, where in y wote wel i have hyll offendyd to ʒowre Hynesse; besechyng ʒow at the reverence of God yat ʒyke to take me in to the handys of ʒowre gred goodnesse. My lege Lord, my fulle trust is yat ʒee wylle have consyderacyoun, thauth yat myn persone be of none valwe, ʒowre hye goodnesse wher God hath sette ʒow in so hye estat to every lege man yat to ʒow longyth plenteousely to geve grace, yat ʒow lyke to accept ʒys myn symple reqwest for ye love of oure Lady and of ye blysfulle Holy Gost, to whome I pray yat yey mot ʒowre hert enduce to all pyte and grace for yeyre hye goodnesse.
[30]
R.I.P. Latin requiēscat (or requiēscant) in pāce
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/r-i-p-
[31]
ZIE NOOT 25
[32] KORT:De Beauforts, ook wel de ”onwettige” tak van het Huis Lancaster genoemd, behoorden feitelijk helemaal niet tot het Huis Lancaster,.aangezien zijgeen kinderen waren van John of Gaunt [derde zoon van Edward III]en zijn eerste vrouw, Blanche of Lancaster, maar afstamden van John of Gaunt en zijn DERDE vrouw, Katherine Swynford: John of Gaunt’s eerste vrouw, Blanche of Lancaster, was de dochter van Henry Grosmont, de eerste hertog van Lancaster [zijn vader was Graaf Henry of Lancaster] en als zodanig erfde John of Gaunt de hertogelijke titel van zijnvrouw.”Jure uxoris” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jure_uxoris
DE BEAUFORTS echter waren dus kinderen van John of Lancaster en zijn derde vrouw Katherine Swynford, zijn gewezen maitresse.Omdat zij waren geboren tijdens het huwelijk van John of Gaunt, waren ze onwettig, maar werden achteraf gewettigd door zowel Richard II als Paus Bonifacius IX en kregen de naam Beaufort. Maar met de fysieke Lancaster afstamming hadden zij dus niets te maken.Wat hen echter een rol gaf, was dat zij halfbroers/zusters waren van de eerste Lancaster koning, Henry IV en dus partij werden in het conflict .
”The first battle of St Albans was relatively minor in military terms,[dubious – discuss] but politically was a complete victory for York and the Nevilles: York had captured the king and restored himself to complete power, while Somerset and the Nevilles’ northern rivals Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and Lord Clifford all fell during the rout”
”By now York was determined to depose Somerset by one means or another, and in May 1455 he raised an army. He confronted Somerset and the King in an engagement known as the First Battle of St Albans which marked the beginning of the Wars of the Roses. Somerset was killed in a last wild charge from the house where he had been sheltering.
WIKIPEDIAEDMUND BEAUFORT, 2ND DUKE OF SOMERSET/POLITICAL POWER AND CONFLICT
”The Act of Accord was passed by the English Parliament on 25 October 1460,[1] three weeks after Richard, Duke of York, had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed, excluding Henry’s son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.”
WIKIPEDIAACT OF ACCORD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Accord
[40]
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF WAKEFIELD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wakefield
[41]
WIKIPEDIAGAME OF THRONES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones
[42]
”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground”[Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones]
YOUTUBE.COMCERSEI LANNISTER: IN THE GAME OF THRONES YOU WIN OR YOU DIE
”The title of the episode is part of a quote from Cersei Lannister during the final confrontation with Eddard: “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”
De term voor Edward IV ”Rozenoorlogkoning” houdt verband met het feit, dat Edward, als 7de Earl [Graaf] van March en erfgenaam van zijn vader de hertog van York, letterlijk met ”bloed, zweet en tranen” voor de troon heeft moeten vechten:Zijn vaders superieure claim op de troon [van moederskant afstammend van de TWEEDE zoon van Edward III, terwijl de Lancasters afstamden van de DERDEzoon] ging na zijn vaders dood op hem over.En dan was er ook nog het [van koning Henry VI afgedwongen] Act of Accord, dat inhield, dat Henry VI tijdens zijn leven zou regeren, maar dat na zijn dood de hertog van York en zijn erfgenamen de troon zouden bestijgen [waarmee de eigen zoon van de koning, Edward van Westminster, werd gepasseerd]Helemaal ”eerlijk” was de troonsbestijging van Edward IV [ondanks zijn superieure claim dus niet, want Henry VI was op dat moment nog in leven….. MAAR GOED:Edward heeft dus keihard moeten vechten voor zijn troon en tijdens zijn bewind hebben de meeste veldslagen van de Rozenoorlogen plaatsgehad…. ZIE AAN DE RECHTERKANT VAN ONDERSTAANDE LINK http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/warsoftheroses.htm
[49] ”The Battle of Bosworth Field (or Battle of Bosworth) was the last significant battle of the Wars of the Roses, the civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York that extended across England in the latter half of the 15th century. Fought on 22 August 1485, the battle was won by the Lancastrians. Their leader Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, became the first English monarch of the Tudor dynasty by his victory and subsequent marriage to a Yorkist princess. His opponent Richard III, the last king of the House of York, was killed during the battle, the last English monarch to die in battle. Historians consider Bosworth Field to mark the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, making it one of the defining moments of English history.”
WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF BOSWORTH [BATTLE OF BOSWORTH FIELD]
”Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII, succeeded in presenting himself as a candidate not only for traditional Lancastrian supporters, but also for discontented supporters of their rival House of York, and he took the throne by right of conquest” WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF TUDOR
”The family is descended from John of Gaunt by his then-mistress Katherine Swynford. Gaunt married Swynford in 1396, and their children were legitimized by Richard II and Pope Boniface IX. ”
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF BEAUFORT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Beaufort
[54]
ZIE NOOT 25
[55]
WIKIPEDIA MARGARET OF ANJOU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Anjou
WIKIPEDIAELIZABETH OF YORK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_York
[56]
QUEEN BY RIGHT OF QUEEN REGNANT
”A queen regnant (plural: queens regnant) is a female monarch, equivalent in rank to a king, who reigns in her own right, as opposed to a queen consort, who is the wife of a reigning king, or a queen regent, who is the guardian of a child monarch and reigns temporarily in the child’s stead”
WIKIPEDIAQUEEN REGNANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_regnant
WIKIPEDIAQUEEN CONSORT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_consort
[57]
”Three of Richard’s sisters married dukes (the youngest Cecily, marrying Richard, Duke of York), and Richard himself married Alice Montacute, daughter and heiress of Thomas Montacute, the Earl of Salisbury………..”At the time of the marriage, the Salisbury inheritance was not guaranteed, as not only was Earl Thomas still alive, but in 1424 he remarried (to Alice Chaucer, granddaughter of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer). This second marriage was without issue and when the Earl Thomas Montacute died in 1428, Richard Neville and Alice were confirmed as the Earl and Countess of Salisbury. From this point on, Richard Neville will be referred to as Salisbury.” WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 5TH EARL OF SALISBURY/BACKGROUND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury#Background
”But the male line of the Nevilles was of native origin, and the family may well have been part of the pre-conquest aristocracy of Northumbria.[1] The continuation of landowning among such native families was more common in the far north of England than further south.” WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/ORIGINS
CECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS [HERTOGIN] OF YORK, WAS DE ZUSTER VAN DE VADER VAN DE 16DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK [THE KINGMAKER],RICHARD, DE VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURYMET ANDERE WOORDEN:CECILY NEVILLE, DUCHESS OF YORK WAS WARWICK’S TANTE. ZIE OOK
BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER/COUSIN AGAINST COUSIN VOORBEELD: IN DE SLAG BIJ NORTHAMPTON [1460] STONDEN DE LATERE EDWARD IV [TOEN NOG EDWARD OF YORK, 7DE EARL OF MARCH] EN DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK TEGENOVER ONDER ANDERE HUN NEEF, THOMAS PERCY, EERSTE BARON EGREMONT, DIE AAN DE LANCASTER KANT VOCHT EN IN DEZE SLAG SNEUVELDE
THOMAS PERCY WAS EEN ZOON VAN HENRY PERCY, TWEEDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND EN LADY ELEANOR NEVILLE, DE ZUSTERVAN CECILY OF YORK-NEVILLE [MOEDER VAN EDWARD IV] EN RICHARD,VIJFDE GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, DE VADER VAN GRAAF WARWICK
IN DE SLAG BIJ TOWTON [1461] STONDEN EDWARD IV [TOEN NET TOT KONING GEKROOND, WAARMEE HIJ HENRY VI VERVING] EN DE GRAAF VAN WARWICK, SAMEN MET ANDERE FAMILIELEDEN, ONDER ANDERE TEGENOVER HENRY PERCY, DE DERDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND EN BROER VAN THOMAS PERCY, EERSTE BARON VAN EGREMONT[ZIE DIRECT HIERBOVEN]DUS WEER TEGENOVER EEN NEEF, DIE AAN DE KANT VAN LANCASTER VOCHT.OOK HENRY PERCY SNEUVELDE, IN DE SLAG BIJ TOWTON WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF TOWTON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Towton
Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood” WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall
”Margaret at the time seven months pregnant, attempted to claim the regency, but gained no support. It was given instead to Henry’s cousin, Richard, Duke of York, much to the annoyance of the Queen, who strongly felt that she and her party should govern England.” ENGLISH MONARCHSMARGARET OF ANJOU http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_26.html
[74]
YOUTUBE.COMTHE CAUSES OF THE WARS OF THE ROSESMARK GOACHER
[75]
”What Cade and York were challenging was the improper influence of the king’s advisors on the application of royal authority. It is difficult to regard this as anything other than a tactic intended to prevent the imputation of treason against them. In York’s case he embellished his complaints with the inference that the king was the innocent victim of evil councillors. It was a situation from which York — the king’s true and loyal subject — would recue him; thus, allowing him to rule properly as was always his intention.
DUKE RICHARD, THE 3RD DUKE OF YORK, THE KING’S TRUE LIEGEMAN?
STAMBOOM, WAARUIT HET ZWAGERSCHAP VAN RICHARD NEVILLE, 16E GRAAF VAN WARWICK MET EDMUND BEAUFORT, 2DE HERTOG VAN SOMERSET, IS AF TE LEIDEN.HUN VROUWEN WAREN ELKAARS HALFZUSTERS, KINDEREN VANRICHARD, 13E GRAAF VAN WARWICK UIT ZIJN EERSTE EN TWEEDE HUWELIJKZIE DIRECT HIERONDER:
”In June 1453, Somerset was granted custody of the lordship of Glamorgan – part of the Despenser heritage held by Warwick until then – and open conflict broke out between the two men.[15] Then, in the summer of that year, King Henry fell ill.[16] Somerset was a favourite of the king and Queen Margaret, and with the king incapacitated he was virtually in complete control of government.[17] This put Warwick at a disadvantage in his dispute with Somerset, and drove him into collaboration with York” WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/CIVIL WAR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Civil_War
ORIGINELE BRON WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK
” The political climate, influenced by the military defeat in France, then started turning against Somerset. On 27 March 1454, a group of royal councillors appointed the Duke of York protector of the realm.[19] York could now count on the support not only of Warwick, but also of Warwick’s father Salisbury, who had become more deeply involved in disputes with the House of Percy in the north of England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Percy,_1st_Baron_Egremont ZOALS TE LEZEN [ZIE BOVENSTAANDE] HET TRIESTE WAS, DAT DEZE THOMAS PERCY DE ZOON WAS VANGENOEMDE LORD PERCY, MAAR OOK VAN ELEANOR NEVILLE, TANTE VAN VADERSZIJDE [ZUSTER VAN ZIJN VADER] VAN WARWICK EN TANTE VAN MOEDERSZIJDE VAN DE LATERE EDWARD IV [ZUSTER VAN ZIJN MOEDER CECILY NEVILLE] , TOEN NOG DE 7E EARL OF MARCH [ZOON VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK]
IN DE BATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON STREED THOMAS PERCY TEGEN ZIJN NEVEN WARWICK EN DE EARL OF MARCH [ZOON VAN DE HERTOG VAN YORK] EN SNEUVELDE WIKIPEDIABATTLE OF NORTHAMPTON (1460) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Northampton_(1460)
Henry Percy, 2e Graaf van Northumberland, getrouwd met Lady Eleanor Neville, zuster van Richard Neville [de vader van Warwick, tegenpartij en bondgenoot van York] en Cecily Neville, vrouw van de hertog van York. Humphrey Stafford, Eerste hertog van Buckingham , getrouwd met Lady Anne Neville, ook een zuster van Richard Neville en Cecily Neville, vrouw van de hertog van YorkToen al liepen de Families in de Rozenoorlogen door elkaar! HENRY PERCY, TWEEDE GRAAF VAN NORTHUMBERLAND https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy,_2nd_Earl_of_Northumberland
Eleanor Neville, Richard Neville en Cecily Nevilles zuster, Humphrey Stafford, Eerste hertog van Buckingham en getrouwd met de zuster van Warwick’s vader, Lady Anne Neville, die eveneens de zuster was van Cecily Neville, de vrouw van de hertog van York/Toen al stonden de families tegenover elkaar]
DE DRIE RICHARDS WERDEN DOOR HET ”PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS” ALS VERRADERS GEBRANDMERKT [FIGUURLIJK] EN HUN BEZITTINGEN VERBEURD VERKLAARD [ATTAINDER]DIT WAS VOORAL HET WERK VAN MARGARETHA VAN ANJOUKONING HENRY VI NEIGDE ALTIJD TOT VERGEVINGSGEZINDHEIDIK DENK, DAT DE PASSAGE [ZIE HET LAATSTE CITAAT, NA DE STIPPELLIJNEN] WAARBIJ VOLLEDIG PARDON WERD AANGEBODEN VOOR WIE ZICH AAN DE KONING ONDERWIERP, VAN DE HAND VAN HENRY VI KWAM……
”The Parliament opened in the chapter house of St. Mary’s priory with a speech by the chancellor, William Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, preaching on the text ‘Grace to you and peace be multiplied’, but the government’s purpose was undoubtedly to condemn York and his kinsmen and allies as traitors. A bill accused twenty-four persons of levying war against the King at Blore Heath and Ludford, and three more (including the countess of Salisbury) of plotting his death elsewhere. It recited York’s treasons since 1450; what had been done at St. Albans (in 1455 when the duke had eliminated several of his political opponents in a pitched battle in the streets of the town) had been an ‘execrabill and moost detestable dede’, prompted by ‘the moost diabolique unkyndnesse and wrecched envye’. Attainder was fully justified, whereby the traitors were condemned to death and all their possessions declared forfeit. Furthermore, their heirs were to be barred from inheritance forever”…………”The chancellor’s choice of text for his sermon could be taken to imply an intention to pursue peace by softening the rigour of justice with the King’s prerogative of mercy, and at the end of the session Henry VI did indeed mitigate the effects of the act of attainder, insisting on a proviso that he could grant full pardon and restoration to those who humbly sought his grace”
”A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.”
NA DEZE HANDELINGEN VAN HET PARLIAMENT OF DEVILS, ONTVLUCHTTEN DE DRIE RICHARDS [MET YORK’S ZOON EDWARD, DE EARL OF MARCH, LATER EDWARD IV] HET LAND YORK NAAR IERLAND, WARWICK, NEEF EDWARD [EARL OF MARCH] EN VADER RICHARD NEVILLE, 5E GRAAF VAN SALISBURY, NAAR FRANKRIJK, CALAIS [LAATSTE ENGELSE BOLWERK IN FRANKRIJK,WARWICK WAS KAPITEIN VAN CALAIS
[93] ”The Act of Accord was passed by the English Parliament on 25 October 1460,[1] three weeks after Richard, Duke of York, had entered the Council Chamber and laid his hand on the empty throne. Under the Act, King Henry VI of England was to retain the crown for life but York and his heirs were to succeed, excluding Henry’s son, Edward of Westminster. Henry was forced to agree to the Act.”
”The Duke of York was either killed in the battle or captured and immediately executed. Some later works support the folklore that he suffered a crippling wound to the knee and was unhorsed, and he and his closest followers then fought to the death at that spot;[38] others relate the account that he was taken prisoner (by one Sir James Luttrell of Devonshire), mocked by his captors and beheaded.[40]
His son Edmund, Earl of Rutland attempted to escape over Wakefield Bridge, but was overtaken and killed, possibly by Clifford in revenge for his father’s death at St Albans. Salisbury’s second son Sir Thomas Neville also died in the battle.[21] Salisbury’s son in law William, Lord Harington and Harington’s father, William Bonville, were captured and executed immediately after the battle. (The Bonvilles had been engaged in a feud with the Earl of Devon and the Courtenay family in Devon and Cornwall.) Salisbury himself escaped the battlefield but was captured during the night, and was taken to the Lancastrian camp. Although the Lancastrian nobles might have been prepared to allow Salisbury to ransom himself, he was dragged out of Pontefract Castle and beheaded by local commoners, to whom he had been a harsh overlord”
”The death of his father left Edward, now Duke of York, at the head of the Yorkist faction. He defeated a Lancastrian army at Mortimer’s Cross in Herefordshire on 2–3 February 1461. He then united his forces with those of Warwick, whom Margaret’s army had defeated at the Second Battle of St Albans (17 February 1461), during which Henry VI had been rescued by his supporters.[7] Edward’s father had restricted his ambitions to becoming Henry’s heir, but Edward now took the more radical step of proclaiming himself king in March 1461.[7] He then advanced against the Lancastrians, having his life saved on the battlefield by the Welsh Knight Sir David Ap Mathew. He defeated the Lancastrian army in the exceptionally bloody Battle of Towton in Yorkshire on 29 March 1461.[8] Edward had effectively broken the military strength of the Lancastrians, and he returned to London for his coronation. King Edward IV named Sir David Ap Mathew Standard Bearer of England and allowed him to use “Towton” on the Mathew family crest.”
”Warwick’s position after the accession of Edward IV was stronger than ever.[59] He had now succeeded to his father’s possessions, and in 1462 he also inherited his mother’s lands and the Salisbury title.[60] Altogether he had an annual income from his lands of over £7,000 far more than any other man in the realm but the king.[61] Edward confirmed Warwick’s position as Captain of Calais, and made him High Admiral of England and Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster, along with several other offices”
”I myself hold the opinion, that when King Edward would have concentratedon the military (he was an extremely capable military commander) and the Earl of Warwick on ruling and diplomacy, they whould have been made a deadly double and perhapsruled England happily together, if at least Edward had not fallen ill and diedso untimely.”
[102] ”When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.There is no middle ground”[Cersei Lannister in the Game of Thrones]
YOUTUBE.COMCERSEI LANNISTER: IN THE GAME OF THRONES YOU WIN OR YOU DIE
”The title of the episode is part of a quote from Cersei Lannister during the final confrontation with Eddard: “When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.”
[104] ”At the negotiations with the French, Warwick had intimated that King Edward was interested in a marriage arrangement with the French crown, the intended bride being Louis XI’s sister-in-law, Bona, daughter of Louis, Duke of Savoy.[71] This marriage was not to be, however, because in September 1464, Edward revealed that he was already married, to Elizabeth Woodville.[72] The marriage caused great offence to Warwick: not only due to the fact that his plans had been sabotaged, but also the secrecy with which the king had acted.[73] The marriage – contracted on 1 May of the same year – was not made public before Warwick pressed Edward on the issue at a council meeting, and in the meanwhile Warwick had been unknowingly deceiving the French into believing the king was serious about the marriage proposal.” WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/EARLY TENSIONS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Early_tensions
For Edward the marriage may very well have been a love match, but in the long run he sought to build the Woodville family into a powerhouse independent of Warwick’s influence.[74] The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville caused Warwick to lose his power and influence. He accused Elizabeth, and her mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg, of witchcraft to try and restore the power that he had lost
YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE/EP 2 OF 4 (WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY
[106]
”VERRADER WILDE ZELF OP DE TROON De Graaf van Warwick, bijgenaamd ”The Kingmaker” steunde Hendrik VI van het Huis van Lancaster met zijn rijkdom., welsprekendheid en leger.Hij liep over toen zijn neef van het huis York als Eduard IV werd gekroond.Uit machtswellust nam de Graaf van Warwick na een veldslag de koning gevangenen probeerde hij zelf op de Engelse troon te komen.”
Bladzijde 24Magazine ”Ontdek”Aflevering:De geschiedenis achter Game of Thrones
[107] This was not enough to cause a complete fallout between the two men, though from this point on Warwick increasingly stayed away from court.[76] The promotion of Warwick’s brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king. In July 1465, when Henry VI was once more captured, it was Warwick who escorted the fallen king to his captivity in the Tower.
”The English negotiated with their Burgundian allies to transfer her to their custody, with Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan, assuming a prominent role in these negotiations and her later trial.[68] The final agreement called for the English to pay the sum of 10,000 livres tournois[69] to obtain her from Jean de Luxembourg, a member of the Council of Duke Philip of Burgundy.” WIKIPEDIAJOAN OF ARC/CAPTURE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Capture
”Meanwhile, Edward’s father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had been created treasurer, was in favour of a Burgundian alliance.[80] This set up internal conflict within the English court, which was not alleviated by the fact that Edward had signed a secret treaty in October with Burgundy, while Warwick was forced to carry on sham negotiations with the French”
Most of England’s leading families had remained loyal to Henry VI or remained uncommitted in the recent conflict. The new regime, therefore, relied heavily on the support of the Nevilles, who held vast estates and had been so instrumental in bringing Edward to the throne. However, the king increasingly became estranged from their leader the Earl of Warwick, due primarily to his marriage
Edward’s impetuous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville greatly offended the Nevilles, largely because Warwick had been negotiating several continental alliances to support Edward’s tenuous reign, including a marriage to one of several family members of Louis XI of France.
Warwick now orchestrated a rebellion in Yorkshire while he was away, led by a “Robin of Redesdale“.[87] Part of Warwick’s plan was winning over King Edward’s younger brother, George Plantagenet, possibly with the prospect of installing him on the throne
WIKIPEDIAHOUSE OF NEVILLE/DISAFFECTION AND DEFECTION
Disaffection and defection
Warwick, now the richest man in England after the king, was the power behind the throne in Edward’s regime during its early years, but the two men later fell out.
The king opposed the marriage as it would bring the already powerful Earl of Warwick too close to the throne. However the ceremony took place in secret at Calais on 11 July 1469, conducted by Isabel Neville’s uncle George Neville, archbishop of York.
”Warwick retired in dudgeon to his estates, and began to plot in secret for his revenge. In the summer of 1469 he went over to Calais, where Isabel and Clarence were married without the king’s knowledge. ”
”Robin of Redesdale (fl. 1469), sometimes called “Robin Mend-All”, was the leader of an insurrection against King Edward IV of England.[1] His true identity is unknown, but it is thought he could have been either Sir John Conyers of Hornby (d. 1490) or his brother Sir William Conyers of Marske (d. 1469), or even both. Whoever he was, the power behind his rebellion was Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (“Warwick the Kingmaker”).” WIKIPEDIAROBIN OF REDESDALE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_of_Redesdale
With his army now defeated, King Edward IV was taken under arrest by George Neville.[95] Warwick then imprisoned the king in Warwick Castle, and in August, the king was taken north to Middleham Castle.[96] In the long run, however, it proved impossible to rule without the king, and continuing disorder forced Warwick to release King Edward IV in September 1469 WIKIPEDIARICHARD NEVILLE, 16TH EARL OF WARWICK/REBELLION AND DEATH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neville,_16th_Earl_of_Warwick#Rebellion_and_death
”A modus vivendi had been achieved between Warwick and the king for some months, but the restoration of Henry Percy to Montagu’s earldom of Northumberland prevented any chance of full reconciliation.[97] A trap was set for the king when disturbances in Lincolnshire led him north, where he could be confronted by Warwick’s men.[98] Edward, however, discovered the plot when Robert, Lord Welles, was routed at Losecote Field in Rutland, and gave away the plan
”Despite this matrimonial relationship with the Nevilles, when Warwick drove Edward IV into exile in 1470, Hastings went with Edward and accompanied the king back the following spring
”During the latter part of Edward IV’s reign, Richard demonstrated his loyalty to the king,[49] in contrast to their brother George who had allied himself with Warwick when the earl rebelled towards the end of the 1460s.[50] Following Warwick’s 1470 rebellion, before which he had made peace with Margaret of Anjou and promised the restoration of Henry VI to the English throne, Richard, William, Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers escaped capture at Doncaster by Warwick’s brother, Lord Montague.[51] On 2 October they sailed from King’s Lynn in two ships; Edward landed at Marsdiep and Richard at Zeeland.[52] It was said that, having left England in such haste as to possess almost nothing, Edward was forced to pay their passage with his fur cloak; certainly, Richard borrowed three pounds from Zeeland’s town bailiff.
”Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France.[100] Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick’s daughter Anne
”Warwick made an accord with Louis XI and Queen Margaret in which he agreed to restore Henry VI in return for French support for a military invasion of England”
Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France.[100] Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry’s son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick’s daughter Anne
”Henry VI rewarded Clarence by making him next in line to the throne after his own son, justifying the exclusion of Edward IV either by attainder for his treason against Henry VI or on the grounds of his alleged illegitimacy.[citation needed] After a short time, Clarence realized that his loyalty to his father-in-law was misplaced: Warwick had his younger daughter, Anne Neville, Clarence’s sister-in-law, marry Henry VI’s son in December 1470. This demonstrated that his father-in-law was less interested in making him king than in serving his own interests and, since it now seemed unlikely that Warwick would replace Edward IV with Clarence, Clarence was secretly reconciled with Edward ”
YOUTUBE.COMBRITAIN’S BLOODY CROWNTHE KINGMAKER MUST DIE/EP 2 OF 4 (WARS OF THE ROSES DOCUMENTARY
[131] ”Most of England’s leading families had remained loyal to Henry VI or remained uncommitted in the recent conflict. The new regime, therefore, relied heavily on the support of the Nevilles, who held vast estates and had been so instrumental in bringing Edward to the throne.”
”Henry was by now fully determined to take the throne, but presenting a rationale for this action proved a dilemma.[2] It was argued that Richard, through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king.[98] However, Henry was not next in line to the throne; the heir presumptive was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, great-grandson of Edward III’s second surviving son, Lionel. Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt, was Edward’s third son to survive to adulthood” WIKIPEDIARICHARD II OF ENGLAND/DOWNFALL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_II_of_England#Downfall
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Rozenoorlogen tussen Huizen York en Lancaster/Onzininformatie over hoofdrolspeler Richard Neville, 16e Graaf van Warwick, de ”Kingmaker”
YOUTUBE.COMGAME OF THRONESA LANNISTER ALWAYS PAYS HIS DEBTS4.16-4.18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUg2Q4A13Ss
CHAPTERS RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEEN
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
FINAL
[END OF THE CHAPTERS, NOW READ MY ARTICLE!]
[Written between 10 March and 7 August 2021!]
Readers!At 10 March anno Domini 2021 I did a promise to you, that I wouldcomment on the Sensational Oprah Winfrey interview with PrinceHarry and his wife Meghan Markle [1], who both had finally decided not to return to their royal roles and duties [2]However,according to my information, Prince Harry is stillin the line for the throne [3],which I applaud, since as you’ll know, I cheered theroyal couple on from the beginning! [4]Why?Because Cheddar Man finally won. [5]HAHAHA/NO, That’s a half joke!I think one of the reasons is, that here I saw a Couple, that chose foreach other, despite the racist backlash Meghan Markle had from the beginning [6]and the courageous and honourable defense from Prince Harry on her behalf [7].Seems like a modern fairy Tale and Why not?People are allowed to dream, to juice the very life! That was the Fairy Tale side of it.But like a bad dream in ”Alice in Wonderland” [8], it was not a”and they lived happily ever after” Story, not only because ofthe backlash at first [9], but because apparently there was an evil partyspoiler within the Royal Family.I’ll deal with that later. But meanwhile the disturbing backlash continued [10], even a nasty petition to strip Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle from theirroyal titles ”The Duke and Duchess of Sussex” [11]The petitioner considered the titles as ” ‘morally wrong’ and ‘disrespectful’and considered them as ” ‘entirely non-democratic’ and a ‘symbol of oppression by the wealthy elite’. [12]Be that as it may [indeed, in 21st century monarchs and royal titles are a thing apart], but is this just an outburst of republicanism [13]or…it is more?Because, when it were just them ”holding royal titles”, then why especially directed against Prince Harry and his wife and not against the rest of the royal family, like Prince Harry’s elder brother, Prince William, heir to the throne after their father the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles?[Prince Willam is the Duke of Cambridge] [14]Seems suspicious to me! Because the whole case felt unfair to me, I send an email letter to the Council of Brighton, in which I wrote among else: ”Although I am not a British national, yet I take the liberty to write you about your debating the petition of stripping Prince Harry and his wife Ms Meghan Markle from the royal titles ”Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, which were given to them by Queen Elisabeth at the occasion of their wedding. [1]Shortly said:I think this petition is an outrage, a sign of disrespect against the Queen and especially Prince Harry and Ms Meghan Markle and I urgently request to you NOT to grant this nonsense petition;” [15] I was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr R. Watson, Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council” ””Dear Astrid Essed,
Many thanks for your email. While we are obliged to debate any petition with more than 1,250 signatures at Full Council, the issue raised is a matter for the Crown rather than local authorities. We do not have the power to remove titles and, therefore, the council voted to simply ‘note’ the petition. No further action is being taken.
Best regards,
Richard Watson | Customer Feedback Officer | Performance, Improvements and Programmes | Brighton & Hove City Council”
[16]
The haters did not win! [17]
RACIST SMEAR CAMPAIGN
But like Prince Harry rightly stated in his declaration to defend his then
fiancee Meghan Marke [18], there has been a nasty, racist smear campaign against Meghan Markle from nearly the beginning the press [and others]
knew, that she had a love relation with Prince Harry. [19]
Of course it were not all journalists and the whole press:
Espexially low class ”journalist” Piers Morgan [20] led the smear campaign for resaons he knows best, followed by other journalistic
nobodies [21]
By the way:
This Piers Morgan journalist is so obsessed by his vendetta against
Meghan Markle, that he recently [march 2021] left the ITV Good Morning Britain show program because of his [again] hateful remarks about Meghan Markle, even though she and her husband left the country for a time already [22]
The reason for his nasty remarks led in the Oprah Winfrey interview [23]
and the remarks Meghan Markle made about her mental state of health
[suicide thoughts] [24]
I refer to that later.
But of course not the whole press was led by either racist or hateful
[or a combination of the two] moties against Meghan Markle:
For example journalist Zoe Williams did a good job with her
article in the Guardian ”Whatever Meghan does, she’s damned. Let’s not
repeat history.”, fighting the nasty villification of Meghan Markle. [25]
Am I saying now, that Meghan Markle is a Saint?
Of course not!
Everybody makes mistakes and she will have made hers:
But here I am fighting the abnormal negative attention, with often
racist undertones Meghan Markle got [26] and I am glad that there were
journalists, who played fair play!
LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Anyway, partly because of that continuing smear campaign against
Meghan Markle [27], Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, who became happy parents of a son, Lord Archie, on 6 may 2019 [28], decided
to step back as senior royals, splitting their time between the UK and
North-America. [29]
That was in january 2020. [30]
The MEGXIT, as sensational tabloids called it [31], as if Meghan Markle
made that decision alone…..!
Cherchez la Femme…../HAHAHAHA
First the Royal Couple went to Canada, later they moved to L.A. [Los Angeles] [32]
According to my information, they now live in Montecito [33], where Meghan Markle expects their second child [34], a daughter, as they revealed
in the Oprah Winfrey interview. [35]
A special Blessing after the miscarriage Meghan suffered last year! [36]
By the way, I forgot to mention, that after leaving England, Prince
Harry and Meghan Markle signed contracts with Netflix and Spotify [37]
A Shrewd Couple!
GOODBYE TO ROYAL TASKS
As I wrote before, in the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and
Meghan made up their mind, not to return to their royal tasks and
duties. [38]
Also we have seen Prince Harry and his son Lord Archie’s right on
succession to the throne remains the same. [39]
But [and that’s understandable, since they don’t do the
Royal Job anymore] that they lose their royal patronages. [40]
Prince Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, issued a declaration,
stating, confirming this grand step of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan,
stating ”While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family” [41]
The Statement of the Queen also referred to the fact, that
the royal patronages were withdrawn:
”Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.'[42]
THE OPRAH WINFREY INTERVIEW, THAT SHOOK THE WORLD!
RACIST REMARKS AND ”THE FIRM” PRESSURE
So far, so good.
Now the interview with Oprah Winfrey
That D….mnd interview. [43]
Now assuming, that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke the truth
with Oprah Winfrey, did it shocked me?
For a part, yes.
For a part, no, since I already learnt [and wrote about] the racist smearcampaign against Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, by the press. [44]
But now the Royal Family was involved, at least one [or more?] members,
uttering racist remarks. [45]
And not the least!
I quote from the interview:
”Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.” [46]
AND THAT’S SOMETHING!
OR ISN’T IT?
Before going deeper into this, there were twelve higlights in the notorious
[or famous] interview, which BBC clarified for us [47]:
I mention them for you, one by one:
1 Discussions about how dark Meghan’s baby might be
2 Kate ”made Meghan cry”, not the other way around
3 Meghan said she was on the verge of suicide but was refused help
4 Meghan spoke to one of Diana’s friends
5 Harry feels ”let down” by Charles
6 But the couple’s relationship with the Queen is good
7 Harry ”cut out financially”
8 The truth behind a photograph
9 Meghan ”didn’t do any research” on the Royal Family
10 They exchanged vowed three days before their wedding
11 Archie’s favourite phrase is ”drive safe”
12 And….it’s a girl!
[48]
Now I don’t comment on all the twelve highlights [the Megan-Katie thing [49] I consider as less important, I can’t judge who is right, I was not there], I only mention those things
which I think are really important.
To begin with:
THE FIRM, THAT MYSTERIOUS FIRM
During the interview with Oprah Winfrey, several times Meghan Markle
refers to an institution within the British Royal Family, ”The Firm” and she is very vague about the person or persons who back[s] this:
I quote from the interview:
”Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?
Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right? [50]
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things” [51]
ANOTHER QUOTE ABOUT ”THE FIRM”/THE PRESSURE
” And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.” [52]
THE FIRM, AGAIN/IT’S WAY OF ACTING
[Quote]
”Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people” [53]
THE FIRM/RACIST REMARKS
I must confess readers, that I don’t get grip on this, no persons
mentioned, no facts to check, no names
”It” or ” those people” can be anyone in the Royal Family, but, assuming that
Meghan Markle speaks the truth about some damaging sides of ”The Firm” [like having trouble with the skin colour of her and Prince Harry’s first child, Archie, a horror story, which was confirmed by Prince Harry, as denying Meghan a form of help, when she was depressed] [54], that Firm must be some important members of the Royal Family.
I puzzled and puzzled, but without more information I can’t make sense
of this.
Only of course, that assuming Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the truth, there must be a racist cuckoo in the British Royal Family, which is
no suprise to me, after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism. [55]
Would have been strange if it had not affected the Royal Family.
So ”The Firm” is a vague Institution of a series of people [who, is the big question] in the Royal Family with some power and some of them
have uttered very painful, racist things against Prince Harry about
the possible skin colour of the baby [who turned to be ”Lord Archie] [56]
I’ve puzzled and puzzled, like as I’m sure most people, who
saw or read the interview [I did noth], who that mysterious person or
persons might be, who made those nasty remarks about the skin colour
of Lord Archie, the great grandson of reigning Queen Elizabeth II!
If the whole thing is true-if Meghan Markle and Prince Harry speak the
truth and for now I have no reason to doubt that-it is a nasty business, but, again, not the whole amazing, that racism also exists between the British
Royal Family after from 17th centuries creation of the concept of race,
in time of slavery and colonialism! [57]
STATEMENT OF THE QUEEN ON RACIST REMARKS
More important is the Statement of the Queen, who spoke out concerns
about those racist remarks after the Oprah Winfrey interview. [58]
Quoting the message of Buckingham Palace:
”The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
“The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
“Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.” [59]
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE QUEENThat’s clear talk and as Meghan Markle remarked in the famous Oprah Winfreyinterview about the Queen:”So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . .
Oprah: Was this on the train?
Meghan: Yeah, on the train.”
AND
”Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.
Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?
Meghan: Yes.” [60]
Prince Harry also commented:
” I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
ALSO
”My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be. ” [61]
[HAHAHA, THE MILITARY WAY……]
WHAT’S FURTHER ON THE TABLE
DEPRESSION OF MEGHAN MARKLE
As I said before, I don’t comment on all the topics of that famous
Oprah Winfrey Interview
I leave the Meghan/Katie thing [62] for what it is, that Meghan didn’t do research on the Royal Family [63] etcetera.
Also I don’t comment on Prince Harry’s relationship between his father
and brother [64], because fathers and sons often have their issues, like brothers.
After all, fathers and sons are fathers and sons and brothers will
be brothers and in most cases, everything will be allright and they”
ll end as one big, happy fami!y!
And I do believe, that a Royal Life can be a golden harnass [as Prince Harry commented, that his father and brother are ”trapped” [64], but that’s the price you pay for your privilege, isn’t it?
As Prince Harry said himself ”It’s part of the job” [65]
Also Prince Harry’s remarks, that he was ”cut out financially” [66],
didn’t impress me.
When you are the grandson of the Queen, one of the richest women in
the world [67] and you have been raised with all kinds of privileges
and financial advantages, than ”cut out financially” means a totally
different story than when it happens to the common man.
Besides, the first task of any man and father, royalty or not, is
to provide for his family on his own force.
So that’s for the royal privileges
But of course that all changes , when you are twelve [two weeks after his mother’s death, Prince Harry became thirteen years old] and fifteen years old
when you loses your mother far too early by a car crashincident, pushed
by the tabloids and you have to walk behind her coffin for the eyes
of the whole world to see [68]
I felt really sorry for Prince Harry and his brother Prince William at that moment.
Too young, far too young to lose one;s mother [although it is never the right time]
That also changes when you feel that depressed, like Meghan Markle stated in the Oprah interview, that you want to take your own life…..[69]
SNAKE PIERS MORGAN!
Even about that statement boulevard hater Piers Morgan made a nasty remark, so he had to leave Good Morning Britain after more than 40.000 complaints! [70]
GOOD RIDDANCE TOO!
So therefore I wanted to comment that depression of Meghan Markle,
nearly ruining her life and that of her family.
And if it’s really true, that Meghan knocked on the door of
”the Firm” and they didn’t open it, when she was in need [refused to give
the necessary help] [71], that that’s more than scandalous.
ASTRID’S WRITING ABOUT THE OPRAH INTERVIEW, FROM
MARCH UNTIL AUGUST
Since I began to comment the famous Oprah Interview [in March] until now [August], much has happened in the British Royal Family, so including in the lives of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Prince Harry’s grandfather, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, died [72]
Prince Harry and his brother Prince William unveil a statue in the honour of their mother, Princess Diana [73] and of course the happy arrival of
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s daughter, Lady Lilibeth, the eleventh grandchild of Queen Elizabeth and named after her greatgrandmother Queen Elizabeth [Lilibet was the name the Queen’s family called her] and her grandmother Princess Diana [74]
[They listened to me:
I always said, that when Harry and Meghan became parents of a daughter,
they had to name her after her greatgrandmother the Queen/HAHAHA]
Also Prince Harry revealed some issues he had with his father concerning
the way he was raised [75], but I consider that as personal and I am sure
they will work that out.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have their own life now, far from any
racist smearcampaign [76] and I wish them, with their children, a happy life!
FINAL
So as I promised at 10 march this anno Domini [77], I would comment on
the famous Oprah Winfrey interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
Now I did.
And you readers probably will ask yourself:
Why she is bothering with an interview from march, we living in august?
Normally indeed I would not bother, but now it is important, because racism is there, that greeneyed monster [78] that can ruin lives.
But happily not the life of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who choose the
right way to leave this mess behind them.
But this is racism in the highest circles, the British Royal Family and you
would think, that somebody who is that priviliged as the Duchess of Sussex, should not be subject of it.
Yet it happened, but luckily she has a true husband, Prince Harry, who supports her no matter what, as he has proved. [79]
That made it worth to write about this, although it was months ago, that
the interview was taken.
As I wrote in this article, I could not track down, who is the racist cuckoo
in the British Royal Family, but that matters not.
Fact is, that racism is appartently also the issue in those circles.
And alas, racism is with us for a long time yet, perhaps until
we are attacked by aliens and together we are defending our Mother Earth
[HAHAHA]
But fighting against racism and prejudice, wherever you find it, was worth
to write this article.
And the fact that I completed this article five months after the famous Oprah Winfrey interview [80], adds the worth of fighting for equality.
OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN MARKLE, DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX ”“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.
She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.
Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.
This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.” [1]
This was the official Statement of Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, the happy parents of now a son [ Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor] and a daughter [Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor ] [2]
As at the birth of their son, Lord Archie [3], I add my congratulations to the happy parents!
Also to the Royal Girl’s uncle and aunt, the Duke and Duchess ofCambridge [Prince Harry’s brother, Prince William andhis wife, Kate Middleton], paternal grandfather Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Prince Harry’s stephmother, her maternal grandparents Doria Ragland and Thomas Markle.And of course her great grandmother, Queen Elisabeth and alas for him, her husband, paternal great grandfather Prince Philip didn’t live long enough to see this day….[4] Of course the Duke and Duchess of Sussex received congratulationsfrom the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William [5]
After the birth of Lady Lilibet’s brother, Lord Archie, I remarked jokingly, that it would be nice if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex became parents of a daughter, who would
be named after Queen Elisabeth and so nice that they did indeed!
But the most of all I appreciate that the Royal Couple named their daughter after Prince Harry’s mother, Princess Diana,
who died so tragically and made such a great contribution to
the fight against landmines [6], which remains greatly
memorable.
Beautiful to honour her on this way, to name her granddaughter,
whom she regrettably never saw, after her.
Astrid Essed
NOTES
[1]
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
“It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet “Lili” Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.
She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.
Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.
This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.”
A MESSAGE OF THANKS FROM THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF SUSSEX
“On June 4th, we were blessed with the arrival of our daughter, Lili. She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”
””It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.” CNNMEGHAN AND HARRY WELCOME BABY GIRL, LILIBET DIANA https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/06/europe/meghan-harry-baby-girl-news-intl-scli/index.html
(CNN)Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has given birth to a daughter, the second child for her and Prince Harry, the couple announced in a statement on Sunday.”It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world,” the statement said.”Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital,” it said, adding that the new arrival weighed in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces (3.49 kilos) and that “both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.””Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales,” the statement added.Baby Lili is a sister for the couple’s 2-year-old son, Archie Harrison.Harry, Meghan and their baby son, Archie, meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu during their royal tour of South Africa on September 25, 2019.In a message on their Archewell foundation website, Meghan and Harry said they had been “blessed” by their daughter’s arrival.”She is more than we could have ever imagined, and we remain grateful for the love and prayers we’ve felt from across the globe. Thank you for your continued kindness and support during this very special time for our family.”Buckingham Palace released a statement Sunday on the baby girl’s birth.”The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” it read.The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall along with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge tweeted their congratulations.The US Embassy in London also congratulated the Sussexes, noting the news comes just in time for Father’s Day.
‘Feeling of joy’
Harry and Meghan revealed they were expecting a girl during their tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast in March.The newborn is the Queen’s 11th great-grandchild. She is eighth in line to the throne behind her grandfather Charles, uncle William, his three children (George, Charlotte and Louis), her father Harry, and big brother Archie.Her birth in the United States makes her the most senior royal in the line of succession to have been born overseas.It also makes her a dual US-UK citizen, meaning that the youngest Sussex could potentially go on to become US President when she grows up — while also being in line to the British throne.Meghan and Harry kept the pregnancy as private as possible, speaking just a handful of times about their daughter’s impending arrival.One of those occasions was for a pre-recorded message from Meghan for the recent Vax Live concert in May, which she and Harry co-chaired.”My husband and I are thrilled to soon be welcoming a daughter — it’s a feeling of joy we share with millions of other families around the world,” the Duchess told the audience at the event, intended to promote Covid-19 vaccine equity and gender equality.”When we think of her, we think of all the young women and girls around the globe who must be given the ability and support to lead us forward,” she said. “Their future leadership depends on the decisions we make, and the actions we take now to set them up, and set all of us up, for a successful, equitable, and compassionate tomorrow.”
Pregnancy announcement
The royal couple announced back in February they were expecting an addition to their family, sharing a black-and-white snap of them gazing at each other, while Meghan cradled her baby bump.The photo was shot by Misan Harriman, a Nigerian-born British photographer and friend of the couple, who took the picture remotely from his London residence.The timing of their Valentine’s Day announcement likely held special significance for the couple, coming almost exactly 37 years to the day after Prince Charles and Princess Diana revealed that they were expecting their second child: Prince Harry.
Meghan and Harry are expecting a second childMeghan disclosed in an opinion piece for The New York Times that she suffered a miscarriage last summer.Their newborn daughter is entitled to be a Lady from birth, but will likely not use the title.When Archie Harrison was born in 2019, the Duke and Duchess opted to forgo titles and indicated they would not use his father’s second peerage title, the Earl of Dumbarton.Neither of the Sussex children is currently eligible to use HRH titles, following the rules set out by George V in the 1917 Letters Patent. However, this will change when their grandfather Charles ascends to the throne.As for the question of whether Archie and his baby sister will be joined by more siblings in the future, that doesn’t seem to be on the cards right now.Harry revealed that he and his wife are likely to keep their brood limited to “two, maximum” while discussing the Earth’s dwindling resources with activist and chimpanzee expert Jane Goodall for a special edition of British Vogue last July.Harry and Meghan were married in a lavish wedding at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor, England, three years ago.They stepped back from their roles as senior working royals last year, relinquishing their HRH titles, and now live in Santa Barbara, California.
The private neighborhood
Harry and Meghan settled into their Santa Barbara home last July, according to August reports from People magazine.”They have settled into the quiet privacy of their community since their arrival and hope that this will be respected for their neighbors, as well as for them as a family,” a representative for the family told the magazine in August 2020.Richard Mineards, a columnist for Montecito Journal who covered the royals for 45 years, told CNN on Sunday that the area where they live is very “grand … with very large estates” and it does not have issues with paparazzi.”I mean, Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, Oscar winner Jeff Bridges, Oscar winner Kevin Costner (and) George Lucas live just down the road,” Mineards said. “We are a celebrity community.”The community also has “very wealthy people” such as tech billionaires, he said. “You name it, we have it,” he said. END OF THE ARTICLE
Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II’s husband, has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace has announced.
A statement issued by the palace just after midday spoke of the Queen’s “deep sorrow” following his death at Windsor Castle on Friday morning.
The Duke of Edinburgh, the longest-serving royal consort in British history, was at the Queen’s side for more than her six decades of reign.
Boris Johnson said he “inspired the lives of countless young people”.
“It is with deep sorrow that Her Majesty The Queen announces the death of her beloved husband,” the Palace said.
“The Royal Family join with people around the world in mourning his loss.”
It is understood that the Prince of Wales travelled from his home in Gloucestershire to visit his mother at Windsor Castle on Friday afternoon.
Speaking at Downing Street, the prime minister said that the duke had “earned the affection of generations here in the United Kingdom, across the Commonwealth, and around the world”.
Meanwhile, Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said he “consistently put the interests of others ahead of his own and, in so doing, provided an outstanding example of Christian service”.
In tribute to the duke, Westminster Abbey began tolling its tenor bell once every 60 seconds at 18:00 BST. It rang out 99 times to honour each year of his life.
Earlier, the flag at Buckingham Palace was lowered to half-mast and a notice was posted on the gates to mark the duke’s death.
People placed floral tributes outside the palace, while hundreds visited Windsor Castle to pay their respects.
However, the government urged the public not to gather or leave tributes at royal residences amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The Royal Family has asked people to consider making a donation to a charity instead of leaving flowers in memory of the duke, and an online book of condolence has been launched on the official royal website for those who wish to send messages.
A message on the website of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s non-profit organisation Archewell paid tribute to the “loving memory” of the Duke of Edinburgh, saying: “Thank you for your service… you will be greatly missed.”
From midday on Saturday, a 41-gun salute will take place for Prince Philip in cities including London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, as well as in Gibraltar and at sea from Royal Navy warships, the Ministry of Defence said. They will be broadcast online and on television for the public to watch from home.
The BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said it was “a moment of sadness” for the country and “most particularly, for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years – a bigger span of years than most of us can imagine”.
He said Prince Philip had made “a huge contribution to the success of the Queen’s reign”, describing the duke as “utterly loyal in his belief in the importance of the role that the Queen was fulfilling – and in his duty to support her”.
“It was the importance of the solidity of that relationship, of their marriage, that was so crucial to the success of her reign,” he added.
A bank of photographers and cameramen were lined up around the growing number of tributes at Buckingham Palace on Friday afternoon, said BBC News reporter Marie Jackson.
Rhea Varma, from Pimlico, pulled up to the gates on her bike to lay flowers and a note saying Rest in Peace Duke.
She said the news was “super sad”. To her, the duke was “the kind of stability that’s so old-fashioned it’s difficult to comprehend. He was a rock who brought integrity.”
Adam Wharton-Ward, 36, also arrived to leave lilies by the palace gates. He is visiting London from his home in France but was so moved by the news, he wanted to “rally round” for the Queen’s sake.
“It’s so sad. He’s been with her for 73 years. If it wasn’t for him who knows if she would have got through it,” he said.
The duke’s appeal, he added, was that he was “almost normal with his gaffes”.
“Now that normality has gone,” he said.
The prince married Princess Elizabeth in 1947, five years before she became Queen.
He was admitted on 16 February after feeling unwell, and later underwent a procedure for a pre-existing heart condition at another London hospital – St Bartholomew’s.
The Queen has not been able to meet little Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor yet, as she was born in California. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now living in Montecito with their son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and their new baby girl. The pandemic has made international travel difficult and, given the Queen’s age and schedule, she probably will not head to California soon. However, despite the distance, the monarch shared a sweet public message welcoming the new baby, according to a Buckingham Palace spokesperson.
The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
The Royal Family’s social media channels also shared a note about the new baby, along with a photo from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s wedding day.This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Lilibet, whose name is a tribute to both Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana, was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m weighing in at a healthy 7 lbs 11 oz. Her parents and older brother were all happy to welcome the little royal to their family. According to the statement, grandparents Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall are also “delighted” about the newest addition to their brood.
Aside from Archie, the Queen’s other great-grandchildren include Prince William and Kate’s children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, who are the third, fourth, and fifth in line for the throne, respectively. There are also Peter Phillips’ two children, Savannah and Isla, and Zara Phillips’ kids, Mia, Lena, and Lucas. Princess Eugenie also recently welcomed her son, August Brooksbank, to the ever-growing British royal family.
A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”
Prince William and Catherine, Duchess Of Cambridge have reportedly sent a gift to Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess Of Sussex for their new daughter Lilibet.
According to Us Weekly, the pair were “informed about the birth and have sent Lilibet a gift,” and later offered their congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, after it was confirmed that in their second child was born in Santa Barbara on June 4.
The Duke and Duchess admitted they were “delighted” to hear the news that Harry and Meghan have become parents to a little girl, whose full name is Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.
A tweet posted on the Kensington Royal official account read: “We are all delighted by the happy news of the arrival of baby Lili. Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie.”
While the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall shared on their page: “Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana. Wishing them all well at this special time.”
Buckingham Palace officials also issued a statement to reveal the Royal Family were thrilled to hear about the baby’s arrival.
The statement released by the family read: “The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have been informed and are delighted with the news of the birth of a daughter for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.”
The couple’s happy news was confirmed on Sunday by their spokesperson.
They said in a statement: “It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter, Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling in at home.”
The Royal Family@RoyalFamilyCongratulations to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of Lilibet Diana! The Queen, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted with the news. Lilibet is Her Majesty’s 11th great-grandchild.
Congratulations to Harry, Meghan and Archie on the arrival of baby Lilibet Diana 🎊
The photographs of Princess Diana wearing protective clothing and equipment, as well as her meeting landmine survivors, raised the profile of the work being done to clear landmines around the world. Her untimely death in August 1997 came only a few months before the United Nations Mine Ban Treaty — a legally binding prohibition on the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of landmines — was opened for signature. Since then, 164 countries have become parties to the agreement, which is informally known as the Ottawa Treaty.
Here’s what to know about Princess Diana’s work on landmines, why it was so significant and how Prince Harry is continuing her legacy.
Why Princess Diana walked across a minefield
At the time of Princess Diana’s visit to Angola in January 1997, Prince William and Prince Harry were 14 and 12 years old, and her divorce from Prince Charles had been finalized the previous year. She was already known for her other charitable endeavors, such as her role in the 1987 opening of the U.K.’s first HIV/AIDS unit in London, which was designed specifically to treat patients with the virus at a time when it was perceived with much stigma.
Princess Diana brought her signature determination to her campaigning against landmines. She had been involved with the British Red Cross for several years before the charity organized and supported her January 1997 trip to Angola. It was there, in Huambo province, that she came across the work of the HALO Trust, which had been working to clear mines in Angola since 1994 amid the then-ongoing civil war there. (The civil war in Angola, which remains one of the world’s most heavily landmine-contaminated countries, ended in 2002 after more than 25 years of intermittent conflict.)
She met children who were landmine survivors, and she was also escorted by HALO students and mine-clearance experts through a cleared lane in one of the active minefields wearing protective armor and headgear. Images from her trip were immediately circulated across international media and provided a striking portrait of the princess among people in a humanitarian context.
“Diana’s visit is something that people in Huambo still talk about today,” says Ralph Legg, program manager of HALO Trust’s operations in Angola. “For the people that were here at that time, which was obviously still a time of conflict, it led to a feeling of acknowledgement, and that their plight was recognized around the world. The people I’ve spoken to who met Diana on that trip have all said how kind, considerate and how genuinely interested she seemed in them.”
After her visit to Angola, Princess Diana wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”
Angola wasn’t the only country affected by landmines that Diana visited; in early August 1997, she visited victims of mines in Bosnia and again focused the world’s attention on the issue. Zoran Ješić, now 46, remembers her visit well. Ješić stepped on a landmine in 1994, and now lives and works in Bosnia for the organization UDAS, which supports landmine survivors. “It was a very brave decision for her to come here only two years after the war,” he says. “The situation wasn’t so stable, and I had the feeling that Diana decided to use her popularity to help people in states like mine. Her contribution on the international level was enormous.”
The legacy of her advocacy against landmines
Diana’s Angola trip was reported on all over the world, and the legacy of her humanitarian work with landmines remains long-lasting. “At that time, she was probably the most recognizable person in the world, and so the fact that she went and met with landmine survivors was really quite incredible,” says Paul Hannon, Executive Director of Mines Action Canada, the Canadian member of International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which was awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. “She showed basic humanity to people who don’t normally get that, and I think that was a wake-up call to all of us.”
At the time of her visit at the beginning of 1997, negotiations were ongoing to initiate the Mine Bans Treaty. Diana had vocally appealed for an international ban on landmines during her time in Angola. Yet her efforts sparked criticism from U.K. lawmakers, who called her a “loose cannon” and out of line with government policy on the issue, which took a more cautious approach to negotiations about the use of landmines, which had not yet been banned in the U.K. Despite the controversy, she had a significant impact on the political process that successfully banned landmines.
The exposure she gave the issue on her visit, and her tragic death in August that year, created an added impetus for the treaty process; as TIME reported in September 1997: “[President Bill] Clinton and his wife Hillary had been touched by the Princess of Wales’ poignant visits to young victims of such mines in Bosnia and Angola a few weeks ago. After her death, the [mine bans] treaty being written in Oslo took on the luster of a humanitarian memorial to Diana and her cause.”
“We planned for the treaty signing here in Ottawa, and we would have loved to have had her there,” says Hannon, who volunteered at the signing of the treaty. “She was only involved for a few months, but everyone identifies her with the fight to ban landmines.”
How Prince Harry is continuing Princess Diana’s work
The upcoming visit is not the first time that the Duke of Sussex has visited the projects run by HALO Trust; he went to a minefield in Mozambique in 2010, and previously visited Angola in 2013. During the 10-day trip, Harry will visit other countries in southern Africa, including Malawi and Botswana, where he has connections with several other charities.
Over the past 22 years, several countries have made huge strides on clearing landmines. In 2015, the government in Mozambique declared the country was mine-free after two decades of clearance operations. With the financial support of international donors and the Angolan government, the HALO Trust alone has cleared about 100,000 landmines in the country, and 297 minefields across Huambo province — only one minefield away from the province being declared mine-free. On Friday, Harry detonated a landmine in southern Angola and walked across a minefield in Dirico province, echoing Diana’s 1997 walk in Huambo. However, the minefield area that his mother visited is now home to communities, schools and businesses. “It’s been totally transformed and is unrecognizable today from when she visited in 1997,” says program manager Legg.
Harry’s visit to Angola, with its focus on landmines, falls two months before a major conference on achieving a mine-free world by 2025 — one of the major ambitions of the Mine Ban Treaty and a cause that the Duke has spoken about in the past. “I’m hoping that Harry provides the same visibility and added momentum from his trip that his mother did, and that he will remind people that this is a human story,” says Hannon. “It’s a success story in progress. I hope he can remind everybody that the job’s not done yet, but it can be finished.”
Landmine survivor Ješić agrees: “In a way, he will continue something that his mother proudly started.”
END OF THE ARTICLE
”Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.
Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.”
THE BRITISH RED CROSS
MEMORIES OF PRINCESS DIANA AND THE BRITISH RED CROSS
Throughout her life, Princess Diana was a dedicated humanitarian who championed causes in the UK and overseas. We look back on her journey with the Red Cross.
Princess Diana was always committed to using her public profile to bring about positive change.
A firm believer in the power of young people, she became patron of the Red Cross Youth in 1983, which gave her an increasingly visible role with the British Red Cross.
In July 1985, Diana visited a Red Cross adventure camp for disabled children at Hindleap Warren, in East Sussex.
Barbara Summerfield, now in her 80s and from Saltdean, was a youth officer at the time and has fond memories of Diana’s visit.
“What went down well, more than anything else, was that Diana was a real person who the children could talk to,” said Barbara.
“They were very excited about her visit. I don’t think they got much sleep the night before. She watched them do their abseiling and other activities.
“They loved showing her what they could do. Some had serious disabilities and Diana was interested in their medical conditions.
THEY SPOKE TO DIANA AS A NORMAL PERSON, A FRIEND EVEN. AND THAT’S THE WAY SHE SPOKE TO THE CHILDREN.
Barbara Summerfield, British Red Cross vice president, Sussex
“The children made two lovely birdhouses for Diana to give to William and Harry, but they didn’t finish them in time. When they gave them to Diana, she said: ‘Don’t worry, they [William and Harry] will finish them off.’”
Barbara, who is currently British Red Cross vice president in Sussex, added: “I thought Diana had a lovely calming manner, soothing.
“You know how when you meet a princess you bow and there are the formalities, well the children didn’t seem to worry about that. They spoke to Diana as a normal person, a friend even. And that’s the way she spoke to the children.”
“She was interested in what we did”
Edith Conn is British Red Cross president for Greater Manchester. Edith met the Princess when she visited Manchester in the mid-1980s to see a youth orchestra perform.
“We spoke about the Red Cross Youth and she was interested in what we did,” recalled Edith.
“Then we just chatted about everyday things. The funny thing about it was I said to her: ‘What happens when you go home, do you go to another engagement?’
“She said: ‘Oh no I’m going home to have beans on toast and I’m going to watch EastEnders.’ That has always stuck in my mind!”
Diana later sent Edith a trinket for auction at a Red Cross gala ball.
“It was a real privilege to meet her”
“When she spoke to you she looked directly at you,” continued Edith. “You felt as though she was really very interested in what you did and what you had to say. She was lovely.
“I think I am very lucky to have met her. And to think back … that we chatted about beans on toast!
“It was a real privilege to have met her and this … should be a time to celebrate her life.”
In 1993, Diana became a vice president of the British Red Cross, and two years later she became patron of our 125th Birthday Appeal.
The Princess resigned her positions with the British Red Cross in July 1996, but continued to engage with the organisation until shortly before her death.
Princess Diana in Angola
Princess Diana took particular interest in the Red Cross’ work overseas, visiting projects in Nepal and Zimbabwe, among others.
Some of Diana’s most notable humanitarian work was around anti-personnel mines.
She famously travelled to Angola in January 1997, a trip organised and supported by the British Red Cross.
In 1995, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched its international ‘Landmines must be stopped’ campaign in a bid to bring about the total ban on the use of anti-personnel mines.
Angola was littered with landmines, a deadly legacy from its civil war.
Estimates put the number of landmines in the country between nine and fifteen million.
Between 1979 and 1996, the ICRC fitted 9,200 amputees with false limbs in Angola, and manufactured 12,800 prostheses in total.
A lasting impact
During her time in Angola, Princess Diana visited active minefields, met local victims of landmine violence and spoke in favour of a ban on anti-personnel mines.
After her visit, she wrote a letter to the British Red Cross saying: “If my visit has contributed in any way at all in highlighting this terrible issue, then my deepest wish will have been fulfilled.”
Diana’s visit to Angola brought unprecedented attention to the landmine issue and sparked international discussion.
The Ottawa Treaty, which placed a ban on anti-personnel mines, was signed by 122 countries in December 1997 – less than a year after Diana’s Angola visit and a few months after her death. Today, 162 UN member states are parties to the treaty.
Dr Helen Durham, director of international law and policy at the ICRC, believes Diana’s visit to Angola highlighted the problems of using anti-personnel landlines to a broader audience.
“The glamour and global appeal of Princess Diana added another layer to the voices of lawyers, humanitarian workers and medical staff who were raising their concerns about weapons that cannot distinguish between children and combatants,” said Durham.
The treaty, also known as the Mine Ban Convention, has undoubtedly saved lives. Twenty years ago, the ICRC estimated that anti-personnel landmines maimed or killed 20,000 people every year.
However, due to conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Yemen, that figure actually represented a ten-year high of new casualties.
Durham added: “It is wonderful to see the progress today, but sadly we still have a long way to go to ensure that these weapons stop destroying the lives and livelihoods of thousands. Applying the Ottawa Treaty is the first step.”
Readers!Earlier I wrote about Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Dukeand Duchess of Sussex.I applauded their marriage, rejoiced about the birth of Lord Archie andmoreover:PAID ATTENTION TO THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST MEGHAN MARKLE,BECAUSE OF THE RACIST UNDERTONES!I also applauded the fact, that Prince Harry loyally, like a true husband, defended his wife! SEE https://www.astridessed.nl/prince-harry-and-his-bride-meghan-markle-congratulations-to-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/
Yet new developments took place, resulting in the bombshell Oprah Winfreyinterview, which I share with you here, in full transcript!I will comment on it soon enough [look for my website]But firstly the interview! READ!
IT was the most sensational royal interview since Diana’s Panorama bombshell 26 years ago.
Speaking to Oprah Winfrey in California, Harry and Meghan blasted “racist” Britain, the Royal Family and the Press, while highlighting Meghan’s mental health struggles. Here, we reveal the full astonishing transcript…
OPRAH: We can’t hug, everybody is double- masked and has face shields. You look lovely. Do you know if you’re having a boy or a girl?
Meghan: We do this time. I’ll wait for my husband to join us and we can share that with you.
Oprah: That would be really great. Before we get into to it, I just want to make clear to everybody that, even though we’re neighbours, I’m down the road, you’re up the road, we’re using a friend’s place. There has not been an agreement, you don’t know what I’m going to ask, there is no subject that’s off limits and you are not getting paid for this interview.
Meghan: All of that’s correct.
Oprah: I remember sitting in the chapel — thanks for inviting me, by the way. I so recall this sense of magic. I never experienced anything like it. When you came through that door, you seemed like you were floating down the aisle. Were you even inside your body at that time?
Meghan: I’ve thought about this a lot. It was like having an out-of- body experience I was very present for. The night before, I slept through the night entirely, which is a bit of a miracle, and then woke up and started listening to Going To The Chapel, to make it fun and light and remind ourselves this was our day. We were both aware in advance of that this wasn’t our day, this was the day planned for the world.
Oprah: Everybody who gets married knows you’re really marrying the family. But you weren’t just marrying a family, you were marrying a 1,200-year-old institution, you’re marrying the monarchy. What did you think it was going to be like?
Meghan: I would say I went into it naively because I didn’t grow up knowing much about the Royal Family. It wasn’t part of something that was part of conversation at home. It wasn’t something that we followed. My mum even said to me a couple of months ago, ‘Did Diana ever do an interview?’ Now I can say. ‘Yes, a very famous one’, but my mum doesn’t know that.
Oprah: But you were aware of the royals and, if you were going to marry into the royals, you’d do research about what that would mean?
Meghan: I didn’t do any research about what that would mean.
Oprah: You didn’t do any research?
Meghan: No. I didn’t feel any need to, because everything I needed to know he was sharing with me. Everything we thought I needed to know, he was telling me.
Oprah: So, you didn’t have a conversation with yourself, or talk to your friends about what it would be like to marry a prince, who is Harry, who you had fallen in love with . . . you didn’t give it a lot of thought?
Meghan: No. We thought a lot about what we thought it might be. I didn’t fully understand what the job was: What does it mean to be a working royal? What do you do? What does that mean? He and I were very aligned on our cause- driven work, that was part of our initial connection. But there was no way to understand what the day-to- day was going to be like, and it’s so different because I didn’t romanticise any element of it. But I think, as Americans especially, what you do know about the royals is what you read in fairytales, and you think is what you know about the royals. It’s easy to have an image that is so far from reality, and that’s what was so tricky over those past few years, when the perception and the reality are two different things and you’re being judged on the perception but you’re living the reality of it. There’s a complete misalignment and there’s no way to explain that to people.
Oprah: With every family things get serious when you’re brought in to meet the grandmother or the mother. The grandmother is the matriarch and, in your situation it’s the Queen.’
Meghan: She was one of the first people I met. The real Queen.
Oprah: What was that like? Were you worried about making the right impression?
Meghan: There wasn’t a huge formality the first time I met Her Majesty The Queen. We were going for lunch at Royal Lodge, which is where some other members of the family live, specifically Andrew and Fergie, and Eugenie and Beatrice would spend a lot of time there. Eugenie and I had known each other before I knew Harry, so that was comfortable and it turned out the Queen was finishing a church service in Windsor and so she was going to be at the house. Harry and I were in the car and he says, ‘OK, well my grandmother is there, you’re going to meet her’. (I said) ‘OK, great’. I loved my grandmother, I used to take care of my grandmother. (He said) ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ ‘What?’ ‘Do you know how to curtsey?’ I thought genuinely that’s what happens outside, that was part of the fanfare. I didn’t think that’s what happens inside. I go, ‘But it’s your grandmother’. He goes, ‘It’s the Queen!’
Oprah: Wow!
Meghan: And that was really the first moment the penny dropped?
Oprah: Did you Google how to curtsey?
Meghan: No, we were in the car. Deeply, to show respect, I learned it very quickly right in front of the house. We practised and walked in.
Oprah: Harry practised?
Meghan: Yeah, and Fergie ran out and said, ‘Are you ready? Do you know how to curtsey? Oh, my goodness, you guys’. I practised very quickly and went in, and apparently I did a very deep curtsey, and we just sat there and we chatted and it was lovely and easy and I think, thank God, I hadn’t known a lot about the family. Thank God, I hadn’t researched. I would have been so in my head about all of it.
Oprah: (What) you’re sharing with us is that you were no more nervous as a regular person who goes to meet somebody’s grandmother.
Meghan: I had confused the idea. I grew up in LA, you see celebrities all the time. This is not the same but it’s very easy, especially as an American, to go, ‘These are famous people’. This is a completely different ball game.
(Cut to them and Oprah at their house)
Oprah: What are you feeling here (their home)? What’s the word?
Meghan: Peace.
Oprah: Peace?
Meghan: Yeah.
(Oprah narrates) The day after our interview, I stopped over to Harry and Meghan’s new home.
Meghan: Hi, Guy (dog).
Oprah: Hi, Guy.
Meghan: Yeah, Guy’s been — Guy’s been through everything with me.
Oprah: Yeah, from the beginning, from the very first date, yeah?
Meghan: If Guy, I mean, I had him in Canada. I got him from a kill shelter in Kentucky.
Oprah: Yeah?
(In Harry and Meghan’s hen coop)
Meghan: Hi, girls!
(Oprah narrates) We put on wellies to feed the hens Meghan and Harry recently rescued from a factory farm. ‘I love your little designer house here. Archie’s chick inn. Oh, how cute is that.’
Harry: She’s always wanted chickens.
Meghan: Well, you know, I just love rescuing.
Oprah: So, this is a part of your new life? What are you most excited about?
Meghan: Whoop! You’re OK . . .
Oprah: What are you most excited about in the new life? What are you most excited about? Here, chick, chick, chick, chick.
Meghan: I think just being able to live authentically.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Right? Like this kind of stuff. It’s so, it’s so basic, but it’s really fulfilling. Just getting back down to basics. I was thinking about it — even at our wedding, you know, three days before our wedding, we got married . . .
Oprah: Ah!
Meghan: No one knows that. But we called the Archbishop, and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us’. So, like, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was the piece that . . .
Harry: Just the three of us.
Oprah: Really?
Harry: Just the three of us.
Meghan: Just the three of us.
(Back to Oprah)
Oprah: You know, the wedding was the most perfect picture, you know, anybody’s ever seen. But through that picture that we were all seeing, behind the scenes, obviously, there was a lot of drama going on. And soon after your marriage, the tabloids started offering stories that painted a not-so-flattering picture of you in your new world. There were rumours about you being ‘Hurricane Meghan’.
Meghan: I hadn’t heard that.
Oprah: OK.
Oprah: So, there were rumours about you being Hurricane Meghan, for the departure of several high-profile palace staff members. And there was also a story — did you hear this one? — about you making Kate Middleton cry?
Meghan: This I heard about.
Oprah: You heard about that. OK.
Meghan: This was . . . that was . . . that was a turning point.
Oprah: That was a turning point?
Meghan: Yeah.
Kate made me cry days before wedding, but I got blamed… that was hard.
(Oprah narrates) Six months after Harry and Meghan’s wedding, headlines began to swirl about a rift between Meghan and her sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton. It was reported that Meghan had left Kate “in tears” over the bride-to-be’s “strict demands” over flower-girl dresses.
Meghan: The narrative with Kate — which didn’t happen — was really, really difficult and something that . . . I think that’s when everything changed, really.
Oprah: You say the narrative with Kate, it didn’t happen. So, specifically, did you make Kate cry?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: So, where did that come from?
Meghan: (Sighs)
Oprah: Was there a situation where she might have cried? Or she could have cried?
Meghan: No, no. The reverse happened. And I don’t say that to be disparaging to anyone, because it was a really hard week of the wedding. And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologised. And she brought me flowers and a note, apologising. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it. What was shocking was . . . what was that, six, seven months after our wedding?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: That the reverse of that would be out in the world.
Oprah: The story came out six, seven months after it actually happened?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: So, when you say . . .
Meghan: I would have never wanted that to come out about her ever, even though it had happened. I protected that from ever being out in the world.
Oprah: So, when you say the reverse happened, explain to us what you mean by that.
Meghan: A few days before the wedding, she was upset about something pertaining — yes, the issue was correct — about flower-girl dresses, and it made me cry, and it really hurt my feelings. And I thought, in the context of everything else that was going on in those days leading to the wedding, that it didn’t make sense to not be just doing whatever everyone else was doing, which was trying to be supportive, knowing what was going on with my dad and whatnot.
Oprah: This was a really big story at the time, that you made Kate cry. Now you’re saying you didn’t make Kate cry, Kate made you cry. So, we all want to know, what would make you cry? What . . . what were you going through? You were going through all of the anxiety that brides go through putting their wedding together and going through all of the issues with your father: Was he coming? Was he not coming?
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: And there was a confrontation over the . . . the dresses?
Meghan: It wasn’t a confrontation, and I actually don’t think it’s fair to her to get into the details of that, because she apologised.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: And I’ve forgiven her.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: What was hard to get over was being blamed for something that not only I didn’t do but that happened to me. And the people who were part of our wedding going to our comms team and saying, ‘I know this didn’t happen.’ I don’t have to tell them what actually happened.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: But I can at least go on the record and say she didn’t make her cry. And they were all told the same . . .
Oprah: So, all the time the stories were out that you had made Kate cry . . . you knew all along, and people around you knew that that wasn’t true?
Meghan: Everyone in the institution knew it wasn’t true.
Oprah: So, why didn’t somebody just say that?
Meghan: That’s a good question.
Oprah: Hmm.
Meghan: I’m not sharing that piece about Kate in any way to be disparaging to her. I think it’s really important for people to understand the truth.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: But also I think, a lot of it, that was fed into by the media. And I would hope that she would have wanted that corrected, and maybe in the same way that the Palace wouldn’t let anybody else.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Negate it, they wouldn’t let her, because she’s a good person. And I think so much of what I have seen play out is this idea of polarity, where if you love me, you don’t have to hate her. And if you love her, you don’t need to hate me.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. You know, there were several stories that compared headlines written about you to those written about Kate.
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: Since you don’t read things, let me tell you what was said.
Meghan: OK.
Oprah: There were stories where Kate was being praised for holding her baby bump.
Meghan: Oh, gosh, have I done it since we’ve been sitting down?
Oprah: Yes, you’ve been doing it the whole time.
Meghan: Probably. OK.
Oprah: Kate was praised for cradling her baby bump, and the headline about you doing the same thing said, ‘Meghan can’t keep hands off her baby bump for pride or vanity’.
Meghan: What does it have to do with pride or vanity?
Oprah: Well, I’m just — I’m just telling you about the stories, OK?
Meghan: OK, I hear you.
Oprah: Then there was a whole online piece about this: ‘Kate eating avocados to help with morning sickness’.
Meghan: (Laughs) I heard — OK, I heard about the avocado one.
Oprah: But you were eating avocados . . .
Meghan: And fuelling murder, apparently.
Oprah: Wolfing down a fruit linked to water shortages, illegal deforestation and environmental devastation. There was, seems . . . there seems to be . . . there was a . . .
Meghan: That’s a really loaded piece of toast. (Laughter) I mean . . . you have to laugh at a certain point, because it’s just ridiculous.
Oprah: That’s good: ‘That’s a loaded piece of toast.’ It’s about deforestation and . . .
Meghan: Oh, man!
Oprah: Oh, wow! So, do you think there was a standard for Kate in general and a separate one for you? And if so, why?
Meghan: I don’t know why. I can see now what layers were at play. Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And, again, they really seemed to want a narrative of a hero and a villain.
Oprah: Yeah. You came in as the first mixed-race person to marry into the family, and did that concern you in being able to fit in?
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: And did that concern you in being able to fit in? Did you think about that at all?
Meghan: I thought about it because they made me think about it.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Right? But at the same time now, upon reflection, thank God all of those things were true. Thank God I had that life experience. Thank god I had known the value of working. My first job was when I was 13, at a frozen yoghurt shop called Humphrey Yogart.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I’ve always worked. I’ve always valued independence. I’ve always been outspoken, especially about women’s rights. I mean, that’s the sad irony of the last four years . . . is I’ve advocated for so long for women to use their voice, and then I was silent.
Oprah: Were you silent? Or were you silenced?
Meghan: The latter.
Oprah: So, how does that work? Were you told by the comms people, or the, I don’t know, the institution? Were you told to keep silent? How were you told to handle tabloids or gossip? Were you . . . were you told to say nothing?
Meghan: Everyone from . . . everyone in my world was given very clear directive, from the moment the world knew Harry and I were dating, to always say, ‘No comment’. That’s my friends, my mom and dad.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And we did.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I did anything they told me to do — of course I did, because it was also through the lens of, ‘And we’ll protect you’. So, even as things started to roll out in the media that I didn’t see — but my friends would call me and say, ‘Meg, this is really bad’ — because I didn’t see it, I’d go, ‘Don’t worry. I’m being protected’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: I believed that. And I think that was . . . that was really hard to reconcile because it was only . . . it was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to under-stand that not only was I not being protected, but they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.
Oprah: So, are you saying you did not feel supported by the powers that be, be that The Firm, the monar-chy, all of them?
Meghan: It’s hard for people to distinguish the two because there’s . . . it’s a family business, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me. I mean, we had one of our first joint engagements together. She asked me to join her, and I . . .
Oprah: Was this on the train?
Meghan: Yeah, on the train.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: We had breakfast together that morning, and she’d given me a beautiful gift, and I just really loved being in her company. And I remember we were in the car . . .
Oprah: Can you share what the gift was? Or . . .
Meghan: Yes. She gave me beautiful pearl earrings and a matching necklace. And we were in the car going between engagements, and she has a blanket that sits across her knees for warmth. And it was chilly, and she was like, ‘Meghan, come on’ and put it over my knees as well.
Oprah: Oh, nice.
Meghan: Right. Just moments of . . . and it made me think of my grand-mother, where she’s always been warm and inviting and . . . and really welcoming.
Oprah: So, OK, so she made you feel welcomed?
Meghan: Yes.
Oprah: Did you feel welcomed by everyone? It seemed like you and Kate . . . at the Wimbledon game where you were going to watch a friend play tennis . . .
Meghan: (Laughs)
Oprah: Was it what it looked like? You are two sisters-in-law out there in the world, getting to know each other. Was she helping you, embracing you into the family, helping you adjust?
Meghan: I think everyone welcomed me.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And, yeah, when you say, ‘Was it what it looked like?’, my under-standing and my experience of the past four years is it’s nothing like what it looks like. It’s nothing like what it looks like. And I . . . and I remember so often people within The Firm would say, ‘Well, you can’t do this because it’ll look like that. You can’t’. So, even, ‘Can I go and have lunch with my friends?’ ‘No, no, no, you’re oversaturated, you’re every-where, it would be best for you to not go out to lunch with your friends’. I go, ‘Well, I haven’t . . . I haven’t left the house in months’.
I mean, there was a day that one of the members of the family, she came over, and she said, ‘Why don’t you just lay low for a little while, because you are everywhere right now’. And I said, ‘I’ve left the house twice in four months. I’m everywhere, but I am nowhere’. And from that standpoint, I continued to say to people, ‘I know there’s an obsession with how things look, but has anyone talked about how it feels? Because right now, I could not feel lonelier’.
Oprah: Hmm. You were feeling lonely, even though your prince . . . you’re in love, you’re with him.
Meghan: I’m not lonely . . . I wasn’t lonely with him.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: There were moments that he had to work or he had to go away, there’s moments in the middle of the night. And so, there was very little that I was allowed to do.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And so, yeah, of course that breeds loneliness when you’ve come from such a full life or when you’ve come from freedom. I think the easiest way that now people can understand it is what we’ve all gone through in lockdown.
Oprah: Yeah, well, everybody can certainly relate now.
(Cuts to footage of interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby in South Africa in October, 2019)
Meghan: . . . asked if I’m OK, but it’s a very real thing to be going through behind the scenes.
Bradby: And the answer is, would it be fair to say, ‘Not really OK’, as in it’s really been a struggle?
Meghan: Yes.
(Back to Oprah)
Oprah: Well, I would have to say, in South Africa, when the reporter stopped and asked, ‘Are you OK . . ?’
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: And, whooo, we all felt that. Why did that question strike such a nerve? What was going on with you, internally at that time?
Meghan: That was the last day of the tour. You know, those tours are . . . I’m sure they have beautiful pictures and it looks vibrant, and all of that is true. It’s also really exhausting. So, I was fried, and I think it just hit me so hard because we were making it look like every-thing was fine. I can understand why people were really surprised to see that there was pain there.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Because we were doing our job. Our job was to be on and to smile. And so, when he asked me that, I guess I had felt that it had never occurred to anyone that I, that I wasn’t OK, and that I had really been suffering. And I had known for a long time and had been asking the institution for help for quite a long time.
Oprah: Help for what?
Meghan: After we had gotten back from our Australia tour — which was about a year before that — and we talked about when things really started to turn, when I knew we weren’t being protected. And it was during that part of my pregnancy, especially, that I started to understand what our continued reality was going to look like.
Oprah: What kind of protection did you want that you feel you didn’t receive?
Meghan: I mean, they would go on the record and negate the most ridiculous story for anyone, right? I’m talking about things that are super-artificial and inconsequential. But the narrative about, you know, making Kate cry, I think was the beginning of a real character assassination. And they knew it wasn’t true. And I thought, well, if they’re not going to kill things like that, then what are we going to do?
It had never occurred to anyone that I wasn’t OK…I was really suffering, and asked for help.
Meghan: Separate from that, and what was happening behind closed doors was, you know, we knew I was pregnant. We now know it’s Archie, and it was a boy. We didn’t know any of that at the time. We can just talk about it as Archie now. And that was when they were saying they didn’t want him to be a prince or a princess — not knowing what the gender would be, which would be different from protocol — and that he wasn’t going to receive security.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: It was really hard.
Oprah: What do you mean?
Meghan: He wasn’t going to receive security. This went on for the last few months of our pregnancy, where I’m going, ‘Hold on a second’.
Oprah: That your son — and Harry, Prince Harry’s son was not going to receive security?
Meghan: That’s right, I know.
Oprah: How . . . but how does that work?
Meghan: How does that work? It’s like, ‘No, no, no. Look, because if he’s not going to be a prince, it’s like, OK, well, he needs to be safe, so we’re not saying don’t make him a prince or a princess — whatever it’s going to be . . . ‘But if you’re saying the title is what’s going to affect their protec-tion, we haven’t created this monster machine around us in terms of clickbait and tabloid fodder. You’ve allowed that to happen, which means our son needs to be safe’.
Oprah: So, how do they explain to you that your son, the grandson, the great-grandson of the Queen . . .
Meghan: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: . . . is not going to have . . . he wasn’t going to be a prince? How did they tell you that? And what reasons did they give? And then say, ‘And so, therefore, you’re not . . . you don’t need protection’.
Meghan: There’s no explanation.
Oprah: Hmm.
Meghan: There’s no version. I mean, that’s the other piece of that . . .
Oprah: Who tells you that?
Meghan: I heard a lot of it through Harry and then other parts of it through conversations with . . .
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . family members. And it was a decision that they felt was appropriate. And I thought, well . . .
Oprah: Was the title . . . was him being called a prince, Archie being called a prince, was that important to you?
Meghan: If it meant he was going to be safe, then, of course. All the grandeur surrounding this stuff is an attachment that I don’t personally have, right? I’ve been a waitress, an actress, a princess, a duchess. I’ve always just still been Meghan, right? So, for me, I’m clear on who I am, independent of all that stuff. And the most important title I will ever have is Mom. I know that.
Meghan: But the idea of our son not being safe, and also the idea of the first member of colour in this family not being titled in the same way that other grandchildren would be . . . You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . .
Oprah: . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: Well, why?
Oprah: Did you get an answer?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: You still don’t have an answer?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: You know, we had heard — the world, those of us out here reading the things or hearing the things — that it was you and Harry who didn’t want Archie to have a prince title. So, you’re telling me that is not true?
Meghan: No, and it’s not our decision to make, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.
Oprah: OK, so it feels to me like things started to change when you and Harry decided that you were not going to take the picture that had been a part of the tradition for years and . . .
Meghan: We weren’t asked to take a picture. That’s also part of the spin, that was really damaging. I thought, ‘Can you just tell them the truth? Can you say to the world you’re not giving him a title, and we want to keep him safe, and that if he’s not a prince, then it’s not part of the tradition? Just tell people, and then they’ll understand?’
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: But they wouldn’t do that.
Oprah: But you were . . . you both, obviously, were aware that had been a part of the tradition? And there was a . . . was there a specific reason why you didn’t want to be a part of that tradition? I think many people interpreted that as you were both saying, ‘We’re going to do things our way. We’re going to do things a different way’.
Meghan: That’s not it at all. I mean, I think what was really hard . . . so, picture, now that you know what was going on behind the scenes, right? There was a lot of fear surrounding it. I was very scared of having to offer up our baby, knowing that they weren’t going to be kept safe.
Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . . what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?
Meghan: (Sighs)
Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . .
Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . . so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Oprah: What?
Meghan: And . . .
Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?
Meghan: So . . .
Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.
Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.
Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ?
Meghan: With Harry.
Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?
Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?
Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.
Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?
There were conversations …about no security, no title… and how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . .
Oprah: Whoa.
Meghan: It was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalised conversations.
Oprah: Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?
Meghan: I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but that — if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right? Especially when — look, I — the Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy, and I lived in Canada, which is a Commonwealth country, for seven years. But it wasn’t until Harry and I were together that we started to travel through the Commonwealth, I would say 60 per cent, 70 per cent of which is people of colour, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: And growing up as a woman of colour, as a little girl of colour, I know how important representation is. I know how you want to see someone who looks like you in certain positions.
Oprah: Obviously.
Meghan: Even Archie. Like, we read these books, and now he’s been — there’s one line in one that goes, ‘If you can see it, you can be it’. And he goes, ‘You can be it!’ And I think about that so often, especially in the context of these young girls, but even grown women and men who, when I would meet them in our time in the Commonwealth, how much it meant to them to be able to see someone who looks like them . . .
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: . . . in this position. And I could never understand how it wouldn’t be seen as an added benefit . . .
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . and a reflection of the world today. At all times, but especially right now, to go — ‘how inclusive is that, that you can see someone who looks like you in this family, much less one who’s born into it?’
(Oprah narrates) When Meghan joined the Royal Family in 2018, she became the target of unrelenting, pervasive attacks. Racist abuse online aimed at Meghan Markle. There were undeniable racist overtones. This stands apart from the kind of coverage we’ve seen of any other royal.
There was constant criticism, blatant sexist and racist remarks by British tabloids and internet trolls. We have seen the racism towards her play out in real time. Referring to her as ‘straight outta Compton’. The daily onslaught of vitriol and condemnation from the UK Press became overwhelming and, in Meghan’s words, ‘almost unsurvivable’. (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: You’d said in a podcast that it became ‘almost unsurvivable’, and that struck me, because it sounds like you were in some kind of mental trouble. What was actually going on? ‘Almost unsurvivable’ sounds like there was a breaking point.
Meghan: Yeah, there was. I just didn’t see a solution. I would sit up at night, and I was just, like, I don’t understand how all of this is being churned out. And, again, I wasn’t seeing it, but it’s almost worse when you feel it through the expression of my mom or my friends, or them calling me crying, just, like, ‘Meg, they’re not protecting you’. And I realised that it was all happening just because I was breathing.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: And, look, I was really ashamed to say it at the time and ashamed to have to admit it to Harry, especially, because I know how much loss he’s suffered. But I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. And I . . . I just didn’t . . . I just didn’t want to be alive any more. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. And I remember — I remember how he just cradled me. And I was — I went to the institution, and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that, ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution. And I called . . .
Oprah: So the institution is never a person. Or is it a series of people?
Meghan: No, it’s a person.
Oprah: It’s a person.
Meghan: It’s several people. But I went to one of the most senior people just to . . . to get help. And that — you know, I share this, because there’s so many people who are afraid to voice that they need help. And I know, personally, how hard it is to not just voice it, but when you voice it, to be told no.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: And so, I went to human resources, and I said, ‘I just really — I need help’. Because in my old job, there was a union, and they would protect me. And I remember this conversation like it was yesterday, because they said, ‘My heart goes out to you, because I see how bad it is, but there’s nothing we can do to protect you because you’re not a paid employee of the institution’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: This wasn’t a choice. This was emails and begging for help, saying very specifically, ‘I am concerned for my mental welfare’. And people going, ‘Oh, yes, yes, it’s disproportionately terrible what we see out there to anyone else’. But nothing was ever done, so we had to find a solution.
Oprah: Wow! ‘I don’t want to be alive any more,’ that’s . . .
Meghan: I thought it would have solved everything for everyone, right?
Oprah: So, were you thinking of harming yourself? Were you having suicidal thoughts?
Meghan: Yes. This was very, very clear.
Oprah: Wow.
Meghan: Very clear and very scary. And, you know, I didn’t know who to even turn to in that. And one of the people that I reached out to, who’s continued to be a friend and confidant, was one of my husband’s mom’s best friends, one of Diana’s best friends. Because it’s, like, who else could understand what’s . . .what it’s actually like on the inside?
Oprah: Did you ever think about going to a hospital? Or is that possible, that you can check yourself in some place?
Meghan: No, that’s what I was asking to do.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: You can’t just do that. I couldn’t, you know, call an Uber to the palace.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more.
Oprah: Well, the way you’re describing this, it . . . it’s like you were trapped and couldn’t get help, even though you’re on the verge of suicide. That’s what you are describing. That’s what I’m hearing.
Meghan: Yes.
Oprah: And that would be an accurate interpretation, yes?
Meghan: That’s the truth.
Oprah: That’s the truth.
Meghan: You know, and if you think about . . . it was one of the things that . . . it stills haunts me is this photograph that someone had sent me. We had to go to an official event. We had to go to this event at the Royal Albert Hall, and a friend said, ‘I know you don’t look at pictures, but, oh, my God, you guys look so great . . .’
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: . . . and sent it to me. And I zoomed in, and what I saw was the truth of what that moment was, because right before we had to leave for that, I had just had that conversation with Harry that morning, and it was the next day that I talked to the institution.
Oprah: You had the conversation ‘I don’t want to be alive any more’?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Whoo.
Meghan: No, and it was . . . it wasn’t even, ‘I don’t want to’.
Oprah: And then, you . . ?
Meghan: It was like, ‘These are the thoughts that I’m having in the middle of the night that are very clear . . .’
Oprah: Yes, clarification.
Meghan: ‘. . . and I’m scared, because this is very real. This isn’t some abstract idea. This is methodical, and this is not who I am’. But we had to go to this event, and I remember him saying, ‘I don’t think you can go’. And I said, ‘I can’t be left alone’.
Oprah: Because you were afraid of what you might do to yourself?
Meghan: And we went, and that . . .
Oprah: I’m so sorry to hear that.
Meghan: . . . and that picture, if you zoom in, what I see is how tightly his knuckles are gripped around mine. You can see the whites of our knuckles, because we are smiling and doing our job, but we’re both just trying to hold on. And every time that those lights went down in that Royal Box, I was just weeping, and he was gripping my hand.
Oprah: Wow.
Meghan: And then, it was, ‘OK, intermission’s coming, the lights are about to come on, everyone’s looking at us again’, and you have to just be on again.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: And that’s, I think, so important for people to remember is you have no idea what’s going on for someone behind closed doors. You have no idea. Even the people that smile the biggest smiles and shine the brightest lights, it seems, to have compassion for what’s actually potentially going on.
Oprah: I know. The public is looking at you. And to think that you, earlier in the day, had said to Harry that you didn’t want to be alive any more.
Meghan: Yeah. And just hours before, just sitting on the . . . the steps in our cottage . . .
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: . . . just sitting there and then going, ‘ok, well, go upstairs and put your make-up bag in your sink and try to pull yourself together’.
Oprah: Nobody should have to go through that.
Meghan: And, you know, Harry and I are working on this mental health series for Apple, and we — yes, so — we, we, we hear a lot of these stories. Nobody should have to go through that. It takes so much courage to admit that you need help.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: It takes so much courage to voice that. And as I said, I was ashamed. I’m supposed to be stronger than that.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I don’t want to put more on my husband’s shoulders. He’s carrying the weight of the world. I don’t want to bring that to him. I bring solutions. To admit that you need help, to admit how dark of a place you’re in.
Oprah: You’ve said some pretty shocking things here, revealing . . .
Meghan: I wasn’t planning to say anything shocking.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: I’m just telling you what’s happened.
Oprah: OK.
Meghan: I’m sorry if it’s shocked you! It’s been a lot.
Oprah: I’m a little shocked.
Meghan: It’s been a lot.
Oprah: How do you feel about the palace hearing you speak your truth today? Are you afraid of a backlash or their reaction?
Meghan: I mean, I think I’m not going to live my life in fear. You know, I think so much of it is said with an understanding of just truth.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: But I think, to answer your question, I don’t know how they could expect that after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: That at a certain point, you’re going to go, ‘But, you guys, someone just tell the truth’. And if that comes with risk of losing things, I mean, I’ve lost . . . there’s a lot that’s been lost already.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: And I grieve a lot. I mean, I’ve lost my father. I lost a baby. I nearly lost my name. I mean, there’s the loss of identity. But I’m still standing, and my hope for people in the takeaway from this is to know that there’s another side.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: To know that life is worth living.
Oprah: OK. I’m so glad you see that now. We are going to take a break, y’all, and Harry’s going to join us.
Meghan: (Laughter)
(Ads and back to Oprah)
Oprah: So, hi.
Harry: Hello.
Oprah: Thanks for joining us.
Harry: Thanks for having me.
Oprah: You’ve been watching on the side, yeah?
Harry: Some of it.
Oprah: Yes. I want to say, first of all, let’s say congratulations . . .
Harry: Thank you.
Oprah: . . . for the new addition to your family. Meghan said she wanted to wait until you were here to tell us, is it a boy or is it a girl?
Meghan: You can tell her.
Harry: No, go for it.
Meghan: No, no.
Harry: It’s a girl.
Oprah: (Squeals)
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Harry: Yes!
Oprah: You’re going to have a daughter. Wow.
Meghan: It’s a girl.
Oprah: When you realised that and saw it on the ultrasound, what . . . what . . . what was your first thought?
Harry: Amazing. Just grateful, like any — to have any child, any one or any two would have been amazing. But to have a boy and then a girl, you know, what more can you ask for? But now, you know, now we — we’ve got our family. We’ve got, you know, the four of us and our two dogs, and it’s great.
Oprah: Done. Done? Two is it?
Harry: Done.
Meghan: Two is it.
Oprah: Two is it.
Meghan: Two is it.
Oprah: And when’s the baby due?
Meghan: In summertime.
Oprah: This summertime?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: So, you all have been living in sunny California now for . . .
Meghan: Since March.
Oprah: Since March, OK.
(Oprah narrates) In late 2019, Prince Harry and Meghan left the UK And moved to Canada. The couple says they chose Canada, a commonwealth of Britain, with the intention of continuing to serve the Queen. After their move, Harry and Meghan say security normally provided by the Royal Family was cut off. By March 2020, just days before the Covid lockdown began, Meghan, Harry and Archie relocated to Los Angeles, where media mogul Tyler Perry offered them his home as a temporary refuge. He also provided security.
Three months later they bought their own home and settled in the Santa Barbara area. Last spring, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex created their own foundation and media content company called Archewell.
Oprah: And so you stayed at Tyler Perry’s house for several months.
Harry: Three months, I believe.
Meghan: Yeah, because we didn’t have a plan. We needed . . . we needed a house and he offered security as well, so it gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we are going to do.
Harry: The biggest concern was that while we were in Canada, in someone else’s house, I then got told at short notice security was going to be removed. By this point, courtesy of the Daily Mail, the world knew exact . . . our exact location. So suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on a second. The borders could be closed. We’re going to have our security removed. Who knows how long lockdown’s going to be? The world knows where we are. It’s not safe. It’s not secure’.
Meghan: Well, and also . . .
Harry: We probably need to get out of here.
Oprah: So, what security did you have at the time that was going to be removed?
Harry: We had our UK security.
Oprah: So you got word from overseas?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: That ‘we’re taking away your security’. Why were they doing that?
Harry: Their justification is a change in status, of which I pushed back and said, ‘Well, is there a change of threat or risk?’ And after many weeks of waiting, eventually I got the confirmation that no, the risk and threat hasn’t changed but due to our change of status, (by) which we would no longer be official working members of the Royal Family, they’re obviously . . . what we proposed was sort of part-time, or at least as much as we could do without being fully consumed because of, I think, what most of you guys have covered already.
Meghan: We actually didn’t talk about that. It’s been so spun in the wrong direction, as though we quit, we walked away, we . . . all the conversations of the two years before we finally announced it.
(Oprah narrates) In January 2020, Prince Harry and Meghan announced they would step back as senior members of the Royal Family. The swiftness with which they’ve taken this decision, only 18 months after they got married, has taken everyone by surprise, from the Queen all the way down.
The bombshell news sparked a worldwide media frenzy dubbed ‘Megxit’ by the British Press. Many reporters and viral posts blamed Meghan for the decision. In an official statement, Queen Elizabeth said: ‘Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.’ (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: OK, let me ask the question.
Meghan: Yeah?
Oprah: So, over a year ago, you shocked the world. You announced you were stepping back as senior members of the Royal Family. And then the media reported that you had ‘blindsided’ the Queen, your grandmother. So here’s a time to set the record straight. What was the tipping point that made you decide you had to leave?
Harry: Yeah, it was desperate. I went to all the places which I thought I should go to, to ask for help. We both did.
Meghan: Mm-hmm.
Harry: Separately and together.
Oprah: So you left because you were asking for help and couldn’t get it?
Harry: Yeah, basically. But we never left.
Meghan: We never left the family and we only wanted to have the same type of role that exists, right? There’s senior members of the family and then there are non-senior members. And we said, specifically, ‘We’re stepping back from senior roles to be just like several . . .’ I mean, I can think of so many right now who are all . . . they’re royal highnesses, prince or princess, duke or duchess . . . who earn a living, live on palace grounds, can support the Queen if and when called upon. So we weren’t reinventing the wheel here. We were saying, ‘OK, if this isn’t working for everyone, we’re in a lot of pain, you can’t provide us with the help we need, we can just take a step back. We can do it in a Commonwealth country’. We suggested New Zealand, South Africa . . .
Harry: Take a breath.
Meghan: Canada.
Oprah: Yeah. And you wanted to take a breath from what specifically? Let’s be clear.
Harry: From this . . . this constant barrage. My biggest concern was history repeating itself and I’ve said that before on numerous occasions, very publicly. And what I was seeing was history repeating itself. But more, perhaps. Or definitely far more dangerous because then you add race in and you add social media in. And when I’m talking about history repeating itself, I’m talking about my . . . my mother.
Harry: When you can see something happening in the same kind of way, anybody would ask for help, ask the system of which you are a part of — especially when you know there’s a relationship there — that they could help and share some truth or call . . . call the dogs off, whatever you want to call it. So to receive no help at all and to be told continuously, ‘This is how it is. This is just how it is. We’ve all been through it’ . . . and I think the biggest turning point for me was the . . . and it didn’t take very long. It was actually right at the beginning . . . was, OK, this union . . . us, me, being . . . having a girlfriend was going to be a thing. Of course it was. But I . . . I never expected, or I never thought . . .
Oprah: Because she was mixed race?
Harry: No, just . . . just the two of us to start with. I hadn’t really thought about the mixed-race piece because I thought, well . . . well, firstly, you know, I’ve spent many years doing the work and doing my own learning. But my upbringing in the system, of which I was brought up in and what I’ve been exposed to, it wasn’t . . . I wasn’t aware of it to start with. But, my god, it doesn’t take very long to suddenly become aware of it.
Oprah: Yeah, because you said you really weren’t aware of unconscious bias and all that that represents . . .
Harry: No.
Oprah: Until you met Meghan.
Harry: Yeah. You know, as sad as it is to say, it takes living in her shoes — in this instance, for a day, or those first eight days — to see where it was going to go and how far they were going to take it.
Oprah: And get away with it?
Harry: And get away with it and be so blatant about it. That’s the bit that shocked me. This is . . . we’re talking about the UK Press here, right? And this . . . the UK is my home. That is . . . that is where I was brought up. So yes, I’ve got my own relationship that goes back a long way with the media. I asked for calm from the British tabloids — once as a boyfriend, once as a husband and once as a father.
Oprah: So when I ask the question, ‘Why did you leave?’ the simplest answer is . . ?
Harry: Lack of support and lack of understanding.
Oprah: So, I want clarity. Was the move about getting away from the UK Press? Because the Press, as you know, is everywhere. Or was the move because you weren’t getting enough support from The Firm?
Harry: It was both.
Oprah: Both.
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Did you blindside the Queen?
Harry: No. I’ve never blindsided my grandmother. I have too much respect for her.
Oprah: So where did that story come from?
Harry: I hazard a guess that it probably could have come from within the institution.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: So, I remember when you talked to her several times about this over . . .
Harry: Two years.
Meghan: Two years. But even the night before, days before, with the statement coming out, I remember that conversation.
Oprah: So, how do you know she wasn’t blindsided? Because the way it was presented through the Press is that suddenly you made this announcement. She didn’t know it was coming.
Harry: No, I . . . when we were in Canada, I had three conversations with my grandmother and two conversations with my father and — before he stopped taking my calls — and he said, ‘Can you put this all in writing what your plan is?’
Oprah: Your father asked you to put it in writing.
Prince Harry: Yeah. He asked me to put it in writing and I put all the specifics in there, even the fact that we were planning on putting the announcement out on January 7.
Oprah: So you just said that your dad stopped taking your calls. Why did he stop taking your calls?
Harry: Because I took matters in . . . by that point, I took matters into my own hands. It was like, ‘I need to do this for my family. This is not a surprise to anybody. It’s really sad that it’s gotten to this point but I’ve got to do something for my own mental health, my wife’s and for Archie’s as well’. Because I could see where this was headed.
Meghan: To have sat back and not said that for so long, it just feels really . . .
Oprah: To have been silenced all this time.
Meghan: Yeah.
Harry: Been three and a half, four years. Or longer, actually.
Meghan: We were saying . . . gosh, it must have been years ago we were sitting in Nottingham (Nottingham Cottage, where Harry lived as a bachelor and when first married) . . . I was sitting in Nottingham Cottage and The Little Mermaid came on. Now, who watches . . . who as an adult really watches The Little Mermaid? But it came on and I was like, ‘Well, I’m just here all the time, so I may as well watch this’. And I went, ‘Oh, my god! She falls in love with the prince and because of that, she has to lose her voice’.
Oprah: Mmm.
Meghan: But by the end, she gets her voice back.
Oprah: Gets her voice back.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: And this is what happened here? You feel like you got your voice back?
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: So, you . . . you’re stepping back out of frustration and you just need to get out. And, you know, you heard Meghan share with us all . . .
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: The moment that she came to you, had the courage enough to say out loud . . .
Harry: Mm-hmm.
My father said: Can you put your plan in writing? Then he stopped taking my calls. I’d taken matters into my own hands.
Oprah: ‘I don’t want to live any more.’
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: And you didn’t know what to do?
Harry: I had no idea what to do. I wasn’t . . . I wasn’t prepared for that. I went . . . I went to a very dark place as well. But I . . . I wanted to be there for her and . . .
Meghan: Also, we didn’t leave right that minute, right?
Harry: I was terrified.
Meghan: We still . . . that’s almost a year after.
Oprah: So then did you tell other people in the family, ‘I have to get help for her. We need help for her’?
Harry: No. That’s just not a conversation that would be had.
Oprah: Why?
Harry: I guess I was ashamed of admitting it to them.
Oprah: Oh.
Harry: And I don’t know whether . . . I don’t know whether they’ve had the same . . . whether they’ve had the same feelings or thoughts. I have no idea. And it’s a very trapping environment that a lot of them are stuck in.
Oprah: You were ashamed of admitting that Meghan needed help?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Mmm.
Harry: I didn’t have anyone to turn to.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Harry: You know, we’ve got some very close friends that . . . that have been with us through this whole process but for the family, they very much have this mentality of, ‘This is just how it is. This is how it’s meant to be. You can’t change it. We’ve all been through it’.
Oprah: ‘We’ve all been through the pressure. We’ve all been through being exploited’?
Harry: Yes. But what was different for me was the race element, because now it wasn’t just about her, but it is about what she represents. And therefore it wasn’t just affecting my wife. It was affecting so many other people as well. And that’s . . . that was the trigger for me to really engage in those conversations with Palace . . . senior Palace staff and with my family to say, ‘Guys, this is not going to end well’.
Oprah: And when you say ‘end well’, what did you mean?
Harry: For anyone it’s not going to end well. Because the way that I saw it was there was a way of doing things but for us — for this union and the specifics around her race — there was an opportunity, many opportunities, for my family to show some public support.
Oprah: Mmm.
Harry: And I guess one of the most telling parts — and the saddest parts, I guess — was over 70 Members of Parliament, female Members of Parliament, both Conservative and Labour — came out and called out the . . . the colonial undertones of articles and headlines written about
Meghan. Yet no one from my family ever said anything over those three years. And that . . . that hurts. But I also am acutely aware of where my family stand and how scared they are of the tabloids turning on them.
Oprah: Turning on them for what? They’re the Royal Family.
Harry: Yes, but it’s . . . there is this invisible . . . what’s termed or referred to as the ‘invisible contract’ behind closed doors between the institution and the tabloids, the UK tabloids.
Oprah: How so?
Harry: Well, it is . . . to simplify it, it’s a case of if you . . . if you as a family member are willing to wine, dine and give full access to these reporters, then you will get better press.
Oprah: What do you care about better press if you’re royal?
Harry: I think everyone needs to have some compassion for . . . for them in that situation, right? There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean, generations.
Oprah: But who’s controlling whom? It’s the institution. From our point of view, just the public. It’s . . .
Harry: Yeah but the institution survives based on that, on that perception. So actually, if you don’t . . .
Oprah: So you’re saying there’s this relationship that Meghan was speaking of . . . it’s like, symbiotic. One lives or thrives because the other exists.
Meghan: Mmm.
Oprah: That’s what you’re saying.
Harry: That’s the . . . that’s the idea.
Meghan: Well, see, I think there’s a reason that these tabloids have holiday parties at the Palace. They’re hosted by the Palace, the tabloids are. You know, there is a construct that’s at play there. And because from the beginning of our relationship, they were so attacking and inciting so much racism, really, it changed our . . . the risk level, because it went . . . it wasn’t just catty gossip. It was bringing out a part of people that was racist in how it was charged. And that changed the threat. That changed the level of death threats. That changed everything.
Oprah: So, tell me this: You said a moment ago, it hurts that your family has never acknowledged the role that racism played in here. Did you think she was well received in the beginning?
Harry: Yes. Far better than I expected. (Laughter) But, you know, my grandmother has been amazing throughout. You know, my father, my brother, Kate and . . . and all the rest of the family, they were, they were really welcoming. But it really changed after the Australia tour, after our South Pacific tour.
Meghan: That’s when we announced we were pregnant with Archie. That was our first tour.
Harry: But it was also . . . it was also the first time that the family got to see how incredible she is at the job. And that brought back memories.
Oprah: I’m thinking, because I watch The Crown OK? I watch The Crown. Do you all watch The Crown?
Meghan: (Laughs)
Harry:: I’ve watched some of it. You’ve watched some of it?
Meghan: I’ve watched some of it.
Oprah: But there’s this . . . I think it was the fourth season, actually, where there is an Australian tour. So, is that what you’re talking about? It brought back memories of that? The Australian tour.
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Where your father and your mother went there, and your mother was bedazzling. So, are you saying that there were hints of jealousy?
Harry: Look, I just wish that we would all learn from the past. But to see the . . . to see how effortless it was for Meghan to come into the family so quickly in Australia and across New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, and just be able to connect with people in such a . . .
Oprah: But . . .
Harry: I know, I know, I know, I know. But it’s . . .
Oprah: Why, I mean, why wouldn’t everybody love that? Isn’t that what you want? You want her to come into the family and to, as the Queen said at one point, the way that Meghan had basically, not her words, been assimilated into the family.
Harry: Yeah, I think, you know, as we talked about, she was very much welcomed into the family, not just by the family, but by the world.
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: Certainly by the Commonwealth. I mean, here you have one of the greatest assets to the Commonwealth that the family could have ever wished for.
Oprah: I just can’t . . . I’m kind of going back to this. So, then, you’re in Canada because you had stepped back. Your Firm says you’re no longer going to have protection. So, did you ask for that? Because did you want . . . were you trying to have it both ways? You wanted to step back but also keep your foot in royal business, it seems.
Harry: It’s interesting that you talk about it being, you know, ‘Have it both ways’ on the . . . on the security element. I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.
Oprah: So, that you as Prince Harry are going to have your security removed.
Meghan: Yeah. And I even . . . and I even wrote letters to his family saying, ‘Please, it’s very clear the protection of me or Archie is not a priority. I accept that. That is fine. Please keep my husband safe. I see the death threats. I see the racist propaganda. Please keep him safe. Please don’t pull his security and announce to the world when he and we are most vulnerable’. And they said it’s just not possible.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. I think what we really have got to clear up here is because one of the stories that continues to live, either through rumours or social media, out in the world, is that you, Meghan, are the one who manipulated, calculated, and are responsible for this Megxit.
Meghan: Oh, my gosh. It’s amazing how they can use Meg for everything.
Oprah: Yes. There are even stories that you knew all along that this was going to happen. You went through the whole process, and it was all intentional to build your brand.
Meghan: Can you imagine how little sense that makes? I left my career, my life. I left everything because I love him, right? And our plan was to do this for ever.
Harry: Yes.
Meghan: Our plan . . . for me, I mean, I wrote letters to his family when I got there, saying, ‘I am dedicated to this. I’m here for you. Use me as you’d like’. There was no guidance, as well, right? There were certain things that you couldn’t do. But, you know, unlike what you see in the movies, there’s no class on how to . . . how to speak, how to cross your legs, how to be royal. There’s none of that training. That might exist for other members of the family. That was not something that was offered to me.
Oprah: So, nobody tells you anything?
Meghan: No.
Oprah: Nobody prepares you?
Meghan: Nobody even . . .
Harry: There’s . . .
Meghan: Sorry, but even down to, like, the National Anthem. No one thought to say, ‘Oh, you’re American. You’re not going to know that’. That’s me late at night, Googling how . . . what’s the National . . . I’ve got to learn this. I don’t want to embarrass them. I need to learn these 30 hymns for church. All of this is televised. We were doing the training behind the scenes, because I just wanted to make them proud.
Oprah: OK, but here’s the question: Do you think you would have left or ever stepped back were it not for Meghan?
Meghan: Hm.
Harry: No. The answer to your question is no.
Oprah: You would not have?
Harry: I wouldn’t have . . . I wouldn’t have been able to, because I myself was trapped as well. I didn’t see a way out.
Oprah: She felt trapped, you were trapped?
Harry: Yeah, I didn’t see a way out.
Oprah: But you’d this life, your whole life. This has been your life your whole life.
Harry: Yeah, but, you know, I was trapped, but I didn’t know I was trapped.
Oprah: Mmm.
Harry: But the moment that I met Meg, and then our worlds sort of collided in the most amazing of ways, and then to see how . . .
Oprah: Please explain how you, Prince Harry, raised in a palace and a life of privilege — literally, a Prince . . . how you were trapped.
Harry: Trapped within the system, like the rest of my family are. My father and my brother, they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.
Oprah: Well, OK, so the impression of the world — maybe it’s a false impression — is that, for all these years before Meghan, you were living your life as a royal, Prince Harry . . . the beloved Prince Harry and that you were enjoying that life. We didn’t get the impression that you were feeling trapped in that life.
Harry: Enjoying the life because there were photographs of me smiling while I was shaking hands and meeting people? Like, I’m sure you guys have covered some of that. That’s . . . that’s a part of the job. That’s a part of the role. That’s what’s expected. No matter who you are in the family, no matter what’s going on in your personal life, no matter what’s just happened, if the bikes roll up and the car rolls up, you’ve got to get dressed, you got to get in there. You wipe your tears away, shake off whatever you’re thinking about and you got to be on your A-game.
Oprah: Mm-hmm. What would you think your mum would say about this stepping back, this decision to step back from the Royal Family? How would she feel about this moment?
Harry: I think she would feel very angry with how this has panned out, and very sad. But, ultimately, she’d . . . all she’d . . . all she’d ever want is for us to be happy.
Oprah: You wanted freedom from . . . from that life? You wanted freedom to make your own money. You wanted freedom to make deals with Netflix and Spotify. But you also wanted to serve the Queen?
Harry: Yeah, we didn’t want to . . . we didn’t want to give up, or we didn’t want to turn our backs on the associations and the people that we . . . that we’ve been supporting.
Meghan: But also, Oprah, it exists.
Harry: Yeah, it exists. But, also, the Netflix and the Spotify, they’re all . . . that was never part of the plan.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Because you didn’t have a plan?
Meghan: We didn’t have a plan.
Harry: We didn’t have a plan. That was suggested by somebody else by the point of where my family literally cut me off financially, and I had to afford . . . afford security for us.
Oprah: Wait. Hold . . . hold up. Wait a minute. Your family cut you off?
Harry: Yeah, in the first half, the first quarter of 2020. But I’ve got what my mum left me, and, without that, we would not have been able to do this.
Oprah: OK.
Harry: So, you know, touching back on what you asked me, what my mum would think of this, I think she saw it coming. And I certainly felt her presence throughout this whole process. And, you know, for me, I’m . . . I’m just really relieved and happy to be sitting here talking to you with my wife by my side. Because I can’t begin to imagine what it must have been like for her going through this process by herself all those years ago, because it’s been unbelievably tough for the two of us, but at least we had each other.
Oprah: What’s your relationship like now with your family?
Harry: I’ve spoken more to my grandmother in the last year than I have done for many, many years.
Oprah: Do you all have Zoom calls?
Harry: We did a couple of Zoom calls with Archie.
Meghan: Sometimes, yes, so they can see Archie.
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: My grandmother and I have a really good relationship . . .
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Harry: . . . And an understanding. And I have a deep respect for her. She’s my Colonel-In-Chief, right? She always will be.
Oprah: Your relationship with your father? Is he taking your calls now?
Harry: Yeah. Yeah, he is. There’s a lot to work through there, you know? I feel really let down, because he’s been through something similar. He knows what pain feels like, and this is . . . and Archie’s his grandson. And . . . but, at the same time, you know, I, of course I will always . . . I will always love him, but there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened. And . . . and I will continue to . . . to make it one of my priorities to try and heal that relationship. And, but they only know what they know, and that’s the thing. I’ve tried to . . .
Meghan: Or what they’re told.
Harry: Or what they’re told. And I’ve tried to educate them through the process that I have been educated.
Oprah: Because is it like being in a big royal bubble?
Harry: Yeah.
Oprah: Yeah. And your brother? Relationship? Much has been said about that.
Harry: Yeah, and much will continue to be said about that. You know, as I’ve said before, I love William to bits. He’s my brother. We’ve been through hell together. I mean, we have a shared experience. But we . . . you know, we’re on . . . we’re on different paths.
Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.
Harry: Mm-hmm.
Oprah: What was that conversation?
Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.
Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?
Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.
Oprah: OK.
Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?
Oprah: Like, what will the baby look like?
Harry: Yeah, what will the kids look like?
Oprah: What will the kids look like?
Harry: But that was right at the beginning, when she wasn’t going to get security, when members of my family were suggesting that she carries on acting, because there was not enough money to pay for her, and all this sort of stuff. Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.
Oprah: So, in conclusion, if you’d had the support, you’d still be there?
Harry: Without question.
Meghan: Yeah.
Harry: I’m sad that . . . that what’s happened has happened, but I know, and I’m comfortable in knowing, that we did everything that we could to make it work. And we did everything on the exit process the way that . . . the way that it should have been done.
Meghan: With as much respect.
Harry: With as much respect.
Meghan: And, oh, my God, we just did everything we could to . . . to protect them.
Oprah: So, what do you say to the people who say you came here, you made these multimillion-dollar deals and that you’re just money-grabbing royals?
Harry: First off, this was never the intention.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: Yeah.
Harry: And we’re certainly not complaining. We . . . our life is great now. We’ve got a beautiful house. We’ve got a beautiful . . . I’ve got a beautiful family. And the dogs . . . the dogs are really happy. But at the time, during Covid, the suggestion by a friend was, ‘What about streamers?’
Meghan: Yeah, we genuinely hadn’t thought about that before.
Harry: We hadn’t thought about it. So there were all sorts of different options. And, look, from my perspective, all I needed was enough money to be able to pay for security to keep my family safe.
Oprah: Mm. How will you use Archewell as a means of speaking to things that are important to you in the world?
Meghan: I think in creating . . . I mean, life is about storytelling, right? About the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we’re told, what we buy into. And . . . and for us to be able to have storytelling through a truthful lens, that hopefully is uplifting, is going to be great knowing how many people that can land with. And being able to give a voice to a lot of people that are under-represented and aren’t really heard.
Oprah: Any regrets?
Meghan: This morning, I woke up earlier than H and saw a note from someone on our team in the UK saying the Duke of Edinburgh had gone to the hospital.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: But I just picked up the phone and I called the Queen just to check in.
Oprah: You check in?
Meghan: Just like, I would . . . you know . . . that’s what we do. It’s like, being able to default to not having to every moment go, ‘Is that appropriate?’
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: For so many in my family, what they do is . . . there’s a level of control in it, right? Because they’re fearful of what the papers are going to say about them.
Oprah: Yeah.
Harry: Whereas with us, it was just, like, just be . . . just be yourself. Just be genuine. Just be authentic. Just go and do what it is. If you get it wrong, you get it wrong. If you get it right, you get it right.
(Oprah narrates) On February 19, 2021, Buckingham palace released a statement announcing it was agreed that Prince Harry and Meghan would not return as working members of the Royal Family. Harry and Meghan’s royal patronages and Prince Harry’s honorary military titles would be returned to the Queen. The Queen’s statement was released after our interview took place. (Back to Oprah)
Oprah: Your exit agreement with the Royal Family, it’s . . . that is coming up at the end of this month.
Harry: The decision is, I think. Yeah, I mean, the decision — what, as of last week, or whatever it was — is that they will be removing everything.
Oprah: Are you hurt by that decision?
Harry: I am hurt. But at the same time I completely respect my grandmother’s decision. I would still love for us to be able to continue to support those associations, albeit without the title or the role.
Oprah: Could you be as satisfied now, doing this through your own organisation, Archewell?
Meghan: Well, we . . . this is what we’re doing, right? We’re still doing it. We’re still going to always do the work. But I also think it’s important for you or everyone to know this decision that was made about patronages and all of that was before anyone knew that we were sitting down with you.
Harry: Yeah.
Meghan: I think that it’s . . . I can only imagine . . .
Oprah: I heard a story that you’re getting punished now. Those were being taken away because you did sit down with me.
Meghan: Yeah, but that was . . . those letters, those conversations, that was . . . that was finalised before anyone even knew that we were going to sit down. So that’s just not true.
Oprah: All right, tell me this. Harry, what delights you now in your everyday experience and the things that you actually cherish in your life here with Archie and Meghan?
Harry: This year has been crazy for everybody. But to have outdoor space where I can go for walks with Archie, and we can go for walks as a family and with the dogs, and we can go on hikes — we’ll go down to the beach, which is so close — all of these things are just . . . I guess, the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of the bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on these bike rides, which is something I was never able to do when I was young. I can see him on the back and he’s got his arms out and he’s like, ‘Whoo!’ chatting, chatting, chatting, going, ‘Palm tree! House!’ and all this sort of stuff. And I do . . . I think to myself . . .
In some ways it’s just the beginning. Greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read…
Oprah: What’s his new favourite word? What’s his favourite word now?
Meghan: Oh my gosh, he’s on a roll. In the past couple weeks it has been hydrate, which is just hysterical.
Harry: But also, whenever everyone leaves the house, he’s like, ‘Drive safe’.
Meghan: ‘Drive safe’.
(Oprah laughs)
Harry: Which is really . . .
Meghan: He’s not even two yet!
Oprah: You said that your brother was trapped. You said that you love your brother and always will love your brother. You didn’t tell me what the relationship is now, though.
Harry: The relationship is space at the moment. And, you know, time heals all things, hopefully.
Oprah: Any regrets?
Harry: No. I mean . . . no, I think we’ve done . . . I’m really proud of us, you know? I’m so proud of . . . I’m so proud of my wife. Like, she safely delivered Archie during a period of time which was so cruel and so mean. And every single day, I was coming back from work, from London, I was coming back to my wife crying while breastfeeding Archie. That’s coming from someone who wasn’t reading anything. And as she touched on earlier, if she had read anything, she wouldn’t be here now. So we did what we had to do — and now we’ve got another little one on the way.
Meghan: I have one. My regret is believing them when they said I would be protected. I believed that. And I regret believing that because I think, ‘had I really seen that that wasn’t happening, I would have been able to do more’. But I think I wasn’t supposed to see it. I wasn’t supposed to know. And . . . and now, because we’re actually on the other side, we’ve actually not just survived but are thriving. You know, this . . . I mean, this is miracles. I . . . yeah, I think that all of those things that I was hoping for have happened . . . and this is in some ways just the beginning for us. You know, we’ve been through a lot. It’s felt like a lifetime. (Laughs.) A lifetime.
Oprah: So, your story with the prince does have a happy ending?
Meghan: It does.
Harry: Yeah.
Meghan: Yeah. (Laughs.) It really did.
Oprah: It has a happy ending because you made it so.
Meghan: Yeah, greater than any fairytale you’ve ever read.
Oprah: Greater than any fairytale.
Meghan: Yeah, yeah.
Oprah: What you’ve described here today — being trapped and not even being aware of it and all the things that had transpired, and then she comes into your life and then you’re doing therapy — do you think in some way she saved you?
Harry: Yeah. Without question. There was . . . there was a bigger purpose. There was other forces at play, I think, throughout this whole process. I’m the last person to think, ‘Ooh!’ You know? But it’s undeniable when these things have happened, where the overlap is. So yeah, she did. Without question she saved me.
Meghan: And I would . . . I would . . . I mean, I think that’s lovely. I would disagree. I think he saved all of us, right? He ultimately called it and was like, ‘We’ve got to find a way for us, for Archie’. And you made a decision that saved . . . certainly saved my life and saved all of us. But, you know, you need to want to be saved.
Oprah: Well, thank you for sharing your love story. We can’t wait for the big day some time this summer.
Meghan: Yes, indeed.
Oprah: Sometime this summer.
Meghan: Yeah.
Oprah: Thank you both for trusting me to share your story.
END OF THE INTERVIEW
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Oprah Winfrey meets Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle/Full text of the interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJSNMqub8g Today, the 6th of may, is the first Birthday of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, son of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.It is my great pleasure , from my website, to congratulate Lord Archie and wish him and his parents a Happy Birthday!As also his grandparents.And especially too his greatgrandparents Queen Elisabeth and her husband, Prince Philip [Duke of Edinburgh]
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
.jpg)
.jpg)
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry wished everyone a merry Christmas from their family of four.
Wishing them all well at this special time