Henry Tudor Parallel (it's not Jon Snow)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I thought Daenerys was the parallel of Henry VII even down to their arms/sigils.

If Aegon comes back under the Targaryen banner, then he also has the red dragon. I'm actually warming up to the idea of him being a Henry/Perkin hybrid. It's actually genius on GRRM's part: If he gives Aegon Perkin's demise without showing another clear-cut Henry VII figure, then it paves the way for either no ultimate winner or a winner that will be harder to spot.

[James Arryn]

Margaret of York was Richard, Duke of York's aunt, not his sister. That's why I tried to clarify which Richard you meant. And if I remember my timeline correctly, Margaret had gone off to Burgundy before Richard was even born, and was still living there when he died. So I think it's kind of a stretch to say she'd be able to recognize the actual boy. The Plantagenet features, maybe, but that's not the same thing. She also spent the later part of her life trying to promote the Yorkist cause against the Tudors, so it wouldn't surprise me if by that time she was backing any horse than seemed viable.

I like to think of her as Jon Connington with boobs.

Sorry, meant to say brother's son. But it was pretty customary for extended visits, especially in that environment when France, Burgundy and England were playing such a revolving diplomatic game.

I fully admit she may have had ulterior motives, but of whom could that not be said in this instance?

[Minstral]

Henry Tudor = Aegon VI. I dare you to say otherwise, in fact, i double dare you!

Alright... they are by no means equal (I don't mean that one is supposedly better then the other). For one thing one succeeded to take his throne while the other isn't likely to take his... If FAegon takes the throne then I would say they would Henry=somewhat= Aegon.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Sorry, meant to say brother's son. But it was pretty customary for extended visits, especially in that environment when France, Burgundy and England were playing such a revolving diplomatic game.

I fully admit she may have had ulterior motives, but of whom could that not be said in this instance?

Perhaps. Not really buying it, unless you have something suggesting that Margaret was in regular contact with Richard such that she would be able to knowingly and accurately vouch for him. Everything I've seen suggests that she wouldn't have really seen Edward's kids often, if at all.

In the end, and I say this as someone who doesn't buy the Warbeck story at all, whether he was real or not ended up being moot, because he was stopped and executed, whoever the hell he really was. I imagine it'll go the same way for Aegon.

[James Arryn]

Perhaps. Not really buying it, unless you have something suggesting that Margaret was in regular contact with Richard such that she would be able to knowingly and accurately vouch for him. Everything I've seen suggests that she wouldn't have really seen Edward's kids often, if at all.

In the end, and I say this as someone who doesn't buy the Warbeck story at all, whether he was real or not ended up being moot, because he was stopped and executed, whoever the hell he really was. I imagine it'll go the same way for Aegon.

Well, that's just it. The only person aside from Aegon himself who will be really really affected by Aegon's not being Aegon is JonCon, if he ever somehow finds out definitively. For everyone else it will only matter if he wins or loses. In the meantime he has a story people can buy if they're in the shopping mood. Good enough, or not enough; we'll see.

Oh, sorry, back to Warbeck. One thing they would almost certainly have done was kept in touch via correspondence...Even if. Y proxy. So Margaret could easily ask questions only her nephews or those closely connected to same could answer, if she had a mind to. We'll never know, but like I said, no version of fates of the Princes in the Tower makes any sense to me.

[LordStoneheart]

@Apple, after doing some quick reading elsewhere I can see this Henry Warbeck idea, and I agree, it would be pretty clever to have a hybrid parallel character. But also, if he's just supposed to be Warbeck and Dany as Henry, it could be like a reversal. Perkin/Aegon takes the throne and Henry/Dany fights to get it afterwards.

I don't believe I'd even know who Perkin Warbeck was without seeing a lot your posts, so kudos on these parallels. You're quite good with them.

[Minstral]

This Warbeck discussion is starting to make me see Warbecks in the books themselves. What will happen when Rickon shows up (probably the strongest contender for the ASOIAF Warbeck title), or was Jeyne a sort of reverse Warbeck that GRRM was inspired to make.

Oh, sorry, back to Warbeck. One thing they would almost certainly have done was kept in touch via correspondence...Even if. Y proxy. So Margaret could easily ask questions only her nephews or those closely connected to same could answer, if she had a mind to. We'll never know, but like I said, no version of fates of the Princes in the Tower makes any sense to me.

I had the feeling that she was simply utilizing realpolitik (maybe that's not the right word). She saw the fall of her house and would probably use whatever means she could find to strike at Tudor England.

[James Arryn]

This Warbeck discussion is starting to make me see Warbecks in the books themselves. What will happen when Rickon shows up (probably the strongest contender for the ASOIAF Warbeck title), or was Jeyne a sort of reverse Warbeck that GRRM was inspired to make.

I had the feeling that she was simply utilizing realpolitik (maybe that's not the right word). She saw the fall of her house and would probably use whatever means she could find to strike at Tudor England.

Right, absolutely possible. But that holds equally true for everyone else involved. Put it this way: how would Henry VI have handled things differently if he were the genuine article?

Edit: an additional point is the sheer number of neutral or Tudor loyalists of the time who speculated that there must be some kind of blood relation. Which IMO means either he knew things he should not have known otherwise...say about Edward's teeth...or he was so strikingly Edward IV like that it demanded some kind of kin explanation .

[Minstral]

Put it this way: how would Henry VI have handled things differently if he were the genuine article?

You mean the Henry who started the Tudor line right? The Henry you mention there was the insane one that the Yorkists rebelled against.

If you do mean Henry Tudor, then I would point to how the Edward was treated by the Tudors (the Nephew of Edward the fourth and son of his brother George), and by that I mean how he was executed.

[James Arryn]

You mean the Henry who started the Tudor line right? The Henry you mention there was the insane one that the Yorkists rebelled against.

If you do mean Henry Tudor, then I would point to how the Edward was treated by the Tudors (the Nephew of Edward the fourth and son of his brother George), and by that I mean how he was executed.

Yes, missed an I. And agreed, exactly. Discredited (as simple), kept around for a while and then executed. Exactly as with Warbeck.

[lareine]

Right, absolutely possible. But that holds equally true for everyone else involved. Put it this way: how would Henry VI have handled things differently if he were the genuine article?

Edit: an additional point is the sheer number of neutral or Tudor loyalists of the time who speculated that there must be some kind of blood relation. Which IMO means either he knew things he should not have known otherwise...say about Edward's teeth...or he was so strikingly Edward IV like that it demanded some kind of kin explanation .

Yes, missed an I. And agreed, exactly. Discredited (as simple), kept around for a while and then executed. Exactly as with Warbeck.

I agree with you, he wouldn't really have been handled any differently if he had been the genuine article so it's quite impossible to know exactly who Perkin Warbeck was. His true identity and the fates of the Princes in the Tower will probably remain one of the great mysteries of medieval history. The only possible answer may lie with the two sets of children's bones that were in 1674 at the White Tower and are now interned at Westminster Abbey. They were last examined in the 1930s but nothing could be conclusively determined about them. I know the Richard III Society (of which I am a member) petitioned to have DNA testing done on them to establish if there was any genetic link whatsoever to the royal family. The queen has denied this request however, so it looks like we won't be seeing those bones identified anytime in the new future.

[James Arryn]

the Bones themselves would resolve some of the questions, but as to pointing the finger, none really add up UNLESS Margaret Beaufort had access.

None who had motive acted as they would have had they done the deed. None of them spent that currency when they had it.

edit: so cool that you're a rickardian!

[Alia of the knife]

Yeah, I'd assume nipping the bud was the point. He was often allowed to eat at banquets, to walk freely, etc....but NO SEX! Seems a trifle suspicious.

Another point worth making is the idea that the Wars of the Roses ended with Bosworth. That's Tudor spin. Some of the largest and bloodiest battles followed Bosworth, but Henry VI wanted to be seen as universally approved and the peacemaker, so that's how the story gets told.

Here is a passage from Amy Licence's "Elizabeth of York," The forgotten Tudor Queen in regard to what you were alluding to:

"By the time Warbeck reached the Capital, in Henrys custody, , he had already made a full confession about his true identity and pretentions to the throne. As they arrived, late that November, Warbeck walked ahead of Henry, unfettered, leading a courtier by the arm.By now the young man was accustomed to the jeers of the crowd, having been through the streets of London where onlookers shouted curses and jibes; the performance was repeated at court on almost every occasion where he appeared in public. Bacon claims this was so he 'could better tell what himself was.' And Sonico describes him almost enjoying the atmosphere, pausing to look in the windows of shops at Cheapside and 'making a spectacle for the world.'" - Amy Licence, Elizabeth of York, the Forgotten Tudor Queen.

It then goes on to describe his presentation to Elizabeth, but by this time, his confession was made, and while she might have looked for some resemblance, I think given her reaction, she either didn't see anything or, at this pointm, she had her own children to think of, and this man, if real would have posed a threat to them.

But Licence assumes that it was Elizabeths gentle inlfluence on her husband that might have spare Warbeck- for the moment.

"Henry kept his enemy close, making him sleep in an antechamber close to hand and denying him the opportunity to sleep with his wife."

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

@Apple, after doing some quick reading elsewhere I can see this Henry Warbeck idea, and I agree, it would be pretty clever to have a hybrid parallel character. But also, if he's just supposed to be Warbeck and Dany as Henry, it could be like a reversal. Perkin/Aegon takes the throne and Henry/Dany fights to get it afterwards.

I don't believe I'd even know who Perkin Warbeck was without seeing a lot your posts, so kudos on these parallels. You're quite good with them.

I still think the Aegon Blackfyre idea only makes sense from a historical perspective if it's a combination of the two. Legitimized bastard line's scion returns from exile to take the crown (even follows the female line actuality of Henry's claim), on par with Henry, while actually pretending to be a murdered prince, like Perkin.

I get that you obviously want Dany to be Henry VII, but there's only so far you can stretch it. Aegon has far more in common with Henry even if you consider the fakeness aspect. Which again is what makes it so smart on George's part: By blurring the lines between the victor and the fraud, he makes it that much harder to figure out the real outcome.

[James Arryn]

Here is a passage from Amy Licence's "Elizabeth of York," The forgotten Tudor Queen in regard to what you were alluding to:

"By the time Warbeck reached the Capital, in Henrys custody, , he had already made a full confession about his true identity and pretentions to the throne. As they arrived, late that November, Warbeck walked ahead of Henry, unfettered, leading a courtier by the arm.By now the young man was accustomed to the jeers of the crowd, having been through the streets of London where onlookers shouted curses and jibes; the performance was repeated at court on almost every occasion where he appeared in public. Bacon claims this was so he 'could better tell what himself was.' And Sonico describes him almost enjoying the atmosphere, pausing to look in the windows of shops at Cheapside and 'making a spectacle for the world.'" - Amy Licence, Elizabeth of York, the Forgotten Tudor Queen.

It then goes on to describe his presentation to Elizabeth, but by this time, his confession was made, and while she might have looked for some resemblance, I think given her reaction, she either didn't see anything or, at this pointm, she had her own children to think of, and this man, if real would have posed a threat to them.

But Licence assumes that it was Elizabeths gentle inlfluence on her husband that might have spare Warbeck- for the moment.

"Henry kept his enemy close, making him sleep in an antechamber close to hand and denying him the opportunity to sleep with his wife."

Cheers. Haven't read that yet. Just re-read Weir last month, though.

Fan to fan, what's your best guess on the P.i.t.T.?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Fan to fan, what's your best guess on the P.i.t.T.?

Know you weren't asking me specifically, and I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I do think Richard did it. Pretty sure Weir does, too. *runs*

Anyone read Weir's new Elizabeth of York bio? It's on my list. I also still have "Fatal Colours," about Towton, tucked away for a rainy day.

[The Bittersteel]

Know you weren't asking me specifically, and I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I do think Richard did it. Pretty sure Weir does, too. *runs*

Anyone read Weir's new Elizabeth of York bio? It's on my list. I also still have "Fatal Colours," about Towton, tucked away for a rainy day.

I reluctantly agree. I think one of the issues surrounding historical reassessment of Richard III was that with the popularisation of factual evidence that his character was demonised by the Tudors reassessment on his virtues was taken too far and people get carried away, resulting in the belief he was a through and through saint and trying to find any possible explanation to explain away his more controversial acts. While I wouldn't deny the possibility it was Henry or a number of other suspects evidence would suggest Richard has a high probability of being the culprit.

[James Arryn]

Know you weren't asking me specifically, and I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I do think Richard did it. Pretty sure Weir does, too. *runs*

Anyone read Weir's new Elizabeth of York bio? It's on my list. I also still have "Fatal Colours," about Towton, tucked away for a rainy day.

I know Weir does.

My issues with Richard as culprit is not that he was a saint, but rather that he wasn't an idiot. The Princes were too young to represent a personal threat; their only threat to him was as a focal point for resistance. To have them killed and NOT make their deaths public would have been idiotic. It was absolutely standard fare whenever a politically significant death took place to widely and openly prove their deaths to the populace. It happened with EVERY political death of the era.

Their deaths themselves would have been easily accomplished, and could either be made to look natural...we know for a fact that Edward was actually ill and death by disease was very common...or blamed on a political rival.

Not doing so is like paying for the ticket and not taking the ride.

Additionally, Henry VII...a man who never let political currency slip through his fingers unspent...never includes their deaths among all the crimes, real or imagined, that he attributes to Richard III in the years immediately after his death.

It just makes no sense to kill them and hush it up. It's hard for us to get in a modern setting, but their murder without acknowledgment of their deaths would have been almost entirely beside the point.

[Alia of the knife]

Know you weren't asking me specifically, and I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I do think Richard did it. Pretty sure Weir does, too. *runs*

Anyone read Weir's new Elizabeth of York bio? It's on my list. I also still have "Fatal Colours," about Towton, tucked away for a rainy day.

I read that one before Licence just for different perspectives. I liked Weir, but I think she does perhaps favor the Tudors a bit more, but it was a pretty good read.

[Alia of the knife]

I know Weir does.

My issues with Richard as culprit is not that he was a saint, but rather that he wasn't an idiot. The Princes were too young to represent a personal threat; their only threat to him was as a focal point for resistance. To have them killed and NOT make their deaths public would have been idiotic. It was absolutely standard fare whenever a politically significant death took place to widely and openly prove their deaths to the populace. It happened with EVERY political death of the era.

Their deaths themselves would have been easily accomplished, and could either be made to look natural...we know for a fact that Edward was actually ill and death by disease was very common...or blamed on a political rival.

Not doing so is like paying for the ticket and not taking the ride.

Additionally, Henry VII...a man who never let political currency split through his fingers unspent...never includes their deaths among all the crimes, real or imagined, that he attributes to Richard III in the years immediately after his death.

It just makes no sense to kill them and hush it up. It's hard for us to get in a modern setting, but their murder without acknowledgment of their deaths would have been almost entirely beside the point.

I tend to agree with this.

Richard keeping them alive at least keeps the line alive. Also, Edwards children had already been declared bastards due to his plighting his troth with another woman prior to Woodville.

Afterall, Elizabeth's own taint of bastardy had to be lifted in order to strengthen Henrys claim, though symbolically her blood was a power in itself.

Their existence was at best problematic to Richards line, but would have made the Tudors nigh on impossible, so in short, I am actually starting to suspect Margaret.

It might explain some of her later devotion (penance) to the rest of Edwards children like Cecily who got herself into a scandal And whom she protected, as well as Elizabeth herself for all Margarets domineering ways.

(Forgive in advance my phone's tyrannical auto correct) 👿