The New Murrey and Blue blog

Edward of Warwick, a “pretender” to Henry VII’s throne? Well, REALLY Mr Amin….!

, ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Oh dear, Nathen Amin wants us to fork out £10 to listen to him lecturing that poor old Henry VII was beset by wicked imposters and pretenders? I think not. Not even 10p! Especially as poor Edward, Earl of Warwick didn’t pretend to be anything at all, he was imprisoned as a child and then executed when older and Tudor’s dodgy conscience permitted it. If you have £10 to throw away, here’s where to go here

Now, if it was £10 to hear how evil Henry Tudor invaded with a foreign army and killed Richard III through treachery….that would be more like it. I’m delighted the Tudor usurper was hounded by Yorkist unrest. He deserved every minute of it.

So on yer bike, Mr Amin!

PS: I see the blurb mentions Tudor Pretenders. Take that how you will. 🙄

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. Glenis Brindley Avatar
    Glenis Brindley

    So Nathen Amin is here again with his twisted ideas and love of Henry Tudor. I wouldn’t pay him a penny to listen to anything he had to say, my blood pressure couldn’t take it. I do wonder if he’s ever done any proper research, as what he has to say would tell me he hasnt.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. marliesemd Avatar
      marliesemd

      Such good points. I tried to listen to a podcast ivu & gave up. His lack of formal education was striking. I doubt he knows how to do proper research.

      Like

      Reply
  2. halfwit36 Avatar
    halfwit36

    Yes, he was a ‘pretender’ in the sense that he had ‘pretensions,’ or a claim to a throne. By that definition, all of England’s kings in the 15th century, except for Henry V, were ‘pretenders’ at one time or another.
    (I thought I posted this yesterday, but it obviously did not go through. Must be the weather.)

    Like

    Reply
  3. viscountessw Avatar
    viscountessw

    Agreed, halfwit36, but in this context my usual interpretation of “pretender” is that of someone making out to be something he/she may or may not be. There is a questionmark over their credentials. I do think Mr Amin should specify the difference between Warwick and the other two. Warwick was who he said he was, and therefore a claimant, although I don’t think he ever saw himself in that latter light i.e. making a bid for the throne. As it is, Warbeck, Simnel and the earl are lumped together under the same heading. I’m inclined to regard a pretender as being rather different from a claimant (who can prove his/her identity), with an imposter being a different animal again.

    Like

    Reply
  4. The history of Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset…. – murreyandblue

    […] “….Edward, Earl of Warwick, son of the Duke of Clarence, who had been nominated by Richard III as his heir, when his own son died….” […]

    Like

    Reply
  5. Elizabeth Woodville was queen in her own right….? – murreyandblue

    […] if Richard was indeed “desperate to eliminate rivals”, high on his list would be Clarence’s son and daughter. However, they survived his reign without harm, but they didn’t survive the House of […]

    Like

    Reply
  6. The “Princes in the Tower” are to get their very own opera…. – murreyandblue

    […] oh dear. I can’t imagine it’s really going to be kind to Richard, not when the “founder of the Henry VII Society” has a hand in it. I find it very hard to trust anything that involves supporters of the Henry Tudor […]

    Like

    Reply
  7. Another interesting hypothesis – murreyandblue

    […] just as Michael K. Jones’ Britain’s Real Monarch line would not have seen the Earl of Warwick, his sister the Countess of Salisbury and nephew Henry Lord Montagu executed or Montagu’s son […]

    Like

    Reply
  8. Warwick’s Warblington–and it can be yours! – murreyandblue

    […] passed to Edward of Warwick, Richard’s Neville’s grandson, the child of George of Clarence and Isabel Neville,  […]

    Like

    Reply
  9. THE MYSTERIOUS DUBLIN KING AND THE BATTLE OF STOKE – murreyandblue

    […] changed their minds over who they were actually crowning – was it Richard of Shrewsbury or Edward Earl of Warwick?  Perhaps Richard can be ruled out swiftly because the heralds of the time addressed the Dublin […]

    Like

    Reply
  10. WAS LAMBERT SIMNEL A TUDOR HOAX? – murreyandblue

    […] St Paul’s where the tragic Edward Earl of Warwick was displayed in February 1487 and with ‘Lambert Simnel’  on the 8 July 1487.  ‘Old St […]

    Like

    Reply
  11. In case you haven’t noticed … – murreyandblue

    […] …” – actually, she lived there with her sisters, Richard’s own son, the Earl of Warwick and his sister, the Earl of Lincoln and his unmarried siblings plus any other royal […]

    Like

    Reply
  12. Thou shalt not spread porkies…. – murreyandblue

    […] In public, at least, he went no further. What went on behind the scenes is another matter. The Tudors ruled over nothing short of a police state! He eventually became more bloodthirsty publicly, of course, and did away with the likes of Richard’s son John of Gloucester, and George of Clarence’s son, the Earl of Warwick. […]

    Like

    Reply
  13. The carpenter’s son who became King of England…. – murreyandblue

    […] categorically, to be the son of an Oxford carpenter. He is also described as being trained to be Edward Plantagenet, son of George of Clarence. Trained so well, in fact, that he really could carry off the […]

    Like

    Reply
  14. Some progress in Cairo, but not enough yet – murreyandblue

    […] abroad and nowhere near the Tower. Looking at Richard’s legitimate nephews and nieces: the Earl of Warwick and Margaret of Clarence, ten or so de la Poles and Anne St. Leger through whom his own remains […]

    Like

    Reply
  15. A complete suit of early 16th-century armour found in Spanish castle…. – murreyandblue

    […] most tragic victim of this foreign match was the innocent young Edward, Earl of Warwick. He was the son of George, Duke of Clarence, and his maternal grandfather was the great Kingmaker. […]

    Like

    Reply
  16. The boy who had been King Edward V…. – murreyandblue

    […] But it wasn’t the notebook or the monkey that preoccupied the king at this moment, for he was much more concerned with how to conduct the imminent meeting with his wife. His marital problems usually centred around his interfering mother, who wasn’t the easiest of women as even Henry himself conceded, but recently the arguments between husband and wife hadn’t concerned the King’s Lady Mother, but rather the executions of the Warbeck imposter and Edward, 17th Earl of Warwick. […]

    Like

    Reply
  17. Dealing With Richard’s Critics. – murreyandblue

    […] if Henry VII subsequently executed the innocent Warwick, so what? He had a trial. No doubt he also had a KC to defend him and an impartial jury, because […]

    Like

    Reply
  18. Tyrants – Part 3 – murreyandblue

    […] III certainly did not murder his nephew, Warwick. That was Henry VII. Though of course, he gave the unfortunate Warwick a ‘trial’. This […]

    Like

    Reply
  19. WHO IN THE WORLD WAS RALPH WILFORD? – murreyandblue

    […] apparently claimed to be Edward of Warwick, although Warwick was known to be locked in the Tower. One source said he did not claim this at […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to marliesemd Cancel reply