The New Murrey and Blue blog

This link https://tinyurl.com/zjr9h9jx will take you to yet another rather peculiar list, this time of so-called awful in-laws from the distant and near past. Needless to say, Richard III features (doesn’t he always?). Mind you, the article includes the 16^th Earl of Warwick, but in fact it concerns Richard III’s dealings with Elizabeth Woodville, the so-called queen of Richard’s brother, Edward IV. So-called because the marriage was secret and apparently fake, so Elizabeth never really amounted to anything other than Edward IV’s mistress. Which was why Richard III became king instead of Elizabeth’s illegitimate elder son, known to history as Edward V. And strictly speaking, she wasn’t Richard III’s in-law at all, she was just his brother’s live-in lover!

Yet posterity would have us believe that the exceedingly legitimate Richard III should have stepped aside to allow his bastard nephew (puppet of his mother and her greedy relatives) to ascend the throne. Would you? No, nor would I!

So here we have Richard as the absolutely dreadful beyond-all-redemption brother-in-law of Elizabeth Woodville…. murderer of her sons, etc. etc. Yawn The author of the article has clearly never heard of John Ashdown-Hill , Philippa Langley et al, and all the amazing new research that almost certainly proves the boys in the Tower weren’t murdered; indeed the boys didn’t die at all at Richard III’s hands or even during his lifetime. Oh, he was the Devil Incarnate, and no mistake. And La Woodville was the innocent blossom who was treated cruelly for no real reason except that Richard wanted her son’s throne.  Poor little Libby, eh?

There’s no mention of her not being Edward IV’s legal wife, of the children’s illegitimacy, of her numerous grasping Woodville relatives or of their plot to exterminate Richard and see Elizabeth’s elder boy crowned Edward V and entirely in Woodville clutches, before the country knew what was going on. Nor is there any mention of Elizabeth conspiring against Richard by entering into negotiations with his enemy, Henry Tudor (who’d promised to marry Elizabeth’s eldest daughter). Oh yes, the section of the article dealing with Richard is exceedingly selective with its words.

The thing is, all matters considered, Richard treated Elizabeth Woodville very well. She’d been part of her family’s plot to murder him, for heaven’s sake, and for years she’d pretended to be Edward IV’s legal queen. Edward IV pretended it too, we mustn’t forget. Anyway, she and her daughters were welcomed at Richard’s court and they were all treated with respect. But Elizabeth wasn’t in the least grateful, even though she must have known that thanks to her non-marriage to Edward IV she didn’t have any rights whatsoever. Even so, Richard was generous. So, as far as I can see, he was the one with the awful in-law, not the other way around.

Which brings me to the other awful in-law in this particular scenario. And the most awful of all, in my opinion. When Richard was murdered by traitors at Bosworth, and Henry Tudor stole the crown, he married Elizabeth’s eldest daughter and became Elizabeth’s son-in-law.  NOW she found out what a nasty piece of work she’d conspired to put on the throne! Henry took all her possessions and banished her to the seclusion of Bermondsey Abbey, where she lived out her days in very reduced circumstances. See https://sparkypus.com/2020/07/01/bermondsey-abbey-and-elizabeth-wydevilles-retirement-there/. There was no swanning around the court and respectful treatment for her after 1485.

I wonder how often she wished she’d been content with Richard III’s kindness and generosity? Too many times to count, probably, yet the article blithely declares: “….As awful as her Plantagenet in-laws were, Elizabeth Woodville would ultimately get the last laugh. In 1485, Richard III’s short reign came to a screeching halt at the Battle of Bosworth Field, where he was slain by forces under Henry Tudor….” The last laugh? Really???? I rather think the last laugh went to Richard! (Hence my choice of image above.)

So this article should actually concern Henry VII as Elizabeth Woodville’s awful in-law, not Richard III! Don’t these journalists ever check their facts before putting busy fingers to keyboard?

If you’re interested in the entire list of six awful in-laws, it consists of Ivan the Terrible, the 16^th Earl of Warwick and Richard III, Sara Delano Roosevelt, Herod the Great, King George II and Queen Caroline and Madge Gates Wallace. How much sensible attention to detail there has been I cannot say. I gave up on it all after Richard III!

by viscountessw