#especially richard duke of york since there are so many myths about what he looked like

[the-romantic-lady]

Thank you! I loved knowing more about Edmund, poor boy, he was too good for his time. I am definitely interested in the letters :)

I always had a theory that Richard looked like Edmund, that's why Edward loved him so much, but I guess I wasn't quite right, maybe it's because Richard looked like their father.

Do you know who the boys looked like? I can't define looking at the portraits. I just know that Edward didn't look like anyone and Richard looked like his father.

You are welcome :D. Anon, you have awaken the sleeping lion. The appearances of the Yorks is one of my ultimate passions. I have some facts and A LOT of theories. Buckle up because this is going to be a long ride. (To keep this a reasonable length, I will stick to only the brothers.

Edward IV

Edward is a controversial one. His looks were used to state that he was illegitimate and looked nothing like his family. Well, I propose otherwise. When things have an agenda, they can hardly be taken as fact. In my opinion, Edward resembled his mother and paternal grandmother. Ofc, I will share some pictures:

These are far from perfect in representation but we can see his features clearly. He had a very pretty small and straight nose. A small rosy mouth and squinty eyes (they are cute lol). His chin is straight and kind of big and some double chin is popping through (which is likely a result of his later weight gain). Now here is Cecily and Richard, Duke of York's mother, Anne Mortimer.

This image of Anne Mortimer is an illustration from a stained glass image from 1411. I have desperately tried to get my hands on the original but the British Library won't budge. The features of Henry V and John, Duke of Bedford line up with other representations so I take it as fairly accurate in what Anne looked like. She is almost Edward's twin. The same small nose, the large chin and the small mouth. Whilst we can't see Anne's eyes, it seems that his eyes have origins elsewhere since Cecily has brighter and more lifted eyes. Overall, I would say he has a feminine face and kind of looks like his sister Anne too.

George, Duke of Clarence

George is the hardest one. We hardly know what he looks like. According to Vergil?, Richard said that George looked more like other men at court rather than their father but that sounds like bullcrap which is pretty much all of Vergil's history.

This is the most accurate representation we have of George and its not very good. To me, he seems to have a large nose, large eyes and a full mouth. Also, a strong jaw and chin. These features seem to resemble Richard somewhat but more masculine imo. I personally don’t know who I think he resembles. I think his maternal grandfather, Ralph Neville is a good bet. Very wide set faces with a strong jaw like his great grandfather Edmund Duke of York whose skeleton was examined to show a very masculine and strong jaw. 

Richard III

This one is really interesting. He personally seemed to have claimed to resemble his father (someone he likely never saw enough to remember the face of). Although he states that they were the same of “visage”, the context of the statements seem to suggest he means to say that they are the same noble princes. He was emphasizing his descent as the true heir of his father so if he did say that it makes sense for the context. However, how much they looked alike in features is a hard one. Richard and Edward both had brown hair. George is uncertain but I would a light brown as seen in that Wavrin image. For Richard, we have contemporary images, later paintings and his reconstruction.

All three show a very soft face. He has medium eyes, a straight aquiline nose and a full mouth. In some ways, he seems like a mixture of Edward and George. I don’t think he resembles his father much except for the jaw and nose. 

Richard, Duke of York seems to have a very very soft face. His eyes seem small and somewhat squinty like Edward’s but his nose is almost identical to Richard. His mouth seems to be fuller like George. And he was very blonde. None of his sons seemed to be. He seems to resemble his own father, Richard Earl of Cambridge. 

Edmund

I left him for last because this is mostly just speculation. He is described as “fair” which could mean both handsome or light coloring. If we go by the second, then he likely had his father’s coloring. If not, then he too was dark in hair like his brothers. All the York sons, except for George seem to lean towards the feminine side on their appearance. That goes with your point that Richard resembled Edmund and thus Edward’s attachment to him (although it must be said that Edward seemed to have loved George a lot too). I don’t personally see that much difference in Richard and Edward’s appearance either. George seems more like the outlier in appearance to me. Which brings me to these videos. Ofc, they are not totally accurate but Edward is HOT and it shows kind of how the brothers did look very similar. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBpB9QXOO20&t=70s&ab_channel=PanagiotisConstantinou

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8f2-kdXb4&ab_channel=PanagiotisConstantinou

[christinaepilzauthor-blog]

All you thought you knew about the Wars of the Roses, but didn't… Episode One: Henry VI: the mad king?

by Derek Birks A few weeks ago, I had a bit of a rant on Facebook about the common myths which persist about many aspects of the Wars of the Roses period. I vowed to do something about it, so to start with, I'm looking at Henry VI himself.

There are two commonly held beliefs about Henry VI: either he was a simpleton or he was mad – not a great choice really… and of course, neither charge is actually supported by the evidence.

Myth #1: Henry VI was a simpleton; he was just plain stupid.

Like most myths of history, this claim is so often repeated that it seems to be regarded by many as truth, despite the fact that there's no real evidence of it at all.

Henry was not a fool. There is enough evidence, however, to suggest that he was naïve.

For example, he put far too much trust in several of the powerful and ambitious men around him at court – men like Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. But let's bear in mind that Henry spent the whole of his long royal minority surrounded by noble advisers. He had grown up accepting advice and the habit, for a young man who was not particularly assertive, was probably quite difficult to break.

Was Somerset, or his rival for influence at court, Richard, Duke of York, especially greedy or corrupt? No, not really by the standards of the time, but they did have their own personal agendas – along with every other nobleman, lord or gentleman in the land!

A strong-willed king, who understood such men, might have managed them rather better.

Henry was undoubtedly a poor manager of men.

Henry VI [courtesy of wikipedia]

Henry was more concerned with spiritual matters than political ones – but that doesn't make him a fool. His piety and his concern for men's souls is somehow easily dismissed in our very secular age, but such matters were very important to all in the later middle ages and certainly not a sign of folly.

Is it so hard to believe that Henry was simply a peace loving man in an age that valued more martial virtues? 

Their king was so different from his warlike father, Henry V, that his subjects felt undermined and confused by his approach. He wanted to bring to an end the long French wars with a peace agreement. In that respect, he was out of step with the majority of his subjects for whom a successful conclusion of the war meant a military victory. Jack Cade's Rebellion in 1450 showed the anger and distrust stirred up by Henry's government but the rebel targets were his councillors not the king himself.

Judge him by what he did: for example, Henry wrote a letter to the French king suggesting peace and offering him some English-held lands in France. That was certainly unwise since such lands were currently held by Henry's own subjects. Giving them up was not likely to be popular. So he was naïve, but – and here's why he was no fool – he kept the letter secret. 

Why? Because he understood how alarmed his leading subjects would be if they knew about his offer. If he understood that, then he had more about him than your average simpleton.

Naïve then maybe, but not an idiot.

Myth #2: Henry VI was 'mad'.

Now madness is a very general term and the public perception of madness is therefore quite broad and vague. Consequently, using the word at all is unhelpful in trying to describe or understand anyone.

So what basis is there for this claim? There's no question that from 1453 – a year traumatic enough for the average king - Henry VI succumbed to bouts of mental illness. Schizophrenia has been suggested – amongst other diagnoses. The first of these rendered him incapable of speech or recognition of those around him.

This was not a 'mad' king flinging out commands such as "Off with his head!" or something! It was simply as if the throne was vacant.

This first occurrence was the most significant because no-one was prepared for it and it led to the emergence of the Duke of York as the de-facto political leader of the country. In 1453 York saw himself as rightly restored to a position of great influence. But even York's closest supporters only ever saw him as a caretaker – whether for the ailing King Henry, or for his very young son, Edward, when he ultimately came of age.

When the King recovered his capacity in December 1454, York's role as protector was once more unnecessary and his supremacy at court waned. This was not a result of 'madness' on the king's part but further evidence of his inability to manage political factions. Thus it resulted in the victory of one faction – that of the Duke of Somerset – over another. 

In the turbulent years which followed, it suited the Yorkists to blacken Henry's name by emphasising his incapacity to rule: either by promoting the idea of his stupidity or his madness. Either of these slurs might help to undermine public confidence.

Yet, even after the Yorkists had taken up arms against the king and seized the throne in 1461, most of the nobility still sided with Henry VI, their anointed king. A king who inspired such loyalty had clearly earned a great deal of support from many of those closest to him. If he had truly been an imbecile or a mad man, I cannot believe he would have retained such genuine goodwill.

Two key elements of Henry VI's kingship were:

1.      he was unable to control his leading subjects

2.      he aspired to resolve problems by peaceful means.

These two factors combined to make him an ineffectual king but neither of these factors made him mad or stupid. It's high time we stopped perpetuating these myths.

............................... Derek was born in Hampshire in England but spent his teenage years in Auckland, New Zealand, where he still has strong family ties. For many years he taught history in a secondary school but took early retirement to concentrate on writing. Apart from his writing, he spends his time gardening, travelling, walking and taking part in archaeological digs at a Roman villa. Derek is interested in a wide range of historical themes but his particular favourite is the late medieval period. He writes action-packed fiction which is rooted in accurate history. His debut historical novel was Feud, which is set in the period of the Wars of the Roses. Feud is the first of a now complete four-book series, entitled Rebels & Brothers, which follows the fortunes of the fictional Elder family from 1459 to 1471. A new series, The Craft of Kings, picks up the story of the Elders in 1481 in its first book, Scars From The Past. Later this year, the violent events of 1483 are played out in the sequel, The Blood of Princes.

Website: www.derekbirks.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/Feud_writer Amazon author sites: amazon.co.uk; amazon.com

Hat Tip To: English Historical Fiction Authors