Tudor and Stuart Britain HOME Henry VII and the Pretenders Posted on September 12, 2011, from Athens, Alabama Oh yes, I'm the great pretender Just laughing and gay like a clown I seem to be what I'm not you see I'm wearing my heart like a crown The Platters We don�t use the term �pretender� in American political discourse very much and we definitely don�t use it in the sense that people living under a system of hereditary monarchy used the term. In the monarchial governments of the past, a pretender was someone who aspired to an office or the throne, usually under false pretenses. Under a system of hereditary monarchy, power normally was passed on as an inheritance to a son or some other member of the family of the ruling dynasty. Occasionally someone would seize the throne through force, which is exactly what Henry VII did to gain the English throne in 1485. But whenever people made such power grabs, they quickly attempted to justify their actions through some sort of appeal to hereditary succession.

In Henry VII�s case, he did that by appealing to his Lancastrian roots and his descent from Edward III, which he bolstered by marrying Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of the deceased Edward IV. But he still faced challenges from Yorkist claimants. Adding to Henry VII�s problems with challengers was the appearance of a couple of impostors who claimed to be important members of the York dynasty with strong claims to the throne. Now you might ask, didn�t anyone realize that these two pretenders were not the people whom they claimed to be? Yes, some members of the York family and their close associates were in a good position to know that these two young men were fakes. But to Yorkist plotters, the facts didn�t matter, and they encouraged the impostors in the hope of overthrowing the hated Henry VII. Without Photos or TV Talking Heads, What's an Englishman to Believe? Otherwise, most people of that era never got a close look at their rulers. Londoners had greater opportunities to see monarchs, but in large parts of the realm, the common people never saw their king and his family in the flesh. They also did not see photographs of monarchs or get to watch them on television.

Those kinds of ready popular imagery lay over 400 years in the future. So, anybody who showed up looking and acting sufficiently royal would have been given credence. If you looked like a king, dressed like a king, and acted like a king, you must be a king. The English were not alone in granting some credibility to impostors claiming the throne. The phenomenon of pretenders was even more common and more successful in seventeenth-century Russia. It has occurred throughout history in many parts of the globe. Keep in mind, impostors pretending to a throne also benefit from people wanting to believe. Many people in my lifetime were reluctant to accept the finality of pop music king Elvis Presley�s death, giving rise to frequent reports of Elvis sightings for many years after his demise -- a situation most likely aggravated by the proliferation of Elvis imitators. The same phenomenon occurred after the death of the singer Jim Morrison, although (so far) I have heard no reports of Michael Jackson sightings. From King Sebastian to President Kennedy. . . . When someone famous or important dies prematurely, a spirit of anxious denial is sure to arise. Stories circulated almost immediately that President John F. Kennedy had not died from his wounds at Dallas.

These stories represent societal delusions with deep roots. For example, when King Sebastian of Portugal died at the Battle of Al Kazar al Kebir, rumors of his survival and claims of sightings followed in Portugal for several years. The delusion even had a name, Sebastianismo. Another case involved Edward VI of England, who death as a young man in 1553 led to tales that he had not really died. These kinds of rumors were often tinged with political undertones and sinister motives. The people who supported Henry VII�s rival pretenders didn�t float false rumors of Richard III�s survival, but all the same they were the kind of people who wanted to believe. They disliked Henry VII with passionate intensity and wanted the dynasty of York restored to the throne. That made it easy for an impostor to fool them into accepting a false heir. Raising Up the First Pretender The first pretender to appear during the reign of Henry VII was named Lambert Simnel, who came on the scene in 1486 and 1487. Simnel was a ten-year-old boy, the humble son of a tradesman.

Nevertheless, an ambitious priest named Richard Symonds concluded that Lambert would make a good fake Yorkist heir to the throne. Sir Francis Bacon, over a century later in his The History of the Reign of King Henry the Seventh, described Simnel as �a comely youth, and well favoured, not without some extraordinary dignity and grace of aspect.� Other members of the Yorkist family decided to support Simnel. Bacon asserted that Elizabeth Woodville, the queen dowager, was one of Simnel�s backers, but his true promoter were a pair of determined plotters: John de le Pole, the Earl of Lincoln, and Margaret of Burgundy, the sister of the last Yorkist kings Edward IV and Richard III. According to Bacon, the initial plan was to have Simnel impersonate Richard, the Duke of York, the second son of Edward IV. But the conspirators changed their minds and instead assigned to Simnel the role of Edward, Earl of Warwick and nephew of Edward IV. The plan became problematic because Henry VII held the true Earl of Warwick in the Tower of London. When the threat from Lambert Simnel became serious, the king brought the real Earl of Warwick out of captivity and displayed him to Londoners to show that Simnel was a fake.

The Irish Were Determined to Believe, And Then to Fight! (They Lost.) The gesture convinced most Londoners, but over in Ireland, amidst a hotbed of pro-Yorkist sentiment, the actual Earl�s presence made no difference. According to Sir Francis Bacon, the Irish �turned the imposture upon the King [Henry VII]; and gave out that the King, to defeat the true inheritor, and to mock the world and blind the eyes of simple men, had tricked up a boy in the likeness of Edward Plantagenet [the Earl of Warwick], and shewed him to the people.� Accordingly the Irish nobles and clergy crowned Simnel as their king in Dublin Cathedral. Soon thereafter an invasion of England took place, but it garnered little support from the English people. The resilient Henry VII gathered his army and defeated the Irish invaders at the Battle of Stoke on 16 June 1487. The conspirator Lincoln died in the battle and Simnel was taken prisoner. The magnanimous Henry VII released the young pretender and gave him a job as a turnspit in the royal kitchens. Simnel later graduated to serving as one of the king�s falconers.

The Male Model Who Wanted to Be King The second threat from a pretender occurred several years later, beginning in 1491 and lasting until 1499. This pretender�s name was Perkin Warbeck, who was born in the Low Countries in 1475. An attractive child, he secured a job modeling expensive clothes with an upscale clothier named Pregent Meno. Yes, that�s right. He was a male model! More importantly, Warbeck came to the attention of some of the perennial Yorkist plotters. According the Sir Francis Bacon, Margaret, the Duchess of Burgundy and the sister of Edward IV and Richard III, had been on the lookout for potential candidates to impersonate the disappeared Princes in the Tower. She despised Henry VII and wanted to topple him from his newly acquired throne. Having the vast resources of the Duchy of Burgundy at her disposal, she was in a good position to give Henry VII serious problems. Her implacable animosity was so intense that Henry VII�s courtiers referred to her as the goddess Juno to Henry VII�s Aeneas.

Soon after Margaret�s agents spotted Warbeck, she recruited him and groomed him as the impostor Richard, the Duke of York. She kept her role secret so as to bolster Warbeck�s supposed bona fides. Bacon described Warbeck�s four assets in this way: �For first, the years agreed well [i.e., he was the right age]. Secondly, he was a youth of fine favour and shape; but more than that, he had such a crafty and bewitching fashion both to move pity and to induce belief, as was like a kind of fascination and inchantment to those that saw him or heard him. Thirdly, he had from his childhood been such a wanderer, or (as the King called it) was a landloper, as it was extreme hard to hunt out his nest and parents; neither again could any man, by company or conversing with him, be able to say or detect well what he was; he did so flit from place to place. Lastly, there was a circumstance (which was mentioned by one that writ in the same time) that is very likely to have made somewhat to the matter; which is, that King Edward the Fourth was his godfather.

Which, as it is somewhat suspicious for a wanton prince to become gossip [i.e., be a godfather] in so mean a house [i.e., Warbeck came from a family of commoners], and might make a man think that he [Warbeck] might indeed have in him some base [illegitimate] blood of the house of York.� Warbeck was a much better impostor than Simnel. In the judgment of Sir Francis Bacon, Warbeck: �was a finer counterfeit stone than Lambert Symnell; better done, and worn upon greater hands; being graced after with the wearing of a King of France and a King of Scotland, not of a Duchess of Burgundy only. And for Symnell, there was not much in him, more than that he was a handsome boy, and did not shame his robes. But this youth (of whom we are now to speak) was such a mercurial, as the like hath seldom been known; and could make his own part, if any time he chanced to be out.

Wherefore this being one of the strangest examples of a personation, that ever was in elder or later times.� As Bacon alludes, Margaret of Burgundy was not the only powerful player to promote the cause of Perkin Warbeck. For a period of time he was supported by both Charles VIII of France and James IV of Scotland along with the usual Irish malcontents. Both the French and the Scottish king used Warbeck for their own purposes during their wars with Henry VII. James IV even took Warbeck along on an invasion of northern England that was supposed to be a prelude to placing him on the throne. Warbeck Falls into the Hands of a Magnanimous Regent. Political expediency eventually led both kings to cut Warbeck loose to satisfy a much desired agreement with Henry VII. But neither man turned the pretender over to the English king as Henry VII requested. James IV even allowed Warbeck to marry one of his cousins, Lady Catherine Gordon. Ultimately, Warbeck unwisely attempted his own invasion of England in the West Country. He failed to capture Exeter. Royal forces cut off his escape and he was forced to surrender. Once again Henry VII tried to be generous to the failed pretender.

Lady Catherine Gordon, who had accompanied Warbeck on his invasion, was appointed as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth of York. Warbeck was kept under a loose house arrest at Westminster Palace, but he tried to escape in June 1498. From that point, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London with his supposed cousin, the real Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. Finally, an Execution and Regal Remorse Unfortunately for both young men, Henry VII was negotiating for the marriage of his son Arthur to Catherine, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain. The Spanish monarchs informed Henry VII that no deal could be finalized as long as potential Yorkist rivals remained to threaten the new Tudor dynasty. They wanted both Warbeck and Warwick eliminated. Henry VII obliged. His agents lured the two prisoners into making an escape attempt. They were caught and promptly tried for treason and executed. Thus ended the last great Yorkist plot against Henry VII. True, the king had managed to secure the crown for his family, but the security came at a psychic price. Contemporaries speculated that although Henry won the political struggle, he failed to secure a clean conscience.

Contemporaries claimed that he quickly aged twenty years in the wake of the judicial murder of Warwick and Warbeck. �But, sirrah, ran there in thy veins one drop Of such a royal blood as flows in mine, Thou wouldst not change condition, to be second In England's state, without the crown itself. Coarse creatures are incapable of excellence : But let the world, as all to whom I am This day a spectacle, to time deliver, And by tradition fix posterity .�-�Without another chronicle than truth, How constantly my resolution suffer'd martyrdom of majesty.� — Perkin Warbeck to Lambert Simnel during their fictional meeting in the Tower of London as imagined by John Ford�s (c1586-c1637) play, Perkin Warbeck (written c1629-1634) To read Dr. Fritze's previous Tudor and Stuart Britain essay, Good to Be King? Give Henry VII His Proper Due as Tudor Founder, click the reading glasses above. Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck: Pretenders to the Throne?

- Footnoting History Footnoting History 7 Comments Before social security cards, driver's licenses, and DNA testing, how did you prove your identity? Join us to hear about two famous "pretenders" and their attempts to gain the English throne! Podcaster: Elizabeth​ Further Reading For some fun starting points on the history of both the Princes in the Tower and their pretenders, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, check out the following: Michael M. Keohane 2/2/2013 12:31:49 am I agree that Lambert Simnel was a pretender. However, I have my doubts about Perkin Warbeck. I believe that there is a possibility that he was the younger prince, Richard. At least, Henry VII's wife and the sister of the princes thought that he was her brother. Reply you are all very silly Reply Very interesting podcast! I actually had no idea who they were until I heard this.

Reply markus bead link 4/24/2013 03:36:09 am I think this website isn't very good for the kids because it isn't simple for them to understand and there isnt alot of writen things about them for people with no speakers like me. Reply Elizabeth 4/25/2013 06:48:55 am Hi Markus, yes, this website is for people looking to listen to stories on history, although we do include some suggested reading. For children interested in Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, I would suggest the following links: chicken head feed some chickens Michael M. Keohane 6/24/2014 09:09:11 pm Sleeping Beauty : So you think we are silly? How about someone who comments : "chicken head feed some chickens" on a blog site for people interested in history? ;>) Reply Comment Policy We do not pre-moderate any comments and welcome all kinds of thoughts- supportive, dissenting, critical or otherwise.

We do not delete or censor comments unless they have content that: is abusive promotes hate of any kind uses excessively foul language is blatantly spam Disclaimer Opinions expressed by Footnoting History presenters are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Footnoting History community as a whole. Footnoting History makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this forum and will not be liable for any errors or omissions Footnoting History operates under a SAG-AFTRA New Media Agreement. © 2013-2016 Footnoting History. All rights reserved. ✕ Battle of Stoke Field in the War of the Roses John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln 8,000 men Battle of Stoke Field - Background: Though Henry VII was crowned King of England in 1485, his and the Lancastrian hold on power remained somewhat tenuous as several Yorkist factions continued plot ways to regain the throne. The strongest male claimant from the Yorkist dynasty was the twelve-year old Edward, Earl of Warwick. Captured by Henry, Edward was kept confined at the Tower of London.

Around this time, a priest named Richard Simmons (or Roger Simons) discovered a young boy named Lambert Simnel who bore a strong resemblance to Richard, Duke of York, son of King Edward IV, and the younger of the vanished Princes in the Tower. Battle of Stoke Field - Training an Impostor: Educating the boy in courtly manners, Simmons intended to present Simnel as Richard with the goal of having him crowned king. Moving forward, he soon changed his plans after hearing rumors that Edward had died during his imprisonment in the Tower. Spreading rumors that young Warwick had actually escaped from London, he planned to present Simnel as Edward. In doing so, he garnered support from several Yorkists including John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln. Though Lincoln had reconciled with Henry, he had a claim to the throne and had been designated the royal heir by Richard III before his death. Battle of Stoke Field - The Plan Evolves: Lincoln most likely knew that Simnel was an imposter, but the boy provided an opportunity to unseat Henry and exact revenge. Leaving the English court on March 19, 1487, Lincoln traveled to Mechelen where he met with his aunt, Margaret, Duchess of Burgundy.

Supporting Lincoln's plan, Margaret provided financial backing as well as around 1,500 German mercenaries led by the veteran commander Martin Schwartz. Joined by a number of Richard III's former supporters, including Lord Lovell, Lincoln sailed for Ireland with his troops. There he met Simmons who had earlier traveled to Ireland with Simnel. Presenting the boy to the Lord Deputy of Ireland, the Earl of Kildare, they were able to secure his backing as Yorkist sentiment in Ireland was strong. To bolster support, Simnel was crowned King Edward VI at Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin on May 24, 1487. Working with Sir Thomas Fitzgerald, Lincoln was able to recruit around 4,500 lightly armed Irish mercenaries for his army. Aware of Lincoln's activities and that Simnel was being advanced as Edward, Henry had the young boy taken from the Tower and publicly shown around London. Battle of Stoke Field - The Yorkist Army Forms: Crossing to England, Lincoln's forces landed at Furness, Lancashire on June 4. Met by several nobles led by Sir Thomas Broughton, the Yorkist army swelled to around 8,000 men.

Marching hard, Lincoln covered 200 miles in fives days, with Lovell defeating a small royal force at Branham Moor on June 10. After largely evading Henry's northern army led by the Earl of Northumberland, Lincoln reached Doncaster. Here Lancastrian cavalry under Lord Scales fought a three-day delaying action through Sherwood Forest. Assembling his army at Kenilworth, Henry began moving against the rebels. Battle of Stoke Field - Battle is Joined: Learning that Lincoln had crossed the Trent, Henry began moving east towards Newark on June 15. Crossing the river, Lincoln encamped for the night on high ground near Stoke in a position that had the river on three sides. Early on June 16, the vanguard of Henry's army, led by the Earl of Oxford, arrived on the battlefield to find Lincoln's army forming on the heights. In position by 9:00 AM, Oxford elected to open fire with his archers rather than wait for Henry to arrive with the rest of the army. Showering the Yorkists with arrows, Oxford's archers began to inflict heavy casualties on Lincoln's lightly armored men.

Faced with the choice of abandoning the high ground or continuing to lose men to the archers, Lincoln ordered his troops to charge forward with the goal of crushing Oxford before Henry reached the field. Striking Oxford's lines, the Yorkists had some early success but the tide began to turn as the better armor and weapons of the Lancastrians began to tell. Fighting for three hours, the battle was decided by a counterattack launched by Oxford. Shattering the Yorkist lines, many of Lincoln's men fled with only Schwartz's mercenaries fighting until the end. In the fighting, Lincoln, Fitzgerald, Broughton, and Schwartz were killed while Lovell fled across the river and was never seen again. Battle of Stoke Field - Aftermath: The Battle of Stoke Field cost Henry around 3,000 killed and wounded while the Yorkists lost around 4,000. In addition, many surviving English and Irish Yorkist troops were captured and hung. Other captured Yorkists were given clemency and escaped with fines and attainders against their property. Among those captured after the battle was Simnel. Recognizing that the boy was a pawn in the Yorkist scheme, Henry pardoned Simnel and gave him a job in the royal kitchens.

The Battle of Stoke Field effectively ended the Wars of the Roses securing Henry's throne and the new Tudor dynasty. Selected Sources Uncertain Past of Perkin Warbeck - British Heritage Travel The Curious Career and Uncertain Past of Perkin Warbeck Was Warbeck just another in a long line of pretenders to the throne of England, or did his appearance in Ireland in 1491 prove the innocence of Richard III, whom most historians accuse of murdering his nephews, the Princes in the Tower? By the time the sun set on 22nd August, 1485, Richard III, the last of the Plantagenet kings, lay dead on the grass of Bosworth Field. His brother, King Edward IV, had died, albeit less violently, two years earlier. Within two more years, the new King, Henry Tudor, cemented his hold on the throne by taking an army to Stoke Field and crushing his few remaining Yorkist enemies. Except, perhaps, for Edward IV’s sons, the legendary Princes in the Tower. Opinions as to their fate still abound. Tudor accounts attributed their disappearance to a ruthless plot by Richard to secure the throne by murder.

Later revisionists have made the same charge against Henry. Support for these theories rests heavily on interpretations of the character of both Kings, and on their opportunity to implement such a crime. Documentary proof of either man’s guilt is unavailable, and as Sir Thomas More later observed: ‘some remain yet in doubt whether [the Princes]were . . . destroyed or no . . . all things in those days were so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plainly and openly proved but that . . . men had it ever inwardly suspect.’ Among the suspicions that have persisted since More’s day is the possibility that Richard simply had the Princes sent to the Continent as a precaution against the plots of the power-hungry Lancastrians. Having done so, he would naturally become vulnerable to accusations of treachery, because he could not produce the children as proof of his innocence without putting them once again in danger. While Henry made use of Richard’s supposed guilt to enhance his own support, he himself had difficulty proving they were dead, although by doing so he could have strengthened his own claim to the throne. Henry never produced the bodies that would have been proof of the demise of the Plantagenet line.

Nor did he ever officially accuse Richard of this specific murder, but only implied it by declaring that Richard was guilty of ‘shedding infants’ blood.’ It seemed almost as if Henry feared the Princes might yet return to haunt him. Ultimately, one of them did–in name at least. In 1491, a young Flemish merchant named Perkin Warbeck arrived in Cork, Ireland, and declared himself to be Richard, Duke of York, the younger son of Edward IV. Warbeck’s testimony followed an intriguing tradition. Almost from the moment the Princes disappeared, there had been rumours that Edward, the older of the two, was dead–some said murdered, while others said he died naturally while residing in the Tower–but that Richard was still alive. According to Warbeck’s version of his own past, both he and his brother were to have been murdered. Two men were appointed to carry out the act, but the one responsible for Richard’s death could not bring himself to go through with the crime. Instead, he arranged for Richard to escape to the Continent on the condition that the Duke stay in hiding for several years, thereby protecting his benefactor from punishment.

After Warbeck declared himself to be the Duke of York, he was invited to France by King Charles VIII, who thought the young man might be a valuable pawn in his intrigues against England. Before he found a use for Warbeck, however, Charles signed a treaty with Henry that settled their differences amicably. Among the treaty’s conditions was Henry’s demand that Warbeck leave France. Perkin consequently moved on to the Low Countries, where he joined the Duchess of Burgundy, who was allegedly his aunt. All the while, Warbeck gained allies. In Flanders he received support from the Archduke of Austria and his father Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor, to add to the official recognition already granted by Scotland, Ireland and Denmark. Warbeck wrote also to Queen Isabella of Spain, who was known to have once desired an alliance with the House of York. Isabella, however, was not favourably inclined towards Perkin’s advances, probably because she suspected that he was no more a Plantagenet than Henry. ‘As for the affair of him who calls himself the duke, we hold it for a jest,’ she later wrote.

By this time, King Henry had already been denouncing the pretender as a ‘feigned boy’ from Tournay, in Flanders. The King did not say on what evidence he based his identification, giving rise to speculation that it was a mere invention to discredit Warbeck’s claim. Henry’s silence on the matter, however, may indicate that the information came from his spies on the Continent, whose continued usefulness required that they be unidentified. Maximilian’s enthusiastic support of Perkin more than made up for both Henry’s accusations and Isabella’s amusement. By 1494, the Emperor was publicly declaring Warbeck to be King of England and sending him armed men with which to enforce his claim. His sponsors, eager to see a return on the investment they had made in Perkin’s future, hurried him back to England in June, 1495. Precedents in British history seemed to offer Warbeck and his small army fair hope of success. In 1399, Henry Bolingbrooke had sailed to England with only ten ships and about 300 men-at-arms.

By convincing the population of the righteousness of his cause and drawing them to his side, he was able to usurp the throne. Henry VII had duplicated Bolingbrooke’s feat in 1485 by defeating Richard’s larger army at Bosworth after winning the support of some key noblemen. Warbeck was not so fortunate, however. When 300 of his own men-at-arms landed near Deal, in Kent, the local militia attacked with such vigour that they routed the invaders without the least help from the King’s royal troops. Warbeck, with the remainder of his supporters, sailed on to Ireland, where he received further aid. Taking refuge next in Scotland, Warbeck received such an enthusiastic reception by King James IV that he was married to the King’s cousin, Catherine Gordon. Theorists have cited this marriage as proof that James, at least, had no doubts as to the truth of Warbeck’s claim. It is uncertain, however, whether offering a cousin in marriage to a pretentious merchant would have been a prohibitive price to pay in return for a substantial political gain. James’s own subsequent marriage to Henry VII’s eldest daughter demonstrates his willingness to take advantage of fortuitous opportunities.

In September, Warbeck again tested the English waters by marching across the border in the company of a Scottish army of about 1,400 troops. After a few days of pillaging, Warbeck and his allies turned around and returned to Scotland. James, it was said, ‘twitted him with the fact that though he called England his country, not a single Englishman would join him in it’. Not long after the disappointing foray into England, Henry and James signed a truce and, with the prospects of further Scottish support dim, Warbeck changed bases again, though whether he left Scotland willingly or was sent away by a wary King James is uncertain. On 7th September, 1497, he landed in Cornwall, which had recently been the scene of a rebellion over Henry’s tax policies. Here Warbeck finally found some token support among the citizens of England. Arriving with only about 100 men, his ranks quickly swelled to as many as 8,000, but most of this ‘army’ was unarmed and seemingly just a rabble enjoying the excitement of being roused.

With his newfound support, Warbeck unsuccessfully assaulted Exeter; then, when news arrived that royal forces were on the way, he fled to Beaulieu Abbey, where he momentarily claimed sanctuary before eventually giving himself up–some versions of the story claiming that he willingly put himself at Henry’s mercy, while others record that Henry enticed him from Beaulieu with false promises of a pardon. Legally, Henry would have required neither a capitulation nor deceit to arrest Warbeck, because the Church did not extend sanctuary to persons accused of treason. Warbeck was taken to London and put under guard. He confessed that his alleged identity was a deception, but this statement has often been viewed with suspicion because it was made while he was at the King’s mercy. Perkin ‘admitted’ that he was the son of a Flemish official of the town of Tournay. He had travelled to Ireland in 1485 in the service of a Breton merchant, he said, and was received by the people of Cork who, because of his resemblance to the Royal Plantagenets, convinced him to assume the identity of the Duke of York. Henry confined Warbeck in London.

Perkin ended his life by unwittingly serving the purpose of the King he had sought to supplant. Henry’s agents feigned sympathy for him, and encouraged him to plan an escape, thus giving Henry a convenient, if rather flimsy, excuse to execute him. So goes the traditional history of Warbeck’s life. But there is reason to suspect the reliability of this ‘official’ story. Audrey Williamson, in her book The Mystery of the Princes, justifiably questions the likelihood that a stranger arriving unexpectedly in Cork could spontaneously be hailed as the supposedly dead Duke of York and then convinced on the spot to go along with a treasonous masquerade, the thought of which had never before entered his head. Almost certainly Warbeck’s confession misrepresented this episode. But was the whole story fabricated by Henry to hide the truth–that Warbeck was who he claimed to be? Or did Henry truthfully report a story that Warbeck himself concocted to avoid implicating co-conspirators? Warbeck’s often-noted resemblance to Edward IV might seem to indicate that the two men were indeed related; however, a physical similarity to the dead King should be expected even of an imposter.

Any pretender that did not have at least a superficial resemblance to Edward would not have risked his life on such an implausible claim. It is even possible that Warbeck was recruited by others precisely because of his fortuitous appearance. If this was the case, however, it is necessary to explain how the pretender maintained his deception for so long, and, if he was enlisted by others, to identify who might have done so. The first problem is by far the easier, though many writers have struggled over the question of where Warbeck, if a fraud, could have obtained the knowledge needed to convince doubters. There is, in fact, no mention in any account of Warbeck’s career of his ever winning over a reluctant sceptic by disclosing some intimate detail of the Duke of York’s life. His support came entirely from people who found it politically expedient to acknowledge him, whether or not they truly believed his claims. On his first two invasions of England, he apparently failed to convince anyone that he was the lost Duke; in fact, he seems hardly to have made any effort to do so.

The army that gathered around him in Cornwall can almost certainly be numbered among those for whom it did not matter whether or not Warbeck was a fraud, but who were ripe for revolt given any convenient excuse. More difficult to explain is why any of the Yorkist exiles, such as Margaret of Burgundy, would have supported Warbeck if they knew him to be an imposter. One would think that even the most devoted Yorkist would prefer to leave Henry on the throne of England, rather than replace him with a Flemish merchant. However, there was a precedent for such a plot. In 1487, Yorkists apparently sponsored the pretender Lambert Simnel, claiming that he was the Earl of Warwick. In this case, there is no doubt the claim was false, because Henry already held the Earl prisoner, and displayed him in public as proof of Simnel’s deceit. The Yorkists seemingly planned to use Simnel only as a means of winning popular support and would have replaced him once Henry was forced from the throne. There may have been similar plans to supplant Warbeck if he had defeated Henry, but there is no firm evidence of such a plan.

Another intriguing possibility was put forward by Williamson, who recalls that a contemporary writer made the statement that in his early years Perkin Warbeck was raised by a converted Jew. Edward Brampton, one of Richard III’s most reliable supporters, was also a converted Jew. Brampton fled to Flanders after the Battle of Bosworth, and thereafter his name occasionally reappears during the course of Warbeck’s history. If Brampton was the mysterious converted Jew, he may have been commissioned by Richard to look after the Duke of York and perhaps to arrange for him to assume the identity of a member of Tornay’s Warbeck family until he was old enough to make his true identity known. The idea that Warbeck may have been all that he claimed is attractive to many revisionists, because if the Duke of York was alive in 1491 then surely Richard could not have killed him in 1483. However, it can also be argued that the reverse is true and that Warbeck’s confession is as beneficial to Richard’s reputation as it was to Henry’s. Allowing that Perkin Warbeck really was the Duke of York opens the door to some interesting consequences.

First, his identity as the true Duke would validate his original testimony, made before his capture, that his brother was, in fact, murdered–not sent to a safer location or dead of natural causes. In addition, his own life, he said, was due to the spontaneous compassion of an un-named executioner, not to the foresight of either Henry or Richard. We can only guess what the Duke’s anonymous benefactor would have done after helping him to escape, but the logical course, if he had been in Henry’s service, would have been to send the reassuring news of the boy’s true fate to Richard, under whose protection he lived. Richard would thus have had certain proof of a despicable crime perpetrated by his most dangerous enemy–a piece of intelligence so shocking on both moral and political levels that he would surely have made an immediate public disclosure of the plot. Instead, Warbeck claimed that his benefactor insisted on secrecy so as to avoid retribution. The two men appointed to kill the princes, whatever their secret allegiance may have been, must officially have been in Richard’s service, since they were able to enter and exit the Tower at will.

The supposition that the benefactor needed protection in such circumstances again implies that Richard was the plotter. also, if Henry was behind the murders, it would have been a great risk to send the Duke to Flanders, on the same side of the Channel as Henry, when one of Richard’s castles in the North of England would have adequately shielded him from prying eyes. Only if Richard was the murderer would the Prince need to leave England immediately. The benefactor in this case would have had no reason whatsoever to inform Henry or anyone else of his deed, because his continued enjoyment of royal favour, as well as his life, was at stake. Strangely, although Warbeck claimed to have been the victim of an attempted murder, he never specified who was behind the crime. There seems to be no reason, if his story was genuine, why his benefactor should not have given him this information, so presumably, the Duke simply chose not to disclose the murder’s identity. By accusing Henry, Warbeck could have weakened the King’s hold on the throne considerably and given his own cause an undeniable stamp of justice. The only reason for not making use of this tactic can be that Warbeck, and everyone else, knew that it was simply not true.

If, however, Richard was behind the crime, the confirmation of his guilt would have made little impact and might actually have exposed Warbeck to censure for plotting to overthrow the man who had avenged his brother’s murder. While such speculation, following from the assumption that Perkin Warbeck was really the young Duke, renders him of dubious value in exonerating Richard, it can hardly be considered conclusive evidence of his guilt. And if Warbeck was not Richard–and the weight of the evidence indicates that he was not–then he casts even less light on the fate of the Princes in the Tower. So while his appearance makes a fascinating act in the drama of history, he is a witness of little value in penetrating the mystery behind the missing Princes.

Perkin Warbeck ~ Pretender to the English Throne « The Freelance History Writer June 27, 2014 By Susan Abernethy in Medieval History , Tudor History Tags: Archduke of Austria , Battle of Bosworth , Dowager Duchess of Burgundy , earl of Desmond , earl of Kildare , Edward Earl of Warwick , Emperor Frederic III , Flanders , George Duke of Clarence , James IV King of Scots , John Atwater , John Taylor , Katherine Gordon , King Charles VIII of France , King Edward IV , King Henry VII of England , King Richard III , Lambert Simnel , Low Countries , Margaret Beaumont , Margaret of Burgundy , Margaret of York , Maximillian King of the Romans , medieval history , Perkin Warbeck , Philip the Fair , Pregent Meno , Queen Elizabeth of York , Richard Duke of York , Sir Edward Beaumont , Tower of London , Tudor history , War of the Roses 9 Comments The Yorkist/Lancastrian conflict known as the War of the Roses is filled with interesting stories from battles to execution by drowning in a butt of malmsey.

Because the two young sons of King Edward IV disappeared in the Tower of London there was a lot of speculation about what happened to them. This left the door open for pretenders to appear. Whether or not you believe Perkin Warbeck was Richard, Duke of York, his story is intriguing, fascinating and nearly unbelievable. He managed to maintain his identity and travel the courts of Europe for eight years, soliciting money, troops and ships in an attempt to take the English throne. Perkin Warbeck was the name he was called later in his adventures. Pierrechon de Werbecque was born c. 1474 in Tournai, in what is now Belgium. He was the son of John Osbek, a boatman and comptroller of the town and Catherine de Faro. In the nineteenth century, historian James Gairdner had access to the records of Tournai and identified Warbeck’s parents as Jehan de Werbecque and Nicaise Farou and his grandfather as Diericq de Werbecque. These records confirmed what was written in the printed confession of Perkin before his execution in 1499.

The Werbecques were prominent members of Tournai’s prosperous class of civic officials, artisans, and small merchants. When Perkin was about ten years old, his mother took him to Antwerp where he lived with a cousin for about half the year. Due to wars in Flanders he returned home but about a year later, a Tournai merchant named Berlo took him back to the mart in Antwerp. After an illness that lasted about five months he traveled to Bergen op Zoom and finally Middleburg. During this time he became accomplished in speaking Flemish and working for merchants in the cloth trade. By April or May of 1487, he traveled to Portugal in the company of a Yorkist supporter named Margaret Beaumont, the wife of Anglo-Portuguese Jewish convert courtier and international trader Sir Edward Beaumont. Warbeck spent about a year at the Portuguese court alongside the royal councilor and explorer Peter Vacz de Cogna. Finally he was in the employ of Breton merchant Pregent Meno who took him to Cork, Ireland in 1491. Warbeck was parading around Cork in silk clothes belonging to his master, most likely as an advertisement for his employer’s wares.

About four years earlier, a young man named Lambert Simnel impersonated Edward, Earl of Warwick, the son of George, Duke of Clarence and had been crowned king in Dublin so the Irish had accepted a pretender before. The citizens of Cork thought Warbeck could also be the son of Clarence but he denied this by swearing an oath before the mayor. Two other persons then declared Warbeck was the illegitimate son of King Richard III but again, he denied this. Finally, he was assured by some Yorkist adherents, led by the former mayor of Cork John Atwater and the English exile John Taylor that if he took on the character of Richard, Duke of York, second son of King Edward IV who disappeared from the Tower, he would garner support. Charles VIII, King of France These Yorkist promoters found backing from the earls of Desmond and Kildare. Warbeck was given training in speaking English and acting as royalty. Letters were written to James IV, King of Scots as if he were “King Edward’s son”. But the greatest support was gained from the French King Charles VIII. Charles had funded Taylor’s trip to Ireland in a last ditch effort to distract the Lancastrian King Henry VII of England from defending Brittany against French annexation.

Charles sent a fleet to bring Warbeck to court in France in March of 1492 where he stayed until November when Charles made peace with Henry. Warbeck and his supporters made their way to the court of Margaret of York , sister of King Edward IV and King Richard III and now dowager Duchess of Burgundy in Mechelen. Margaret of York Margaret enthusiastically welcomed her miraculously resurrected nephew and sent letters to many heads of state declaring his authenticity. She had no love for King Henry VII as he had taken away lucrative trading licenses she had received from her brothers, thereby reducing her income. Margaret may have trained Warbeck in Yorkist family history and his education was complete. Henry protested vigorously to Philip the Fair, Archduke of Austria about Margaret harboring Warbeck in Flanders. Philip replied he had no control over Margaret. Henry stopped all trade between England and Flanders, causing riots in London. Perkin traveled to Vienna and the court of Maximilian, King of the Romans and attended the funeral of Maximillian’s father, Holy Roman Emperor Frederic III.

Maximilian enthusiastically embraced Warbeck as Richard, Duke of York going so far as to accompanying Warbeck back to the Low Countries in the summer of 1494 and recognizing him as King of England. Henry sent messengers remonstrating against this and declaring Warbeck was the son of a boatman from Tournai. In October of that year, Warbeck was present in Antwerp when Archduke Philip took his oath as Duke of Brabant, displaying the arms of the family of York on the house he was staying in. Portrait of Maximilian, King of the Romans by Albrecht Durer Now things were turning dangerous. A series of conspiracies, espionage and counter-espionage began. Henry offered pardons to two men in Flanders who were backing Warbeck and one of these men accepted the pardon and informed on some Warbeck supporters who were arrested and put to death, including Sir William Stanley whose actions at the Battle of Bosworth turned the battle to Henry’s favor, gaining him the crown of England. In December of 1494, Warbeck signed an agreement with Margaret of Burgundy. She agreed to fund an expedition to England, aiding Warbeck in his effort to take the throne from King Henry.

In return, when Warbeck became king, he would restore her trade licenses, complete the payments of her dowry, and give her the manor of Hunsdon and the town and castle of Scarborough. In addition, Maximilian agreed to supply financing. Warbeck sailed for England in July of 1495. While Warbeck was aboard one of his ships, an advance party of soldiers went ashore at Deal in Kent only to be overwhelmed by the locals. Warbeck could only watch with horror as one hundred and sixty three of his men were captured and one hundred and fifty were killed. The dead lay on the beach full of arrows and appallingly wounded. There was nothing to do but turn sail and head for Ireland. His party joined the earl of Desmond in the siege of Waterford which was ongoing at the time. Waterford failed to capitulate and Warbeck found his way to Scotland arriving at Stirling Castle on November 20 where he received a warm welcome and the patronage of James IV, King of Scots . Whether James really believed Warbeck was the Duke of York or not, he saw him as a pawn in his relations and negotiations with other nations.

Indeed, in September of 1496, the ambassador of the French king offered James a hundred thousand crowns to send Warbeck to France. Warbeck would spend two years at James’ court . James gave him his cousin Lady Katherine Gordon as a bride and would fund attacks into England. These sorties were nothing more than border raids and no one seriously came to support Warbeck’s cause. On one occasion, after one of these raids, it is said that Warbeck complained to James about the barbarity of the attacks and asked him to spare his own subjects. James may have become disillusioned with Warbeck at this point. He was trying to negotiate a treaty with King Henry to marry his eldest daughter and may have considered Warbeck a hindrance to the proceedings. King James IV of Scotland In the meantime, King Henry had raised taxes in England to fund a war against the attacks from the Scots. The citizens of Cornwall found the taxation excessive and rebelled. The rebels invited Warbeck to join forces with them and King James gave him a ship. Warbeck and his wife sailed for Ireland where they stayed for a month, seeking support.

They were unsuccessful in gaining any aid and in fact, the citizens of Waterford wrote King Henry informing him Warbeck was in Ireland. Warbeck was spirited out of Cork by his ally John Atwater. While he was escaping, his ship met up with three other ships, one of which was Spanish. The citizens of Waterford fitted out vessels at their own cost which sent a patrol out to sea in search of Warbeck. The captain of one of these ships boarded the Spanish vessel and gathered its crew and captain to address them. The patrol captain informed the Spanish crew of the new friendly alliance between Spain and England which had been cemented by the betrothal of Arthur Prince of Wales to the Infanta Katherine of Aragon. He went on to say they were searching for the pretender to the English throne, Perkin Warbeck, asking them to surrender him if he was aboard. He produced a letter from King Henry offering a reward of one thousand marks for Warbeck’s capture. The master of the ship denied ever hearing of such a person. The whole time, Warbeck was hunched inside a wine pipe in the prow of the ship. The patrol eventually let the ship pass.

Warbeck landed at Whitesand Bay in Cornwall, proclaimed himself king and gathered forces estimated in the thousands. They laid siege to Exeter but when King Henry’s troops approached, he withdrew to Taunton. He learned the king’s forces were marching full force against him and in the dead of the night, Warbeck stole away with sixty horsemen. These were soon abandoned and with only three men, Warbeck made his way to Beaulieu Abbey in Hampshire taking sanctuary there. They were recognized, surrounded and forced to surrender. Warbeck was brought to King Henry at Taunton and confessed he was an imposture. Henry made him confess to his wife as well. He promised to treat them both with leniency. Katherine Gordon was sent to the household of Henry’s queen Elizabeth of York at Sheen. King Henry VII of England The country was finally at peace and the king took Warbeck with him to London where he was paraded through the streets and lodged in the Tower. But he was soon released and allowed to reside at court, closely guarded, until he tried to escape on June 9, 1498, perhaps with the king’s collusion. He was found in the Charterhouse at Sheen and surrendered on promise of pardon.

On June 15th, Warbeck was placed in stocks atop a scaffold made of empty wine barrels in front of Westminster Hall and then the process was repeated again on the 18th in Cheapside. He was forced to repeat his confession and after five hours, was taken to the Tower and placed in shackles. The whole tale of his imposture, as written and read by himself was printed and disseminated at the king’s command. In the summer of 1499, an absurd plot arose to blow up the Tower and free Warbeck along with Edward, Earl of Warwick who had been in the Tower since he was a young child and place one of them on the throne. How involved Warbeck was in the plot is hard to assess. The plot was discovered and Warbeck, along with his original supporters Atwater and Taylor who had been recovered from Ireland and France were tried on November 16 at Westminster Palace and found guilty and condemned to death. On November 18th, eight other prisoners were indicted at the Guildhall for their involvement in the plot. On the 21st, the Earl of Warwick was tried and condemned.

On November 23rd, Warbeck and Atwater were taken to Tyburn Hill. Warbeck confessed once again he was no Plantagenet. Both men were hanged. On November 28th, the Earl of Warwick was beheaded on Tower Hill. Warbeck’s adventure as Richard, Duke of York has many fantastical elements to it, from being the guest of kings to escaping detection at sea, to hanging at Tyburn. In his wake, there was much death and destruction. Perhaps the one good element of the story is Warbeck’s wife Katherine was treated with kindness by King Henry and Queen Elizabeth, remaining a valued member of the Tudor court the rest of her life. She went on to become wealthy and marry three more times. She had no surviving children and outlived Warbeck by thirty eight years.

Further reading: “The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy 1491-1499” by Ian Arthurson, “History of the Life and Reign of Richard III: To which is added the story of Perkin Warbeck from original documents” by James Gairdner, entry on Perkin Warbeck in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1885-1900, Volume 59 written by James Gairdner, entry on Perkin Warbeck in the current Oxford Dictionary of National Biography written by S.J. Gunn Share this: Lambert Simnel | Richard III of England Wiki | Fandom powered by Wikia Richard III of England Wiki Share From the Wikipedia page [1] Lambert Simnel (ca. 1477 – ca. 1525) was a pretender to the throne of England. His claim to be the Earl of Warwick in 1487 threatened the newly established reign of King Henry VII (reigned 1485–1509). Simnel was born around 1477. His real name is not known - contemporary records call him John, not Lambert, and even his surname is suspect.

Different sources have different claims of his parentage, from a baker and tradesman to organ builder. Most definitely, he was of humble origin. At the age of about ten, he was taken as a pupil by an Oxford-trained priest named Richard Simon (or Richard Symonds / Richard Simons / William Symonds) who apparently decided to become a kingmaker. He tutored the boy in courtly manners and contemporaries described the boy as handsome. He was taught the necessary etiquettes and was educated well by Simon.[1] One contemporary described him as "a boy so learned, that, had he ruled, he would have as a learned man" Simon noticed a striking resemblance between Lambert and the supposedly murdered sons of Edward IV, so he initially intended to present Simnel as Richard, Duke of York, son of King Edward IV, the younger of the vanished Princes in the Tower.[1] However, when he heard rumours that the Earl of Warwick had died during his imprisonment in the Tower of London, he changed his mind. The real Warwick was a boy of about the same age and had a claim to the throne as the son of the Duke of Clarence, King Edward IV's brother. According to James A.

Williamson, Simnel was merely a figurehead for a rebellion that was already being planned by the Yorkists: He was merely a commonplace tool to be used for important ends, and the attempt to overthrow Henry VII would have taken place had Simnel never existed. The Yorkist leaders were determined on a serious push, rising of their party in England supported by as great a force as possible from overseas.[1] Simon spread a rumour that Warwick had actually escaped from the Tower and was under his guardianship. He gained some support from Yorkists. He took Simnel to Ireland where there was still support for the Yorkist cause, and presented him to the head of the Irish government, the Earl of Kildare. Kildare was willing to support the story and invade England to overthrow King Henry. On 24 May 1487, Simnel was crowned in Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin as "King Edward VI".[2] He was about ten years old. Lord Kildare collected an army of Irish soldiers under the command of his younger brother, Thomas FitzGerald of Laccagh. The Earl of Lincoln, formerly the designated successor of the late King Richard III, joined the conspiracy against Henry VII.

He fled to Burgundy, where Warwick's aunt Margaret of York, the Dowager Duchess of Burgundy, kept her court. Lincoln claimed that he had taken part in young Warwick's supposed escape. He also met Viscount Lovell, who had supported a failed Yorkist uprising in 1486. Margaret collected 2,000 Flemish mercenaries and shipped them to Ireland under the command of Martin Schwartz, a noted military leader of the time. They arrived in Ireland on 5 May. King Henry was informed of this and began to gather troops. Simnel's army — mainly Flemish and Irish troops — landed on Piel Island in the Furness area of Lancashire on 5 June 1487 and were joined by some English supporters. However, most local nobles, with the exception of Sir Thomas Broughton, did not join them. They clashed with the King's army on 16 June at the Battle of Stoke Field and were defeated. Kildare was captured, and Lincoln, Thomas FitzGerald and Sir Thomas Broughton were killed. Lovell went missing; there were rumours that he had escaped and hidden to avoid retribution.

Simons avoided execution due to his priestly status, but was imprisoned for life. King Henry pardoned young Simnel (probably because he had mostly been a puppet in the hands of adults) and gave him a job in the royal kitchen as a spit-turner. When he grew older, he became a falconer. He died around 1525. Who was the greater threat to Henry VII's throne, Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck? - A-Level History - Marked by Teachers.com Who was the greater threat to Henry VII's throne, Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck? Extracts from this document... Introduction Who was the greater threat to Henry VII's throne, Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck? There were many threats to King Henry VII during his reign but two of the greatest threats to King Henry VIII were from the two pretenders to the throne. The two pretenders, named Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck both had profound affects on Henry's sense of security about his own place on the throne. The obvious difference between these two characters is one of them was mature and the other was simply a puppet used by higher powers.

I therefore think that Perkin Warbeck appeared to be more of a threat for Henry than Simnel not only because of the difference of age but to many other factors in their gain for the crown of England. Lambert Simnel was a young boy of ten years of age who was mainly used as a pawn by people such as Margaret de Burgundy, John de la pole and Lord Lovell. The fact that he was so young may have made the boy seem to be not much of a threat to Henry at the time. Whereas with a grown man such as Perkin Warbeck, who was firstly "recognised" by his supposed relative Margaret de Burgundy as Richard Duke of York, King Edward's son, which may have made him appear to be more strategically advanced. ...read more. Middle Margaret was the sister of Richard III and wanted revenge against the usurper (Henry) who had taken his throne and lead to his death in battle. Margaret had also recognised Simnel as her nephew, which could have influenced others to follow and support him in his claim too. She therefore was the most powerful of Simnel's supporters.

Warbeck did not receive as bigger support as Lambert had from Margaret, he had to get troops from elsewhere and even re-sparked the Cornish rebellion in the South of England in an attempt to match the kings forces. This attempt proved to be as unsuccessful as the first Cornish rebellion and resulted in Warbeck's final capture. When this is compared with Simnel's battle it appears to be of less consequence as the Battle of Stoke actually involved the King in the Battle, similar to the Battle with King Richard III and Henry the 'pretender'. The Earl of Lincoln, John de la Pole also joined the cause for Lambert and fled overseas to Ireland to return on the 4th June 1487 with his army to challenge the king. This didn't prove to be a good move as the attack failed and the Earl of Lincoln died in the battle which may have shown Simnel's fighting as not a well thought through plan and therefore an easy opponent for Henry. ...read more. Conclusion Henry may have also used this opportunity to show others just how much of a threat he thought the boy was, as he employed him to work in the Royal Kitchens. He seemed as though he was never actually worried about the boy's claim at all.

After careful consideration I have concluded that Perkin Warbeck appeared to be the greatest threat to Henry as Perkin Warbeck had extensive support from Europe, threatened Henry's foreign policy and had noticeable support from various nobles such Margaret de Burgundy who had learned from her previous mistake. It took eight years to finally capture him and have him executed which finally eliminate the ongoing threat. Lambert's rebellion was dangerous, as his uprising was a similar one to that of King Henry himself, however he did not appear to be such a great threat as his threat diminished to the point where he became a servant in the royal kitchens after the act. Henry faced no further challenges from armed forces, he had treaties with France and Scotland to strengthen foreign policies, secured two marriages which brought peace and secured his dynasty. Warbeck was perhaps the most serious threat Henry had faced up to that point, and afterwards too. ...read more. The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section. Found what you're looking for?

Start learning 29% faster today 150,000+ documents available Were the pretenders a serious threat to Henry VII's throne? - A-Level History - Marked by Teachers.com Were the pretenders a serious threat to Henry VII's throne? Extracts from this document... Introduction Were the pretenders a serious threat to Henry VII's throne? A pretender is someone who pretends to be someone else in order to have a credible claim to the throne. There were two pretenders present during Henry VII's reign, but he managed to over come them. Their names were Lambert Simnel, who was at large for only the year 1487, and Perkin Warbeck, who was on the loose between 1490 and 1498. Many factors contributed to their successes and failures, these factors will be discussed in this essay. Who the pretenders were pretending to be was very important, as it could entirely change the credibility to their claim to the throne. In fact, to increase the likelihood that they were who they said, both pretenders ended up masquerading as individuals that they didn't look like.

Richard Symmons, a priest, saw that Lambert Simnel looked very similar to Richard of York, so initially, he was impersonated. However, many people believed the two sons of Edward IV to be dead, but here were still many rumours surrounding the whereabouts of the Earl of Warwick, so Symmons decided it would be more advantageous for Simnel to impersonate him. If the public believed he was a serious contender for the throne, then Henry would have to take notice, but if the public believed he was dead, and was therefore a pretender, there would be no chance in him overthrowing the throne. Many years later, Perkin Warbeck did the complete opposite. ...read more. Middle His main Irish benefactor was the Earl of Desmond, but this is still very limited. Both the pretenders got much backing from Margaret of Burgandy, the sister of Richard III and Edward IV, who despised Henry. For Lambert Simnel, Margaret provided 2,000 professional German soldiers, and also Martin Schwarz as a commander, to fight on his behalf, which was a large amount of Simnel's forces. She also offered a place to stay for English nobles who had turned against the king and fled the country.

Margaret offered Perkin Warbeck refuge, and tutored him in the ways of the Yorkist court, which he needed to know thoroughly to pass as Richard. She also acknowledged him as her nephew. Simnel gained no other foreign support, but Warbeck was recognised as Richard of York by Charles VIII of France and also Maxamillion, the Holy Roman Emperor. This made his threat to the throne far more serious as he had recognition all over Europe, and also from Scotland. James IV of Scotland also recognised Warbeck as who he claimed to be. He gave Warbeck his cousin to marry, which meant he was legitimately part of the Scottish royal family, and an even more serious threat to Henry. James also gave Warbeck troops for an invasion of England. Although Warbeck received much support, it all came at different times, and there was not enough support from just one person to complete his mission. Even though Simnel had a smaller support basis, all events happened in a very short period, and therefore made him much more dangerous. ...read more. Conclusion There was no other distraction at the time, so all eyes were on the difficulties in England. This meant Henry was in a weak position, and susceptible to a foreign invasion.

Luckily he was saved from this problem, when Charles III invaded Italy. Warbeck also threatened a marriage agreement with Henry's heir Arthur, Prince of Wales. Again this was resolved when a truce with Scotland was arranged. There were also difficulties with traitors in the nobility, but improved spy networks meant this problem was not as serious as before. The final worry with Warbeck was that he was at large for eight years. This meant Henry was more inclined to risk more to capture him. Simnel was more a threat in this instance, as Henry had never dealt with this kind of problem before, and problems with Warbeck were resolved more effectively and quickly. Overall, the two pretenders were potentially serious threats to Henry, they had many forms of support, and their claims seemed legitimate to most. However, because of Henry's quick and decisive reactions, and his willingness to learn from previous experiences, he managed to hold his position as king and make England stable once again. If the social situation had been different, if there was public discontent towards Henry, then both the pretenders would have had a far better chance in succeeding, as their main downfall was in not gaining enough support from the general public.

Simnel was a more serious threat to the throne as he had the element of surprise and speed - Henry had never encountered a pretender before, and all of his support came quickly, and at the right time. ...read more. The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section. Found what you're looking for? Start learning 29% faster today 150,000+ documents available

Question: Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were pretenders to the English throne during the reign of which King?
Answer: HENRY VII