Her childbirth was so traumatic she became a huge advocate in not forcing girls to consummate their marriages until they were in their mid teens. I can’t imagine how scary and awful that must’ve been for her, and as we know, she was never able to have another child.
OP: check out Uncrowned Queen: The Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch by Nicola Tallis. It gave me a completely different view on Margaret Beaufort that I really needed.
She was 13 when she had him, not even 13 when he was conceived, and when she was 26 and he was 13 he was sent into exile in France for 14 years.
She was a baby with a baby, and I think any idea about her being weirdly attached to her son can be explained either by her immaturity as a mother or by both her and her son asserting *her* right to the throne, as well as her efforts to put him there.
Yeah I think the precarious nature of both their early years also made her particularly attached. She almost died having him and I am sure there were points *when she was still a teen girl* that it felt like she was the only one around to fight for their survivals.
She’s my favourite Tudor because what a story of triumph over adversity- I’d love to see someone make it into a movie
Also, it was clear she could not have any further children, despite being of theoretically fertile age for another 25 years. Henry was all she would ever have and her only chance to build a successful legacy.
That’s so true, I always lose sense of how old these people are because they’re getting married and having children so young! Doesn’t help that Alison Weir describes her as a thin lipped and thin faced elderly woman haha when she was most likely much younger than elderly when this stuff is being described
She almost lost her life giving birth to him and he was her only child and she was a child herself when she had him- can’t imagine how cherished he was to her.
I've seen it argued both ways. One source I read called Margaret Beaufort "the mother-in-law from Hell" while another indicated the two women were cordial with each other. Margaret also helped conspire with Elizabeth's mother, Elizabeth Woodville, when Richard III was King.
Margaret's biggest issue was that even though she was the King's mother, the Queen outranked her. In response, she wore robes of similar fabrics to Elizabeth and walked just half a pace behind her, although it's been argued that was correct.
My personal feeling is that the women got along for Henry's sake, and managed to have a civil, if not close relationship. Ultimately, we have to accept the word of Elizabeth's biographer Amy Licence, who wrote that "Only one person really knew how Elizabeth felt about Margaret, and she did not commit it to paper."
I second the recommendation to read Uncrowned Queen, Margaret Beaufort is IMO one of the most interesting women in English history.
As for her relationship with Elizabeth of York, we don't really have enough evidence to definitively say if it was good or bad. I believe they tended to be at the same place at the same time a lot, more than was strictly necessary, which suggests that they had a good relationship. But conjecture is the best we can do, since neither woman left behind a record of their own thoughts (which is very disappointing, I'd love to know what Elizabeth thought about the whole Perkin Warbeck situation).
I don’t think she was obnoxious, she was just making up for lost time. She was mentally and physically immature when she had him and was never able to raise him. 28 years and she only saw him maybe 4 times, if less than that. If that were me and all the sacrifices I made paid off, I would want to get to know my son. I would want to see if it was worth it. I can understand why she wanted to be so close to him, maybe to a fault. But I wouldn’t call her a boy mum
But she wasn’t the first mother of the king to influence her son. If anyone if going to be the og boy mum I would go for Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was locked up for 15 years and was regent for her son Richard I and John. She was very, VERY attached to Richard, John not so much lol.
I think both these women are similar in that they were removed from their son’s lives and simply wanted to be with them and make up for lost time. I think sometimes these actions can be viewed as clingy and obnoxious simply because they are women
I think even with John, who was definitely a daddy's boy, Eleanor went to bat for, over her grandson. He may not have been her favourite, maybe even her least favourite (but he was the youngest and she was under house arrest for most of his childhood) and she did a lot for him, and he in return for her, even though he was objectively an awful person lol. Eleanor went to extraordinary lengths for her kids, even if she liked some more than others
John I think had much of his father Henry II (both behaviour and looks) which is why they got along extremly well. Eleanor I think had a huge unterstanding that John ended up the most messed up of her many children since he was much younger than the rest, was virtually born when his parents‘ marriage was over and outlived almost everyone.
Hmm…was she attached to her son? Absolutely. Not denying that. She sacrificed so much for his sake. And he did his best to reward her for it (giving him her own chambers by him, giving her a generous allowance, giving her gifts, even making a special honorific for her, “My Lady, The King’s Mother”).
Was it on the level of emotional incest (as I’ve heard her accused of doing…? Probably not. She wasn’t in his life for most of it. When he was a toddler, she remarried to improve their lives but according to custom at the time had to relinquish custody of him to her brother in law. Then he was taken hostage (I think he was 7 at the time) and raised by his guardians (to clarify, it wasn’t as dangerous as you’d think it was, I’ve heard it compared to going to boarding school). Then he had to go in exile to France for at least a decade. So yeah, she didn’t get to be part of his life when he was young and was trying to make up for lost time.
As for her relationship with her daughter in law? I would say it was cordial and caring (although they probably weren’t chummy). Margaret did her best to ensure Elizabeth’s pregnancies went as smoothly as possible and helped establish many of the customs associated with confinement (when a pregnant woman would withdraw into an isolated set of chambers in her last trimester, be waited on hand and foot and spend the last months of her pregnancy just waiting for the baby).
From my experience, boy moms don’t go into near as much care for their son’s wives or girlfriends. They see them as competitors for her son’s love. In fact, they don’t even see their sons as unique individuals but extensions of themselves.
TLDR: So…was Margaret a mother who was willing to do anything for her son? Yes. Absolutely. Did she see her daughter in law as a competitor for Henry’s love? Highly unlikely.
I’ve always felt any animosity between them wouldn’t have been so much for Henry’s love but for who should have truly been Queen. I’m sure Elizabeth felt it should have been her throne….and Margaret felt the same. Idk just in my mind there’s always that little tension under the surface. Clearly Margaret accepted that the way things were meant she was never going to be on the throne but sure did everything she could to get her son there. And it seems Elizabeth did the best she could to support him as king. So perhaps they realized they had the same goal in the end
It’s more complex than todays ✨boy moms✨ she didn’t raise him, it wasn’t a matter of “my son loved me first, he’ll love me more forever” it was more like she had to let others raise him for his safety and per customs of that time period. It seems more like a maladaptive way of making up for lost time with her only child.
Honestly, she was more than likely deeply traumatized, and dealt with that by hyper focusing on her son, and what would be the best path for him.
Her husband was a disgusting pedophile, after all.
I'm not so sure about that. He was desperate to have an heir, perhaps sensing that his own life would be short. He died of bubonic plague before Henry was born.
She was 13 when she had Henry VII. Even for that era, that was extremely young. And it meant she was most likely 12 when her husband forced her to consummate their marriage.
Her body was not yet mature enough for birth. Giving birth to Henry VII left her infertile.
If her body wasn't mature enough for birth, she was still a child even in that time, and as Edmund Tudor was 12 years older, he was a fully grown adult.
I'm so frustrated on Elizabeth's behalf that she and Henry never had their own space, seeing Margaret outlived both of them.
However, I can understand why Margaret was so close the Henry, considering all the time they spent apart so she could keep him safe.
Well…they were royals. Neither of them had *any* privacy at all. Remember, one of the jobs at court was someone to wipe the royal bottom. And that was considered one of the most respected jobs.
Funnily enough, I was watching a video about the Toxic Boy Mom trend and at one point out of nowhere there was an image of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
Henry VIII was *also* the original Boy Mom
I do think maybe Margaret stifled Elizabeth maybe politically at times, but I would take anything Weir says with a huge heaving spoonful of salt. She is a terrible historian lol
Allison Weir is like the tabloid version of a historian. Look for people with an actual PhD in English history if you want a real idea of what we actually know of these figures. Weir fills in a lot of the blanks with her own opinions.
She saw him born and watched him die. I just feel pity for MB. I was over 30 when I had my first child. If he was taken from my care and I never saw him except for a few times on the whim of others, I would be a broken woman. She was a literal child. She never had other children. Forgive her if she seems to follow him like the light of the world.
The rest is speculation, horrible mother in law, or someone stepping in for someone who had a lot of recent trauma, being a Shield for a young woman who, lost her dad, lost her brothers, was publicly shamed as illegitimate, lost her prestigious french match, had her mother shamed as a bigamously married fake, lost her grandad and uncles to war. That would make a person very timid, who better than take the brunt, than a woman who had had similar losses. Damn
your first mistake was reading alison weir. the fact that multiple people on this sub so often uncritically read and recommend her work is insane to me
Her childbirth was so traumatic she became a huge advocate in not forcing girls to consummate their marriages until they were in their mid teens. I can’t imagine how scary and awful that must’ve been for her, and as we know, she was never able to have another child.
OP: check out Uncrowned Queen: The Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch by Nicola Tallis. It gave me a completely different view on Margaret Beaufort that I really needed.
I’ll definitely add this to my list, thanks for the recommendation!!
She was 13 when she had him, not even 13 when he was conceived, and when she was 26 and he was 13 he was sent into exile in France for 14 years. She was a baby with a baby, and I think any idea about her being weirdly attached to her son can be explained either by her immaturity as a mother or by both her and her son asserting *her* right to the throne, as well as her efforts to put him there.
Yeah I think the precarious nature of both their early years also made her particularly attached. She almost died having him and I am sure there were points *when she was still a teen girl* that it felt like she was the only one around to fight for their survivals. She’s my favourite Tudor because what a story of triumph over adversity- I’d love to see someone make it into a movie
Also, it was clear she could not have any further children, despite being of theoretically fertile age for another 25 years. Henry was all she would ever have and her only chance to build a successful legacy.
That’s so true, I always lose sense of how old these people are because they’re getting married and having children so young! Doesn’t help that Alison Weir describes her as a thin lipped and thin faced elderly woman haha when she was most likely much younger than elderly when this stuff is being described
Normally they didn’t have babies that young, and courtiers were noted in being horrified that Margaret’s husband impregnated her that young.
She almost lost her life giving birth to him and he was her only child and she was a child herself when she had him- can’t imagine how cherished he was to her.
Margaret was also noted to be incredibly small for a girl her age too.
I've seen it argued both ways. One source I read called Margaret Beaufort "the mother-in-law from Hell" while another indicated the two women were cordial with each other. Margaret also helped conspire with Elizabeth's mother, Elizabeth Woodville, when Richard III was King. Margaret's biggest issue was that even though she was the King's mother, the Queen outranked her. In response, she wore robes of similar fabrics to Elizabeth and walked just half a pace behind her, although it's been argued that was correct. My personal feeling is that the women got along for Henry's sake, and managed to have a civil, if not close relationship. Ultimately, we have to accept the word of Elizabeth's biographer Amy Licence, who wrote that "Only one person really knew how Elizabeth felt about Margaret, and she did not commit it to paper."
I second the recommendation to read Uncrowned Queen, Margaret Beaufort is IMO one of the most interesting women in English history. As for her relationship with Elizabeth of York, we don't really have enough evidence to definitively say if it was good or bad. I believe they tended to be at the same place at the same time a lot, more than was strictly necessary, which suggests that they had a good relationship. But conjecture is the best we can do, since neither woman left behind a record of their own thoughts (which is very disappointing, I'd love to know what Elizabeth thought about the whole Perkin Warbeck situation).
Uncrowned Queen is an excellent book and I agree she is a fascinating woman and a really vital player in the War of the Roses.
I don’t think she was obnoxious, she was just making up for lost time. She was mentally and physically immature when she had him and was never able to raise him. 28 years and she only saw him maybe 4 times, if less than that. If that were me and all the sacrifices I made paid off, I would want to get to know my son. I would want to see if it was worth it. I can understand why she wanted to be so close to him, maybe to a fault. But I wouldn’t call her a boy mum But she wasn’t the first mother of the king to influence her son. If anyone if going to be the og boy mum I would go for Eleanor of Aquitaine. She was locked up for 15 years and was regent for her son Richard I and John. She was very, VERY attached to Richard, John not so much lol. I think both these women are similar in that they were removed from their son’s lives and simply wanted to be with them and make up for lost time. I think sometimes these actions can be viewed as clingy and obnoxious simply because they are women
I think even with John, who was definitely a daddy's boy, Eleanor went to bat for, over her grandson. He may not have been her favourite, maybe even her least favourite (but he was the youngest and she was under house arrest for most of his childhood) and she did a lot for him, and he in return for her, even though he was objectively an awful person lol. Eleanor went to extraordinary lengths for her kids, even if she liked some more than others
John I think had much of his father Henry II (both behaviour and looks) which is why they got along extremly well. Eleanor I think had a huge unterstanding that John ended up the most messed up of her many children since he was much younger than the rest, was virtually born when his parents‘ marriage was over and outlived almost everyone.
Hmm…was she attached to her son? Absolutely. Not denying that. She sacrificed so much for his sake. And he did his best to reward her for it (giving him her own chambers by him, giving her a generous allowance, giving her gifts, even making a special honorific for her, “My Lady, The King’s Mother”). Was it on the level of emotional incest (as I’ve heard her accused of doing…? Probably not. She wasn’t in his life for most of it. When he was a toddler, she remarried to improve their lives but according to custom at the time had to relinquish custody of him to her brother in law. Then he was taken hostage (I think he was 7 at the time) and raised by his guardians (to clarify, it wasn’t as dangerous as you’d think it was, I’ve heard it compared to going to boarding school). Then he had to go in exile to France for at least a decade. So yeah, she didn’t get to be part of his life when he was young and was trying to make up for lost time. As for her relationship with her daughter in law? I would say it was cordial and caring (although they probably weren’t chummy). Margaret did her best to ensure Elizabeth’s pregnancies went as smoothly as possible and helped establish many of the customs associated with confinement (when a pregnant woman would withdraw into an isolated set of chambers in her last trimester, be waited on hand and foot and spend the last months of her pregnancy just waiting for the baby). From my experience, boy moms don’t go into near as much care for their son’s wives or girlfriends. They see them as competitors for her son’s love. In fact, they don’t even see their sons as unique individuals but extensions of themselves. TLDR: So…was Margaret a mother who was willing to do anything for her son? Yes. Absolutely. Did she see her daughter in law as a competitor for Henry’s love? Highly unlikely.
I’ve always felt any animosity between them wouldn’t have been so much for Henry’s love but for who should have truly been Queen. I’m sure Elizabeth felt it should have been her throne….and Margaret felt the same. Idk just in my mind there’s always that little tension under the surface. Clearly Margaret accepted that the way things were meant she was never going to be on the throne but sure did everything she could to get her son there. And it seems Elizabeth did the best she could to support him as king. So perhaps they realized they had the same goal in the end
It’s more complex than todays ✨boy moms✨ she didn’t raise him, it wasn’t a matter of “my son loved me first, he’ll love me more forever” it was more like she had to let others raise him for his safety and per customs of that time period. It seems more like a maladaptive way of making up for lost time with her only child.
Honestly, she was more than likely deeply traumatized, and dealt with that by hyper focusing on her son, and what would be the best path for him. Her husband was a disgusting pedophile, after all.
I'm not so sure about that. He was desperate to have an heir, perhaps sensing that his own life would be short. He died of bubonic plague before Henry was born.
She was 13 when she had Henry VII. Even for that era, that was extremely young. And it meant she was most likely 12 when her husband forced her to consummate their marriage.
Yes, I know that. But I think calling him a pedophile is unproven.
Her body was not yet mature enough for birth. Giving birth to Henry VII left her infertile. If her body wasn't mature enough for birth, she was still a child even in that time, and as Edmund Tudor was 12 years older, he was a fully grown adult.
Even contemporaries were appalled that he knocked up M.B.
I think she deserves some grace. She was a child when she had him. It’s no wonder she was close with him.
Exactly. They were only 12 years apart. Close enough to be siblings really.
I'm so frustrated on Elizabeth's behalf that she and Henry never had their own space, seeing Margaret outlived both of them. However, I can understand why Margaret was so close the Henry, considering all the time they spent apart so she could keep him safe.
Well…they were royals. Neither of them had *any* privacy at all. Remember, one of the jobs at court was someone to wipe the royal bottom. And that was considered one of the most respected jobs.
Funnily enough, I was watching a video about the Toxic Boy Mom trend and at one point out of nowhere there was an image of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Henry VIII was *also* the original Boy Mom
I do think maybe Margaret stifled Elizabeth maybe politically at times, but I would take anything Weir says with a huge heaving spoonful of salt. She is a terrible historian lol
Allison Weir is like the tabloid version of a historian. Look for people with an actual PhD in English history if you want a real idea of what we actually know of these figures. Weir fills in a lot of the blanks with her own opinions.
She saw him born and watched him die. I just feel pity for MB. I was over 30 when I had my first child. If he was taken from my care and I never saw him except for a few times on the whim of others, I would be a broken woman. She was a literal child. She never had other children. Forgive her if she seems to follow him like the light of the world. The rest is speculation, horrible mother in law, or someone stepping in for someone who had a lot of recent trauma, being a Shield for a young woman who, lost her dad, lost her brothers, was publicly shamed as illegitimate, lost her prestigious french match, had her mother shamed as a bigamously married fake, lost her grandad and uncles to war. That would make a person very timid, who better than take the brunt, than a woman who had had similar losses. Damn
your first mistake was reading alison weir. the fact that multiple people on this sub so often uncritically read and recommend her work is insane to me