he tried to rape her - The White Queen (2013) Discussion

[–] sarahc-23 10 years ago

That's one thing that bothered me about that relationship. Edward almost rapes here by the oak tree and then she marries him and is shocked when she catches him in bed with another girl.

reply

[–] njgill 10 years ago

Edward almost rapes here[sic] by the oak tree and then she marries him and is shocked when she catches him in bed with another girl.

When she got him to marry her - something no other woman had actually succeeded in doing up to that point - she thought she had him by the short hairs and that he would be in her thrall forever.

Plus, if she believed that her mother's witchcraft had been the reason for her marriage, it would have been a shock to find out he was still willing and able to let the little head do the thinking for the big head.

Lastly, even if she HAD expected him to stray, shock and outrage are the political and moral high ground, leaving the wounded party in the best bargaining position for negotiating a favorable outcome to any future disputes.

Getting Edward to take titles, lands, and fortunes from the current nobles in order to to give them to the Woodvilles and Greys would not have been nearly as easy if she had just shrugged when confronted with evidence of his philandering.

reply

[–] bittenhoney 8 years ago

She wanted to be queen at any cost. I think what her oldest daughter told her at the end was true.

reply

[–] jh66 10 years ago

I wouldn't believe everything you see in a TV adaptation of a story by Gregory, who hasn't any better idea of what really happened than we have?

reply

[–] abs_is_back 10 years ago

The real problem is why did a 15th century lady meet the king alone in the wood and think he DIDN'T expect to get laid? We're all used to the idea that No Means No, but for that time in history it was a pretty blatant invitation to have a romp.

She took down her hair, sat on his cloak with him, let him kiss her bare shoulders, and laid down in his arms - that is more foreplay than most women of that time could expect, and the only thing more blatant that she could have done was to lift her skirt herself.

A little historical perspective please; this was not a time when women voluntarily and freely kissed and allowed themselves to be fondled by men they weren't planning to have sex with. No wonder Edward didn't take her change of mind seriously at first.

reply

[–] Empyre_of_Dyrt 10 years ago

Exactly.

The word "rape" is thrown around far too casually by far too many.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MydnightRose 10 years ago

Even today I'm not going to meet some strange man I hardly know in the middle of nowhere by myself. That is how you end up buried in a desert.

Clark Kent + Lois Lane 4ever
DC Can Suck It

reply

[–] big_kmc 10 years ago

A little historical perspective please; this was not a time when women voluntarily and freely kissed and allowed themselves to be fondled by men they weren't planning to have sex with. No wonder Edward didn't take her change of mind seriously at first.

God this is so ignorant. It's like saying there were no lesbians at the time. Anything that goes on sexually today went on back then maybe not as openly but just because society was openly a certain way about sex doesn't mean that two young people couldn't fool around and if she decided she didn't want intercourse she wasn't allowed to have a say in how far it went. Give me a break. Yeah the male could force a woman easily and proving rape is very hard against a man with money but not all men are potential rapists.

Addressing the original post, I think a young man can be clueless about a woman's sexuality or sexuality in general and not be a horrible person. I think he was confused but backed off which was the right thing to do when she reacted strongly and it stuck with him to where he couldn't forget her and came back to see her.

reply

[–] TheWidower 10 years ago

The real problem is why did a 15th century lady meet the king alone in the wood and think he DIDN'T expect to get laid?

Seriously?

For the exact same reasons a 19 year old girl might meet up with a stranger with no intention of sex TODAY.

Is it that difficult to believe that young girls in 15th century England might suffer qualities of innocence and naivete that are fairly ubiquitous among the young?

Plus, Edward IV was no stranger. He was the KING. She almost certainly believed all the childhood stories of the nobility of kings that it never crossed her mind that a king would ever force himself upon her. Even one from the House of York.

reply

[–] shellieeyre 9 years ago

Is it that difficult to believe that young girls in 15th century England might suffer qualities of innocence and naivete that are fairly ubiquitous among the young?

But she wasn't a young girl - she was a widow and mother. And I don't think she was a starry eyed romantic with notions of chivalric kings - she had known men of power, she knew how things worked. She possibly thought she could bait the trap and then say "No, not unless we're married" and almost, according to Gregory, didn't get away with it.

That said, Gregory's over fond of making her male protagonists into rapists - see her treatment of Henry VII in The White Princess if you want an even more outrageous and less founded use of the device. Ugh.

I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

[–] TheWidower 9 years ago

Yes she was a widow and a mother, but she was still just 19. She might have been around powerful men before, but within jet own house who were going to treat her well. In any case the fact that she did meet him alone demonstrates her naivete, regardless of how deftly she might have felt she could manage the situation. It reveals she truly didn't know 'how things worked'.

reply

[–] shellieeyre 9 years ago

19 in the 1470s should not be looked at in the same light as 19 now. She was not a naive young thing with romantic notions of chivalric kings, she was taking a chance on being able to sway the king with her attractiveness.

I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

[–] whoanelly (1558) 4 years ago

What evidence do you have that the prefrontal cortex developed more quickly in that era?

“ The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.”

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

reply

[–] xoxo (160) 6 years ago

She wasn't 19, she was atleast 28 when she met Edward.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 6 years ago

She's 5 years older than him and her kids look to be at least 7-8. So if she was 19, Edward couldn't have been 15 in that first ep.

reply

[–] xoxo (160) 6 years ago

Look it up, historically she was about 28 and Edward was 21 or 22. She was not a teenager.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 6 years ago

I know. I was agreeing with you.

reply

[–] princeariom 9 years ago

For the exact same reasons a 19 year old girl might meet up with a stranger with no intention of sex TODAY

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely false. A 19 year old at this time who is a widow with two kids of her own knows all about men and being alone with them is in the 15th century. At this time, being a alone with a man clearly meant that she clearly hinted at the possibility of sex. You are using today's standards to judge a situation with a culture you have little idea of.

Women were chaperoned everywhere and the only time they would be purposely alone with men would be when social rules were about to be forgone. Plus, this:

She almost certainly believed all the childhood stories of the nobility of kings that it never crossed her mind that a king would ever force himself upon her.

Is absolute bull. Her parents would have told her for years to watch out for nobility and the need to preserve her virginity from the random nobleman who would be hunting for it.

reply

[–] MydnightRose 9 years ago

Elizabeth was stupid in how she acted. She wouldn't have sent alone. Even today girls don't mean strange men in the middle of nowhere. Women need to take some responsibility in this thread and use some common sense.

 Superman & Wonder Woman

reply

[–] Popcorngal (4360) 3 years ago

In a way I agree, as they say, don't put yourself in a dangerous situation, but there is no excuse for sexual assault regardless of the century.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (17234) 2 years ago

Agreed, thats why we need justice for Tara Reade and the other 10 women that Joe assaulted.

reply

[–] donkey_dick 9 years ago

Rape was not only legal, it was encouraged back then.

reply

[–] njgill 9 years ago

Rape was not only legal, it was encouraged back then.

And you base this assertion on what? Have you any documentation or sources that back your opinion up?

reply

[–] shellieeyre 9 years ago

Rape has never been legal under English common law.

I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

[–] murad23 9 years ago

Not really true. A woman had no right whatsoever to refuse her husband, whom others could force her to marry at virtually any age. Plenty of legal rape going on at the time.

reply

[–] shellieeyre 9 years ago

Then it was not, by definition, rape. You can argue that it should have been but it wasn't.

I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.

reply

[–] mollys-lips 9 years ago

Although marital rape was not acknowledged to be a crime (neither women NOR men were legally allowed to refuse the sexual advances of their spouce) non-marital rape was indeed a crime and was not at all encouraged. I'm not sure where you got that silly notion.

reply

[–] Ladonia84 8 years ago

I may be late but just my two cents. SPOILERS

I saw an interview where Max Irons says the most surprising fact he learned about King Edwards court is that all the women were sexually obligated towards him.

So if you are thinking of it from the mind set of his contemporaries his taking of her wouldn't have been viewed as a deal breaker. He seemed genuinely confused that she didn't want to be his mistress and that she would refuse him. He cheats on her throughout their marriage and she is aware and neither one of them see this as wrong until she perceives him favoring Jane Shore as more than a just a bed warmer. So our ideas of morality are very different and even more so the rules for moral conduct were different for a king. So while he may not be "perfect" in your eyes his actions were perfectly normal for the times.

So Elizabeth continuing to want him and questioning her own actions was in line with the thinking of the day. most wouldn't think twice about him taking her as was his right as king.

So in that light it is a different dynamic then a modern "date rape" narrative. I am not trying to justify his actions but he was a young, impulsive and entitled (rightly so?) king so I don't think he would or she would have saw his actions as completely a violation. Yes, he would have diminished her marriage prospects but later in the show we see being the King's mistress could be a position of honor.

Elizabeth was told many times by her brother not to be alone with him. She knew that something could go down hence the knife she brought for protection. She played her cards as no other woman had and it worked out for her. All along she wanted the king and his favors so I don't think her response was all that stupid or unbelievable.

reply