In Our Time again
In Our Time again
2012-04-28 08:23:20
Lost this somewhere in the plethora of messages. It's an extract from Melvyn Bragg's newsletter:
[quote] A few after the programme reflections. One of the reasons, I was told, that the evidence for domestic wars is not as plentiful as that for foreign wars is that foreign wars were audited by the Exchequer, who liked to put down what every single man was paid and when he was paid and who he was, and so for foreign wars we have a very good idea of numbers, of names, of positions in society. For domestic wars there was a war chest and a noble would come along and ask for money to help him bring his men to battle, and the war chest would be opened, coins would be passed over and a bit of paper would change hands as a receipt. Most of these bits of paper, it turns out, disappeared.
It was also pointed out that the fighting in medieval wars was very often done by a handful of people who liked fighting and were trained to fight. They were trained troops and to manipulate a horse in full armour, with weapons to hand, needed a great deal of training and the will to kill had to be cultivated. This could extend down the scale, especially with bowmen, because at that time in the fifteenth century all adult men had to do archery practice in the towns as well as in the villages, and we know that they did because of reports that we have ('we' being the historians) of the accidents that occurred!
One of the contributors said that household retainers were very important to the lord leading his troops into the main throng of battle. They were like a mafia group who had great loyalty to each other - which came way before anything else - and that cohesion could be a tremendously important factor.
Lots of talk about longbows being very slowly overtaken by guns. There's a famous painting of knights in full armour firing guns from the shoulder in the 1470s in Burgundy. Knights in full armour with guns were also common in Germany. But the transition from longbows to guns took a long time. Longbows were still taken into the field of battle in the 1560s. Even at that time they had a faster rate of fire than guns and were more accurate. Unfortunately, they could not pierce armour which is where guns trumped them. There's a painting, I was told, of a knight in a field walking around like a porcupine with arrows coming out of his armour all over the place, but he, snugly inside the metal, unhurt.
Another reason for the difficulties in finding the battlefield around Bosworth was that the soil is very acidic and therefore arrowheads, which are a great indicator of numbers and so on, were not preserved.
And finally Shakespeare, who we did not get around to, may well have modelled his character of Richard III on a book by Thomas More, who himself saw Richard III as a model monster.[end of quote]
[quote] A few after the programme reflections. One of the reasons, I was told, that the evidence for domestic wars is not as plentiful as that for foreign wars is that foreign wars were audited by the Exchequer, who liked to put down what every single man was paid and when he was paid and who he was, and so for foreign wars we have a very good idea of numbers, of names, of positions in society. For domestic wars there was a war chest and a noble would come along and ask for money to help him bring his men to battle, and the war chest would be opened, coins would be passed over and a bit of paper would change hands as a receipt. Most of these bits of paper, it turns out, disappeared.
It was also pointed out that the fighting in medieval wars was very often done by a handful of people who liked fighting and were trained to fight. They were trained troops and to manipulate a horse in full armour, with weapons to hand, needed a great deal of training and the will to kill had to be cultivated. This could extend down the scale, especially with bowmen, because at that time in the fifteenth century all adult men had to do archery practice in the towns as well as in the villages, and we know that they did because of reports that we have ('we' being the historians) of the accidents that occurred!
One of the contributors said that household retainers were very important to the lord leading his troops into the main throng of battle. They were like a mafia group who had great loyalty to each other - which came way before anything else - and that cohesion could be a tremendously important factor.
Lots of talk about longbows being very slowly overtaken by guns. There's a famous painting of knights in full armour firing guns from the shoulder in the 1470s in Burgundy. Knights in full armour with guns were also common in Germany. But the transition from longbows to guns took a long time. Longbows were still taken into the field of battle in the 1560s. Even at that time they had a faster rate of fire than guns and were more accurate. Unfortunately, they could not pierce armour which is where guns trumped them. There's a painting, I was told, of a knight in a field walking around like a porcupine with arrows coming out of his armour all over the place, but he, snugly inside the metal, unhurt.
Another reason for the difficulties in finding the battlefield around Bosworth was that the soil is very acidic and therefore arrowheads, which are a great indicator of numbers and so on, were not preserved.
And finally Shakespeare, who we did not get around to, may well have modelled his character of Richard III on a book by Thomas More, who himself saw Richard III as a model monster.[end of quote]
Re: In Our Time again
2012-04-30 21:28:10
----- Original Message -----
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...And finally Shakespeare, who we did not get around to, may well have
modelled his character of Richard III on a book by Thomas More, who himself
saw Richard III as a model monster." (from Melvin Bragg's newsletter)
More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
One possibly could attribute Tudor's blackening of Richard's reputation
simply as one of the means used by a responsible monarch in preserving the
peace and tranquility of his kingdom. Henry's sole claim to the throne
before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
England. After Bosworth, of course, he could claim the throne by right of
conquest. Once he married Elizabeth Woodville however, his actions could ,
"could" being heavily emphasized, be explained as his attempts to maintain
his wife's inheritance. Which would immediately be superseded by the
appearance of either of his spouse's brothers. And then what would happen to
the peace and welfare of his kingdom and its inhabitants?
Of course, if the peace and welfare of the inhabitants of England had been
Henry Tudor's main impulse, there never would have been a battle at
Bosworth...
//
>
>
>
>
>
From: "boyd.nina" <ninaboyd@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 1:51 AM
"...And finally Shakespeare, who we did not get around to, may well have
modelled his character of Richard III on a book by Thomas More, who himself
saw Richard III as a model monster." (from Melvin Bragg's newsletter)
More's book has always seemed to me to be the result of nearly thirty years
of constant propaganda on the part of Henry Tudor and his adherents against
Richard. More may well have wanted to either write a "humanistic" morality
tale or even a satire on those tales, but he was, at least at first, forced
to rely on "common knowledge" for his story. As More dug deeper he may have
discovered that "common knowledge" may have been widespread, but it
certainly couldn't be called "knowledge"!
One possibly could attribute Tudor's blackening of Richard's reputation
simply as one of the means used by a responsible monarch in preserving the
peace and tranquility of his kingdom. Henry's sole claim to the throne
before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
England. After Bosworth, of course, he could claim the throne by right of
conquest. Once he married Elizabeth Woodville however, his actions could ,
"could" being heavily emphasized, be explained as his attempts to maintain
his wife's inheritance. Which would immediately be superseded by the
appearance of either of his spouse's brothers. And then what would happen to
the peace and welfare of his kingdom and its inhabitants?
Of course, if the peace and welfare of the inhabitants of England had been
Henry Tudor's main impulse, there never would have been a battle at
Bosworth...
//
>
>
>
>
>
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-01 12:14:12
On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Henry's sole claim to the throne
> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
> England.
Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to it's rightful line of descent.
Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
> Henry's sole claim to the throne
> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
> England.
Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to it's rightful line of descent.
Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-01 12:46:07
'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
Beaufort descent.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Henry's sole claim to the throne
> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
> England.
Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
it's rightful line of descent.
Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Beaufort descent.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Henry's sole claim to the throne
> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
> England.
Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
it's rightful line of descent.
Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-01 14:27:39
so was richard via his mother, cecily neville. she was the granddaughter of john of gaunt.
the point being is that the plantagenet's had a superior claim to the throne than the beaufort-tudor line.
the beaufort line was tainted with bastardy and barred from a claim to the throne. yes, the beaufort-roet line were legitimised, but that did not remove the parliament's decision that that line could not inherit the throne.
r3's son had his father's ancestry to supercede the beaufort blood. edmund plantagent was an elder brother to john of gaunt.
h7's only claim to the throne was by right of conquest. otherwise he had no legitimate claim to the throne.
--- On Tue, 5/1/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
To:
Received: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 7:45 AM
'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
Beaufort descent.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Henry's sole claim to the throne
> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
> England.
Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
it's rightful line of descent.
Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
the point being is that the plantagenet's had a superior claim to the throne than the beaufort-tudor line.
the beaufort line was tainted with bastardy and barred from a claim to the throne. yes, the beaufort-roet line were legitimised, but that did not remove the parliament's decision that that line could not inherit the throne.
r3's son had his father's ancestry to supercede the beaufort blood. edmund plantagent was an elder brother to john of gaunt.
h7's only claim to the throne was by right of conquest. otherwise he had no legitimate claim to the throne.
--- On Tue, 5/1/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
To:
Received: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 7:45 AM
'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
Beaufort descent.
Karen
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Henry's sole claim to the throne
> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
> England.
Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
it's rightful line of descent.
Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-02 10:37:01
Thank you ma'am for the support :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 14:27, fayre rose wrote:
> so was richard via his mother, cecily neville. she was the granddaughter of john of gaunt.
>
> the point being is that the plantagenet's had a superior claim to the throne than the beaufort-tudor line.
>
> the beaufort line was tainted with bastardy and barred from a claim to the throne. yes, the beaufort-roet line were legitimised, but that did not remove the parliament's decision that that line could not inherit the throne.
>
> r3's son had his father's ancestry to supercede the beaufort blood. edmund plantagent was an elder brother to john of gaunt.
>
> h7's only claim to the throne was by right of conquest. otherwise he had no legitimate claim to the throne.
>
> --- On Tue, 5/1/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 7:45 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 14:27, fayre rose wrote:
> so was richard via his mother, cecily neville. she was the granddaughter of john of gaunt.
>
> the point being is that the plantagenet's had a superior claim to the throne than the beaufort-tudor line.
>
> the beaufort line was tainted with bastardy and barred from a claim to the throne. yes, the beaufort-roet line were legitimised, but that did not remove the parliament's decision that that line could not inherit the throne.
>
> r3's son had his father's ancestry to supercede the beaufort blood. edmund plantagent was an elder brother to john of gaunt.
>
> h7's only claim to the throne was by right of conquest. otherwise he had no legitimate claim to the throne.
>
> --- On Tue, 5/1/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
> To:
> Received: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 7:45 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-02 10:46:42
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-02 11:04:16
Excellent answer Paul.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012, 10:46
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2012, 10:46
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-02 14:38:40
Thank You Paul!
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-02 21:00:27
Henry IV's interpolation barring the Beauforts from succession to the crown is widely known and quoted, but in fact if you look at the act of legitimation you can see that Henry's barring clause did no more than state the obvious. The offspring of Katherine de Roet were not accepted into the Plantagenet clan, but had the surname Beaufort invented specially for them, and more importantly, they were allowed no inheritance whatsoever from their father, John of Gaunt (which would have been the route through which any right of succession might be transmitted). Instead they were given permission to be granted and to hold honours of their own and to pass them to their descendants. No Beaufort ever challenged this position ... and silence indicates consent.
Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours, of course. There was thus no actual shame in being a Beaufort, and I don't believe Paul meant to imply this. He was merely citing the fact that no Beaufort had any rightful place in the succession to the crown. They were always very close to the Lancastrian ruling house, but stopped short of being recognized as royal themselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours, of course. There was thus no actual shame in being a Beaufort, and I don't believe Paul meant to imply this. He was merely citing the fact that no Beaufort had any rightful place in the succession to the crown. They were always very close to the Lancastrian ruling house, but stopped short of being recognized as royal themselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-02 21:17:26
Ooops, I hope you understand what I meant when I wrote "Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours". Obviously attitudes to family relationships in some sections of the Western world have undergone huge changes in recent years, and it's dangerous to generalize!
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Henry IV's interpolation barring the Beauforts from succession to the crown is widely known and quoted, but in fact if you look at the act of legitimation you can see that Henry's barring clause did no more than state the obvious. The offspring of Katherine de Roet were not accepted into the Plantagenet clan, but had the surname Beaufort invented specially for them, and more importantly, they were allowed no inheritance whatsoever from their father, John of Gaunt (which would have been the route through which any right of succession might be transmitted). Instead they were given permission to be granted and to hold honours of their own and to pass them to their descendants. No Beaufort ever challenged this position ... and silence indicates consent.
Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours, of course. There was thus no actual shame in being a Beaufort, and I don't believe Paul meant to imply this. He was merely citing the fact that no Beaufort had any rightful place in the succession to the crown. They were always very close to the Lancastrian ruling house, but stopped short of being recognized as royal themselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Henry IV's interpolation barring the Beauforts from succession to the crown is widely known and quoted, but in fact if you look at the act of legitimation you can see that Henry's barring clause did no more than state the obvious. The offspring of Katherine de Roet were not accepted into the Plantagenet clan, but had the surname Beaufort invented specially for them, and more importantly, they were allowed no inheritance whatsoever from their father, John of Gaunt (which would have been the route through which any right of succession might be transmitted). Instead they were given permission to be granted and to hold honours of their own and to pass them to their descendants. No Beaufort ever challenged this position ... and silence indicates consent.
Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours, of course. There was thus no actual shame in being a Beaufort, and I don't believe Paul meant to imply this. He was merely citing the fact that no Beaufort had any rightful place in the succession to the crown. They were always very close to the Lancastrian ruling house, but stopped short of being recognized as royal themselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: In Our Time again
Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
Pure Plantagenet.
Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
Paul
On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
> Beaufort descent.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>
>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>> England.
>
> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
> it's rightful line of descent.
> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: In Our Time again
2012-05-03 09:53:10
No shame intended in bastardy as you say, Annette.
It is also interesting to note that the main branch of the bastard Beaufort tree, the Somersets, while strongly supporting the Lancastrian cause never made any claim to the throne in their own right, which would have come well before Tudor's mother had hey gone down that path.
Paul
On 2 May 2012, at 21:00, Annette Carson wrote:
> Henry IV's interpolation barring the Beauforts from succession to the crown is widely known and quoted, but in fact if you look at the act of legitimation you can see that Henry's barring clause did no more than state the obvious. The offspring of Katherine de Roet were not accepted into the Plantagenet clan, but had the surname Beaufort invented specially for them, and more importantly, they were allowed no inheritance whatsoever from their father, John of Gaunt (which would have been the route through which any right of succession might be transmitted). Instead they were given permission to be granted and to hold honours of their own and to pass them to their descendants. No Beaufort ever challenged this position ... and silence indicates consent.
>
> Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours, of course. There was thus no actual shame in being a Beaufort, and I don't believe Paul meant to imply this. He was merely citing the fact that no Beaufort had any rightful place in the succession to the crown. They were always very close to the Lancastrian ruling house, but stopped short of being recognized as royal themselves.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
> Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
> His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
> Pure Plantagenet.
> Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
> I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
>
> A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
> Paul
>
> On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
>
>> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
>> Beaufort descent.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>>
>>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>>> England.
>>
>> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
>> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
>> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
>> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
>> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
>> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
>> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
>> it's rightful line of descent.
>> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
>> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
>> Paul
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
It is also interesting to note that the main branch of the bastard Beaufort tree, the Somersets, while strongly supporting the Lancastrian cause never made any claim to the throne in their own right, which would have come well before Tudor's mother had hey gone down that path.
Paul
On 2 May 2012, at 21:00, Annette Carson wrote:
> Henry IV's interpolation barring the Beauforts from succession to the crown is widely known and quoted, but in fact if you look at the act of legitimation you can see that Henry's barring clause did no more than state the obvious. The offspring of Katherine de Roet were not accepted into the Plantagenet clan, but had the surname Beaufort invented specially for them, and more importantly, they were allowed no inheritance whatsoever from their father, John of Gaunt (which would have been the route through which any right of succession might be transmitted). Instead they were given permission to be granted and to hold honours of their own and to pass them to their descendants. No Beaufort ever challenged this position ... and silence indicates consent.
>
> Mediaeval views on bastardy were very different from ours, of course. There was thus no actual shame in being a Beaufort, and I don't believe Paul meant to imply this. He was merely citing the fact that no Beaufort had any rightful place in the succession to the crown. They were always very close to the Lancastrian ruling house, but stopped short of being recognized as royal themselves.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>
>
>
> Richard's mother was a Neville, and a half Beaufort. True.
> His wife was thus a quarter Beaufort. Richard's father was one hundred per cent Plantagenet, through his Mortimer mother, great grand daughter of Lionel, 2nd son of Edward III, and his father Richard Earl of Cambridge, son of Edmund, Edward III 3rd son.
> Pure Plantagenet.
> Margaret Baeufort claimed through the later legitimised children of the 3rd son Gaunt, with the proviso that none of that issue would claim the throne, and the father of Henry VII was Edmund Tudor, a commoner, whose father had married the widow of Henry V.
> I think Richard's lineage trumps Henry Tudor's by a mile or more. And Richard's claim, like his brother Edward's, was through the father's line.
>
> A Henry VII Appreciation Society with, I understand, a small membership does exist out there Karen, if you care to join :-)
> Paul
>
> On 1 May 2012, at 12:45, Karen Clark wrote:
>
>> 'No Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.' Richard III's son was of
>> Beaufort descent.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:14:03 +0100
>> To: <>
>> Subject: Re: In Our Time again
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2012, at 22:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
>>
>>> Henry's sole claim to the throne
>>> before Bosworth was that his grandmother had been the wife of a King of
>>> England.
>>
>> Hate to sound pedantic but Tudor's grandfather Owen was married to a one
>> time Queen of England. His mother was descended from the illegitimate
>> children of John of Gaunt, Edward III third son. The York line came from
>> Edward's fourth son and through the female line his second son. Had it not
>> been the rule then that only men could succeed York's mother Anne would have
>> been queen in her own right after Richard II, NOT the House of Lancaster who
>> did indeed usurp the throne. Edward IV was just taking the crown back to
>> it's rightful line of descent.
>> Oh, and of course Parliament specified in the later legitimisation of
>> Gaunt's bastard children that no Beaufort could succeed to the crown, ever.
>> Paul
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.