Re: bastards
Re: bastards
2012-10-08 17:44:08
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-08 23:47:57
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 00:11:40
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent. Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian one, the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York. (I'm ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could claim the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish, Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent. Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian one, the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York. (I'm ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could claim the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish, Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 00:30:56
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either. I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York. (I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either. I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York. (I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 03:30:32
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 04:06:11
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 04:08:18
h7 was not a bastard. his claim to the throne was via a bastard line. big, huge difference.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 04:22:56
Yes, I know. The OP stated that he was a bastard.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
h7 was not a bastard. his claim to the throne was via a bastard line. big,
huge difference.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk>
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
h7 was not a bastard. his claim to the throne was via a bastard line. big,
huge difference.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 11:05 PM
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@... <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk>
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 09:17:30
Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 09:30:05
Henry VII's ONLY descent from Edward III was Beaufort, thus he could not inherit the throne. Richard, his siblings and Buckingham had Beaufort and other descent, the other descent allowing them to inherit the throne.
Richard II had been killed before he could reproduce. By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Richard II had been killed before he could reproduce. By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about
the following statement:
"Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs
to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a
bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is
never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not
something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more
balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting
ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Karen
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort
children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting
the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that
is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean
spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much,
unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to
"claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via
a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps
the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of
gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to
even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard
ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings
"illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right
to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his
mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known
as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> > wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]
<mailto:docm%40silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 10:12:47
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either. I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York. (I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either. I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York. (I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 13:28:04
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaWm
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20He
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaWm
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20He
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 13:43:51
Does anyone know if Georgie Duke of Clarence had any illigitimate children....I havent hard of any....oF kings the ones that didnt produce illigimate children seems to outnumber those that did..off the top of my head..eilenn..typing with a sore arm...
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Annette
>
> Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
>
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
> du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaWm
> sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20He
> nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> //snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
> is in a French document and seems to be
> the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
>
> This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
> Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
>
> Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
> their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
> to the town of Toulon?
>
> Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
> you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
>
> Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: bastards
>
> Carol
>
> I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
> conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
> marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
> Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
> was
> Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
> 'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
>
> Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
> Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
> parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
> of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
> the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: bastards
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
> my
> point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
> the
> world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
> was a
> Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
> Richard's
> Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
> I
> have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
> wall
> when this comes up. I fully understand why.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
> Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
> Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
> Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
> Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
> Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
> were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
> that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
> one,
> the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
> legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
> claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
> descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
> (I'm
> ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
> claim
> the same ancestry through their fathers.)
>
> Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
> comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
> Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
> of
> Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
> illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
> between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
> secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
> have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
>
> In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
> about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
> conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
> pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
> he didn't want to rule through his wife.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Annette
>
> Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
>
> http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
> du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaWm
> sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20He
> nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: Annette Carson <email@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: bastards
>
>
>
>
>
>
> //snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
> is in a French document and seems to be
> the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
>
> This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
> Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
>
> Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
> their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
> to the town of Toulon?
>
> Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
> you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
>
> Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Karen Clark
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: bastards
>
> Carol
>
> I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
> conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
> marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
> Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
> was
> Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
> 'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
>
> Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
> Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
> parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
> of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
> the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
> Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: bastards
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
> my
> point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
> the
> world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
> was a
> Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
> Richard's
> Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
> I
> have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
> wall
> when this comes up. I fully understand why.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
> Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
> Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
> Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
> Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
> Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
> were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
> that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
> one,
> the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
> legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
> claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
> descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
> (I'm
> ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
> claim
> the same ancestry through their fathers.)
>
> Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
> comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
> Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
> of
> Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
> illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
> between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
> secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
> have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
>
> In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
> about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
> conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
> pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
> he didn't want to rule through his wife.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 14:18:04
I haven't heard mention of any either, Eileen. Despite the Alcobolic
Wifebeater! tag, he and his duchess seemed to have a happier than not
marriage.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:43:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Does anyone know if Georgie Duke of Clarence had any illigitimate
children....I havent hard of any....oF kings the ones that didnt produce
illigimate children seems to outnumber those that did..off the top of my
head..eilenn..typing with a sore arm...
Wifebeater! tag, he and his duchess seemed to have a happier than not
marriage.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:43:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Does anyone know if Georgie Duke of Clarence had any illigitimate
children....I havent hard of any....oF kings the ones that didnt produce
illigimate children seems to outnumber those that did..off the top of my
head..eilenn..typing with a sore arm...
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 14:27:59
he doem seem to have overreacted to isobels death..the ankaratte twynhoe
affair,,,,
having trouble posting DUH....
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I haven't heard mention of any either, Eileen. Despite the Alcobolic
> Wifebeater! tag, he and his duchess seemed to have a happier than not
> marriage.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:43:47 -0000
> To: <>
>
> Subject: Re: bastards
>
> Does anyone know if Georgie Duke of Clarence had any illigitimate
> children....I havent hard of any....oF kings the ones that didnt produce
> illigimate children seems to outnumber those that did..off the top of my
> head..eilenn..typing with a sore arm...
>
>
>
>
>
>
affair,,,,
having trouble posting DUH....
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I haven't heard mention of any either, Eileen. Despite the Alcobolic
> Wifebeater! tag, he and his duchess seemed to have a happier than not
> marriage.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:43:47 -0000
> To: <>
>
> Subject: Re: bastards
>
> Does anyone know if Georgie Duke of Clarence had any illigitimate
> children....I havent hard of any....oF kings the ones that didnt produce
> illigimate children seems to outnumber those that did..off the top of my
> head..eilenn..typing with a sore arm...
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 14:43:51
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaWm
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20He
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaWm
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20He
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 15:03:43
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Šc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Šc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 15:17:50
you are correct stephen. my genealogy program was set not to show order of birth.
my post therefore is actually very wrong. i just adjusted the program.
here is the correct birth order.
1 Edward III Plantagenet 1312 -
.. +Phillipa de Hainault 1311 -
........ 2 Edward Bl. Prince Plantagenet 1330 -
............ +Joan de Kent Plantagenet 1328 -
........ 2 Isabel Plantagenet 1332 -
............ +Enguerrand de Coucy VII 1343 -
........ 2 Mary Plantagenet 1334 -
............ +John of Brittany 1339 - 1399
........ 2 Lionel Antwerp Plantagenet 1338 -
............ +Elizabeth de Burgh 1332 -
........ 2 John Gaunt Plantagenet 1339/40 - 1398/99
............ +Blanche Plantagenet 1345 -
........ *Friend of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Marie de St. Hilaire 1340 -
........ *2nd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Katherine Roet 1350 - 1403
........ *3rd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Constance de Castile 1354 - 1393/94
........ 2 Edmund Langley Plantagenet 1341 -
............ +Isabella Infanta de Castile 1361 -
........ 2 Thomas Woodstock Plantagenet 1353/54 -
............ +Eleanor Bohun
*Partner of Edward III Plantagenet:
.. +Alice Perrer Perrers
however, inspite of the previous errors. the mortimor claim still supercedes the illegal beaufort claim to the throne.
--- On Tue, 10/9/12, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 4:17 AM
Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
my post therefore is actually very wrong. i just adjusted the program.
here is the correct birth order.
1 Edward III Plantagenet 1312 -
.. +Phillipa de Hainault 1311 -
........ 2 Edward Bl. Prince Plantagenet 1330 -
............ +Joan de Kent Plantagenet 1328 -
........ 2 Isabel Plantagenet 1332 -
............ +Enguerrand de Coucy VII 1343 -
........ 2 Mary Plantagenet 1334 -
............ +John of Brittany 1339 - 1399
........ 2 Lionel Antwerp Plantagenet 1338 -
............ +Elizabeth de Burgh 1332 -
........ 2 John Gaunt Plantagenet 1339/40 - 1398/99
............ +Blanche Plantagenet 1345 -
........ *Friend of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Marie de St. Hilaire 1340 -
........ *2nd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Katherine Roet 1350 - 1403
........ *3rd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Constance de Castile 1354 - 1393/94
........ 2 Edmund Langley Plantagenet 1341 -
............ +Isabella Infanta de Castile 1361 -
........ 2 Thomas Woodstock Plantagenet 1353/54 -
............ +Eleanor Bohun
*Partner of Edward III Plantagenet:
.. +Alice Perrer Perrers
however, inspite of the previous errors. the mortimor claim still supercedes the illegal beaufort claim to the throne.
--- On Tue, 10/9/12, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 4:17 AM
Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 15:38:55
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time. Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Sc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Sc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 15:57:50
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about the following statement:
>
> "Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
>
> I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Carol responds:
Has anyone on this forum or elsewhere ever actually said that Henry VII was a bastard? I'm pretty sure that the usual statement is that he came from an illegitimate line on both sides, that his mother's Beaufort line was barred from the throne, and that the Tudor side had no claim whatever. His *father,* so far as we know, actually was a bastard, no proof of Catherine of Valois's marriage to Owen Tudor ever having been produced. Henry's *claim* was illegitimate. He, himself, was not. Since you already know all this, we seem to be going around in circles here.
By the way, someone, I think it was Eileen, said that Thomas of Woodstock was John of Gaunt's older brother. Actually, the reverse is true. The reason that Buckingham's claim to the throne was superior to the Tydder's is that he, Buckingham, came from a legitimate (male) line from Thomas of Woodstock.
"Why brand they us with base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?" Good question, Edmund!
Carol
Carol
>
> This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about the following statement:
>
> "Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
>
> I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs to be taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a bastard!" when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is never said to be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not something I particularly enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more balanced view of Richard across to the world without constantly shooting ourselves in the foot with arguments that defy logic.
Carol responds:
Has anyone on this forum or elsewhere ever actually said that Henry VII was a bastard? I'm pretty sure that the usual statement is that he came from an illegitimate line on both sides, that his mother's Beaufort line was barred from the throne, and that the Tudor side had no claim whatever. His *father,* so far as we know, actually was a bastard, no proof of Catherine of Valois's marriage to Owen Tudor ever having been produced. Henry's *claim* was illegitimate. He, himself, was not. Since you already know all this, we seem to be going around in circles here.
By the way, someone, I think it was Eileen, said that Thomas of Woodstock was John of Gaunt's older brother. Actually, the reverse is true. The reason that Buckingham's claim to the throne was superior to the Tydder's is that he, Buckingham, came from a legitimate (male) line from Thomas of Woodstock.
"Why brand they us with base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?" Good question, Edmund!
Carol
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 15:57:50
You're right, Annette, there's no confusion in 'due and lineal inheritance'.
There's not a lot of detail either, unless its in the bits you didn't quote.
I'm not sure we can leap to 'but that's what Henry meant by it!' Nor that
this is what the people of England would have assumed he meant. Seems more
likely he was referring to John of Gaunt, as any half decent claimant for
the throne had been doing for the last thirty years. I just can't see
someone in England getting hold of one of these circulars and saying "due
and lineal inheritance? Why, he must be the illegitimate son of our dear
departed Harry! Let's welcome him with open arms."
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:38:49 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important
thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals
to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time.
Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown
of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I
really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Scýest que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il
ýtait]
fils du feu roy Henry dýAngleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he
repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to
Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
,_._,___
There's not a lot of detail either, unless its in the bits you didn't quote.
I'm not sure we can leap to 'but that's what Henry meant by it!' Nor that
this is what the people of England would have assumed he meant. Seems more
likely he was referring to John of Gaunt, as any half decent claimant for
the throne had been doing for the last thirty years. I just can't see
someone in England getting hold of one of these circulars and saying "due
and lineal inheritance? Why, he must be the illegitimate son of our dear
departed Harry! Let's welcome him with open arms."
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:38:49 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important
thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals
to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time.
Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown
of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I
really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Scýest que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il
ýtait]
fils du feu roy Henry dýAngleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he
repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to
Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
,_._,___
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:02:37
Perfect, except for Gaunt's second and third wives being exchanged. William of Windsor died without issue.
Taking his other sons only, the order is:
1) Edward of Wales
2) Lionel of Antwerp
3) John of Gaunt
4) Edmund of Langley
5) Thomas of Woodstock
Henry IV's legitimisation but exclusion of the Beauforts excluded those of line 3 only, from 1471. Similarly, legitimate line 1 was extinct from 1399 (or 1400).
Edward IV and his siblings were 234.
Henry of Buckingham was a 35.
Henry Tudor was a 3.
Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
you are correct stephen. my genealogy program was set not to show order of birth.
my post therefore is actually very wrong. i just adjusted the program.
here is the correct birth order.
1 Edward III Plantagenet 1312 -
.. +Phillipa de Hainault 1311 -
........ 2 Edward Bl. Prince Plantagenet 1330 -
............ +Joan de Kent Plantagenet 1328 -
........ 2 Isabel Plantagenet 1332 -
............ +Enguerrand de Coucy VII 1343 -
........ 2 Mary Plantagenet 1334 -
............ +John of Brittany 1339 - 1399
........ 2 Lionel Antwerp Plantagenet 1338 -
............ +Elizabeth de Burgh 1332 -
........ 2 John Gaunt Plantagenet 1339/40 - 1398/99
............ +Blanche Plantagenet 1345 -
........ *Friend of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Marie de St. Hilaire 1340 -
........ *2nd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Katherine Roet 1350 - 1403
........ *3rd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Constance de Castile 1354 - 1393/94
........ 2 Edmund Langley Plantagenet 1341 -
............ +Isabella Infanta de Castile 1361 -
........ 2 Thomas Woodstock Plantagenet 1353/54 -
............ +Eleanor Bohun
*Partner of Edward III Plantagenet:
.. +Alice Perrer Perrers
however, inspite of the previous errors. the mortimor claim still supercedes the illegal beaufort claim to the throne.
--- On Tue, 10/9/12, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 4:17 AM
Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Taking his other sons only, the order is:
1) Edward of Wales
2) Lionel of Antwerp
3) John of Gaunt
4) Edmund of Langley
5) Thomas of Woodstock
Henry IV's legitimisation but exclusion of the Beauforts excluded those of line 3 only, from 1471. Similarly, legitimate line 1 was extinct from 1399 (or 1400).
Edward IV and his siblings were 234.
Henry of Buckingham was a 35.
Henry Tudor was a 3.
Robert, Earl of Essex (x.1601) was a 2345.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
you are correct stephen. my genealogy program was set not to show order of birth.
my post therefore is actually very wrong. i just adjusted the program.
here is the correct birth order.
1 Edward III Plantagenet 1312 -
.. +Phillipa de Hainault 1311 -
........ 2 Edward Bl. Prince Plantagenet 1330 -
............ +Joan de Kent Plantagenet 1328 -
........ 2 Isabel Plantagenet 1332 -
............ +Enguerrand de Coucy VII 1343 -
........ 2 Mary Plantagenet 1334 -
............ +John of Brittany 1339 - 1399
........ 2 Lionel Antwerp Plantagenet 1338 -
............ +Elizabeth de Burgh 1332 -
........ 2 John Gaunt Plantagenet 1339/40 - 1398/99
............ +Blanche Plantagenet 1345 -
........ *Friend of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Marie de St. Hilaire 1340 -
........ *2nd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Katherine Roet 1350 - 1403
........ *3rd Wife of John Gaunt Plantagenet:
............ +Constance de Castile 1354 - 1393/94
........ 2 Edmund Langley Plantagenet 1341 -
............ +Isabella Infanta de Castile 1361 -
........ 2 Thomas Woodstock Plantagenet 1353/54 -
............ +Eleanor Bohun
*Partner of Edward III Plantagenet:
.. +Alice Perrer Perrers
however, inspite of the previous errors. the mortimor claim still supercedes the illegal beaufort claim to the throne.
--- On Tue, 10/9/12, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Tuesday, October 9, 2012, 4:17 AM
Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
karen
joan beaufort was born illegitimate, but parliament allowed the beaufort children to be legitimized. however, they were barred from ever inheriting the throne. (not that it mattered n the end. kind of makes me wonder if that is where the term bastard began its negative connotation. h7 was mean spirited and ill tempered).
plus joan was a female, so her lineage didn't really count for too much, unless the male line died out. this how margaret beaufort was able to "claim" the throne in the name of her son.
richard and his brothers, et al gained their right to inherit the throne via a legitimate female line..
lionel of antwerp m elizabeth de burgh
/
phillipa plantagent m. roger mortimer
/
roger mortimer (jr) m.ailanor de holand
/
anne mortimer m. richard d'conisburgh plantagent.
/
richard of york m. cecily neville.
he was the father of e4 and r3.
the mortimer line was superiour to the beaufort line.
richard d'conisburgh plantagent was the son of
edmund langley plantagent.
edmund was a younger brother to lionel. so the mortimer line still trumps the edmund of langley line.
edmund's line was still superiour to the beaufort line.
and then there was thomas of woodstock, yet another older brother to john of gaunt, producer of the beaufort line.
so the beaufort illegitmacy had a lot of plantagenet lineage to get past to even begin to whisper at a claim to the throne.
beaufort's legitmate son, henry bolingbroke USURPED the throne from richard ii. the beaufort illegits hung close and gained from their half siblings "illegal" rise in power.
richard's beaufort grandmother played absolutely no role in richard's right to claim the throne.
richard's father simply put forth his LEGAL right to the throne via his mortimer bloodline. this action began the cousin's war, more popularly known as the wars of the roses.
--- On Mon, 10/8/12, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
To:
Received: Monday, October 8, 2012, 6:47 PM
Marianne
Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's
doesn't either. I have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their
heads against the wall when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Karen
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 17:44:02 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Dear Karen,
>
> Sometimes I wonder if people forget, when they fling the words
> 'bastard'
> about, that Richard III's grandmother was illegitimate.
Indeed. And so was my maternal grandfather, a very fine man.
And Richard seems to have been a good father to his own illegitimate
children.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:07:45
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" - and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time. Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Sc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time. Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Sc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:16:30
The statement was "Henry Tudor was of a bastard branch". It struck me as
odd, and more than a little disingenuous, to hold this against one man when
being 'of a bastard branch' isn't held against Richard. Not that it should
be held against either of them. Once they were crowned, it made no
difference to the legality of their kingship.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:57:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about the
following statement:
>
> "Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
>
> I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs to be
taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a bastard!"
when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is never said to
be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not something I particularly
enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more balanced view of Richard
across to the world without constantly shooting ourselves in the foot with
arguments that defy logic.
Carol responds:
Has anyone on this forum or elsewhere ever actually said that Henry VII was
a bastard? I'm pretty sure that the usual statement is that he came from an
illegitimate line on both sides, that his mother's Beaufort line was barred
from the throne, and that the Tudor side had no claim whatever. His
*father,* so far as we know, actually was a bastard, no proof of Catherine
of Valois's marriage to Owen Tudor ever having been produced. Henry's
*claim* was illegitimate. He, himself, was not. Since you already know all
this, we seem to be going around in circles here.
By the way, someone, I think it was Eileen, said that Thomas of Woodstock
was John of Gaunt's older brother. Actually, the reverse is true. The reason
that Buckingham's claim to the throne was superior to the Tydder's is that
he, Buckingham, came from a legitimate (male) line from Thomas of Woodstock.
"Why brand they us with base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?" Good
question, Edmund!
Carol
Carol
odd, and more than a little disingenuous, to hold this against one man when
being 'of a bastard branch' isn't held against Richard. Not that it should
be held against either of them. Once they were crowned, it made no
difference to the legality of their kingship.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:57:47 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> This isn't about anyone's claim to the throne (or otherwise). It was about the
following statement:
>
> "Henry VII was descended from Joan Beaufort, therefore he was a bastard."
>
> I was simply pointing out that if that applies to Henry, it also applies to
Richard. I really didn't think it would be this difficult. More care needs to be
taken when things are said out there in the world. "Henry Tudor was a bastard!"
when he shared at least one set of ancestors with Richard (who is never said to
be a 'bastard') makes us look like idiots. That's not something I particularly
enjoy. It's difficult enough to try and get a more balanced view of Richard
across to the world without constantly shooting ourselves in the foot with
arguments that defy logic.
Carol responds:
Has anyone on this forum or elsewhere ever actually said that Henry VII was
a bastard? I'm pretty sure that the usual statement is that he came from an
illegitimate line on both sides, that his mother's Beaufort line was barred
from the throne, and that the Tudor side had no claim whatever. His
*father,* so far as we know, actually was a bastard, no proof of Catherine
of Valois's marriage to Owen Tudor ever having been produced. Henry's
*claim* was illegitimate. He, himself, was not. Since you already know all
this, we seem to be going around in circles here.
By the way, someone, I think it was Eileen, said that Thomas of Woodstock
was John of Gaunt's older brother. Actually, the reverse is true. The reason
that Buckingham's claim to the throne was superior to the Tydder's is that
he, Buckingham, came from a legitimate (male) line from Thomas of Woodstock.
"Why brand they us with base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?" Good
question, Edmund!
Carol
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:19:31
I'd just like to see the source where Henry, personally, claims this. We are
(correctly) pretty rigorous with a lot of sources to do with a lot of things
at the time, that should extend to this as well.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:07:33 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" -
and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or
insight.
----- Original Message -----
(correctly) pretty rigorous with a lot of sources to do with a lot of things
at the time, that should extend to this as well.
Karen
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:07:33 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" -
and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or
insight.
----- Original Message -----
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:22:42
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
>
> Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
Carol responds:
Oh, good point. The Beaufort women were heiresses, after all, and marriage to one or descent through one in the female line didn't *preclude* any man from having a claim to the throne if he had a legitimate claim in the male line. But descent from one in either line did not in itself *constitute* a claim to the throne. Which takes us back to the claimless (but legitimate <winks at Karen>) Henry Tudor.
Carol
>
> Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the youngest healthy son.
Carol responds:
Oh, good point. The Beaufort women were heiresses, after all, and marriage to one or descent through one in the female line didn't *preclude* any man from having a claim to the throne if he had a legitimate claim in the male line. But descent from one in either line did not in itself *constitute* a claim to the throne. Which takes us back to the claimless (but legitimate <winks at Karen>) Henry Tudor.
Carol
Heirs (WAS: bastards)
2012-10-09 16:27:01
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
> <snip>
By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
Carol responds:
To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive, and any other heir-splitting term that might apply?
Carol, hoping that everyone will forgive the pun
> <snip>
By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
Carol responds:
To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive, and any other heir-splitting term that might apply?
Carol, hoping that everyone will forgive the pun
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:32:17
Carol
Totally claimless through descent, I agree!
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:22:40 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
>
> Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had
legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the
youngest healthy son.
Carol responds:
Oh, good point. The Beaufort women were heiresses, after all, and marriage
to one or descent through one in the female line didn't *preclude* any man
from having a claim to the throne if he had a legitimate claim in the male
line. But descent from one in either line did not in itself *constitute* a
claim to the throne. Which takes us back to the claimless (but legitimate
<winks at Karen>) Henry Tudor.
Carol
Totally claimless through descent, I agree!
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:22:40 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
>
> Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had
legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the
youngest healthy son.
Carol responds:
Oh, good point. The Beaufort women were heiresses, after all, and marriage
to one or descent through one in the female line didn't *preclude* any man
from having a claim to the throne if he had a legitimate claim in the male
line. But descent from one in either line did not in itself *constitute* a
claim to the throne. Which takes us back to the claimless (but legitimate
<winks at Karen>) Henry Tudor.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:45:20
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to talking about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" - and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time. Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Sc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" - and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time. Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Sc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence
that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then
he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat
such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a
perfectly good explanation for the error. There's no mention of Henry VI in
the bit you quote below, he isn't claiming that 'lineal descent' is from
Henry VI. Unless we do come across something directly attributable to Henry,
applying the 'what is more likely? and what requires less complex
explanation?' test to the French quote, the thing that makes the most sense
is if the error or confusion or whatever it was originated in the French
text. Henry's French backers may well have been confused about his lineage,
given the messy politics of England and Henry's connection to Henry VI via
his father, but lying to a king whose help you need probably isn't an
enormously wise thing to do, especially if the lie is easily exposed. (What
is more likely? and what requires less complex explanation? are questions I
apply to history all the time. That doesn't mean I disregard things that
seem highly unlikely or are extremely complex, but leaping to conclusions
that fit my view of things is something I try hard to avoid.)
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:43:45 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Yes, "fils du feu roi Henri VI", in modern French (= in English "son of the
late king Henry VI") is how Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
passage. What I'm asking is how that statement seems to be the result of
confusion?
Charles and his advisers were at that time throwing huge amounts of money at
Tudor and his fellow exiles in order to maintain them in opposition to the
English government. In late 1484 Tudor was sending out circulars to people
in England asking them to support his invasion for "the furtherance of my
rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown, and for the just
depriving of that homicide and unnatural tyrant which now unjustly bears
dominion over you". (BL Harleian MS 787, f.2.)
The above letter, which ends in royal vein, "Given under our signet. H.", is
an unequivocal statement that Tudor is claiming the crown of England by
right of "due and lineal inheritance".
Were Henry's French backers confused about his genealogy? Was the writer
confused between "fils" (son) and "demi-frère" (half-brother)? Do you have a
more accurate version for comparison?
Thanks, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Annette
Here's the source, which I'm sure you're familiar with.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UiRKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=fils+
du+feu+roy+Henry+d%27Angleterre+toulon&source=bl&ots=13Wdt7EiE5&sig=5U1JiaW
m
sP_yNvVH9VKxe0yeg0Y&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fils%20du%20feu%20roy%20H
e
nry%20d'Angleterre%20toulon&f=false
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:12:40 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
//snip// The only mention I've come across of Henry VII being Henry VI's son
is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.//snip//
This is very interesting. Do you mean confusion on the part of historians
Michael K Jones and John Ashdown-Hill? If so, I'll be happy to ask them.
Or do you mean confusion on the part of Charles VIII and his advisers in
their composition of the king's letter in support of Henry Tudor addressed
to the town of Toulon?
Or do you have another more accurate version of the same proclamation that
you're comparing it with? If so, what does that say?
Or is this your personal opinion? To which you are entitled, of course.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
I understand all that, I really do. Henry VII's primary claim was through
conquest, the Beaufort stuff was there for good measure, as was his
marriage. And it's not part of my point at all, which was very simple: If
Henry VII was somehow a bastard because of his Beaufort descent, then so
was
Richard. In reality, neither of them were bastards. Using these arguments
'out there' leads us into trouble because they're so easily knocked down.
Henry VI seems to have utterly forgiven his mother for her marriage to Owen
Tudor. He gave both his half brothers earldoms and, in the same act of
parliament, lauds his mother to the hilt. The only mention I've come across
of Henry VII being Henry VI's son is in a French document and seems to be
the result of confusion rather than an outright lie.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:11:38 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Most decent men of the time acknowledged their illegitimate children. But
my
point wasn't about illegitimacy, as such. There's frustration out there in
the
world with Ricardian statements like "Henry VII was a bastard because he
was a
Beaufort!" and then "Oh, that doesn't count in Richard's case!" If
Richard's
Beaufort ancestry doesn't make him a 'bastard' then Henry's doesn't either.
I
have good (non-Ricardian) friends who want to bang their heads against the
wall
when this comes up. I fully understand why.
Carol responds:
But, again, Richard wasn't claiming the crown through his Beaufort descent.
Unlike Henry, he was descended in the male line from two other sons of
Edward III with no taint of illegitimacy there. The problem with the
Beauforts as claimants to the throne wasn't the (reversed) bastardy, it was
Henry IV's provision (legal or otherwise) barring them from the throne. No
Beaufort ever put forward a claim to the throne in Henry VI's time. They
were loyal Lancastrians to a man. And even Henry Tudor must have realized
that his Beaufort claim, through his mother, was not a true Lancastrian
one,
the male Lancastrian line having died out with Edward of Lancaster (whose
legitimacy was also challenged, but I don't want to go there). Richard's
claim, in contrast, was strictly Yorkist, through his father, who was
descended from both Lionel, Duke of Clarence, and Edmund, Duke of York.
(I'm
ignoring the rival claims of Edward's and George's children, who could
claim
the same ancestry through their fathers.)
Tudor's descent from John of Gaunt via his Beaufort mother was paltry by
comparison. Many Lancastrian heirs, including members of the Spanish,
Portuguese, and Burgundian royal families, had better claims through John
of
Gaunt's legitimate daughters. And Tudor's descent was tainted by
illegitimacy on the other side as well. There's no record of any marriage
between Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor, and even if she did marry
secretly, she did so against the express command of the king, which would
have made the marriage invalid from a medieval point of view.
In short, Henry had no claim, and he knew it. That's why he, first, lied
about being Henry VI's son; second, claimed the throne "by right of
conquest" rather than birth; and third, married Elizabeth of York (more to
pacify any Yorkists among his followers than to boost his shaky claim since
he didn't want to rule through his wife.
Carol
Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
2012-10-09 16:51:10
Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
> <snip>
By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
Carol responds:
To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive, and any other heir-splitting term that might apply?
Carol, hoping that everyone will forgive the pun
Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
> <snip>
By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
Carol responds:
To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive, and any other heir-splitting term that might apply?
Carol, hoping that everyone will forgive the pun
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 16:52:55
"as really it's down to talking about personal interpretations" Which is
what quite a lot of the study of history is all about.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:09 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485:
Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same
opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I
acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned
King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as
well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't
spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to talking
about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" -
and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or
insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important
thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals
to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time.
Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown
of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I
really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
what quite a lot of the study of history is all about.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:09 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485:
Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same
opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I
acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned
King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as
well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't
spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to talking
about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" -
and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or
insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important
thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals
to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time.
Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown
of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I
really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
2012-10-09 16:58:21
Thanks Annette, you have a way of making things so clear
Vickie
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
> <snip>
By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
Carol responds:
To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive, and any other heir-splitting term that might apply?
Carol, hoping that everyone will forgive the pun
Vickie
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:26 PM
Subject: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
> <snip>
By 1461, Edward IV was his heir-general and Henry VI his heir-male. By late 1471, Edward IV was both. The future Henry VII was neither and, by Henry IV's law, could never be either.
Carol responds:
To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive, and any other heir-splitting term that might apply?
Carol, hoping that everyone will forgive the pun
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 17:28:14
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Šc¹est que Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était] fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a perfectly good explanation for the error. <snip>
Carol responds:
Since Charles VIII was fourteen years old in November 1484 and not yet ruling in his own right, the support for Tudor's claim must have come from his advisers, all of whom were hostile to Richard and happy to support Tudor for that reason (not to mention that, barring Salic law, Tudor had a better claim to the throne of France than that of England). Since Charles's father, Louis XI, had taken an active role in the Wars of the Roses, managing to bring Margaret of Anjou to terms with Warwick in order to play them both against Edward IV, the French were thoroughly familiar with Lancastrian genealogy and knew quite well that the only son of Henry VI had died at Tewkesbury. They also knew quite well that the Tudors were descended from a Welsh minstrel and the daughter of the French king Charles VI.
So the "error" must be a fabrication for propaganda purposes, a twisting of facts similar to Henry Tudor's claim in the round-robin letter (also a propaganda device intended to recruit pro-Lancastrian malcontents). It appears that Tudor's "rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown" of which the "unnatural homicide" Richard III has "unjustly" deprived him must be this [obviously false] claim to be Henry VI's son. The whole letter is patently a tissue of lies, claiming that Richard has deprived *him* of his rightful crown, a claim continued after Bosworth when Richard and his followers are accused of treason against the rightful king.
If the Spider King had been alive at the time, I would suspect him of engineering the whole charade. Since he wasn't, I suspect Morton. It's certainly significant that both the French proclamation and the round robin date from November 1484. Whoever engineered the claim, the French and Tudor were working together. In any case, the French proclamation could not have resulted from ignorance as to Henry VI's descendants or Henry Tudor's ancestry. It must, therefore, have been a deliberate fabrication of which Henry Tudor appears to have taken full advantage.
Carol
>
> The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Šc¹est que Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était] fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence that this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then he'd have known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat such misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a perfectly good explanation for the error. <snip>
Carol responds:
Since Charles VIII was fourteen years old in November 1484 and not yet ruling in his own right, the support for Tudor's claim must have come from his advisers, all of whom were hostile to Richard and happy to support Tudor for that reason (not to mention that, barring Salic law, Tudor had a better claim to the throne of France than that of England). Since Charles's father, Louis XI, had taken an active role in the Wars of the Roses, managing to bring Margaret of Anjou to terms with Warwick in order to play them both against Edward IV, the French were thoroughly familiar with Lancastrian genealogy and knew quite well that the only son of Henry VI had died at Tewkesbury. They also knew quite well that the Tudors were descended from a Welsh minstrel and the daughter of the French king Charles VI.
So the "error" must be a fabrication for propaganda purposes, a twisting of facts similar to Henry Tudor's claim in the round-robin letter (also a propaganda device intended to recruit pro-Lancastrian malcontents). It appears that Tudor's "rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that crown" of which the "unnatural homicide" Richard III has "unjustly" deprived him must be this [obviously false] claim to be Henry VI's son. The whole letter is patently a tissue of lies, claiming that Richard has deprived *him* of his rightful crown, a claim continued after Bosworth when Richard and his followers are accused of treason against the rightful king.
If the Spider King had been alive at the time, I would suspect him of engineering the whole charade. Since he wasn't, I suspect Morton. It's certainly significant that both the French proclamation and the round robin date from November 1484. Whoever engineered the claim, the French and Tudor were working together. In any case, the French proclamation could not have resulted from ignorance as to Henry VI's descendants or Henry Tudor's ancestry. It must, therefore, have been a deliberate fabrication of which Henry Tudor appears to have taken full advantage.
Carol
Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
2012-10-09 17:31:13
Carol earlier:
>
> To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
>
> Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive
<snip>
"Annette Carson" responded:
>
> Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
> Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
> Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
> Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
> Cheers, Annette
Carol again:
Thanks very much, Annette! I'll keep a copy of this useful list for future reference.
Carol
>
> To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
>
> Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive
<snip>
"Annette Carson" responded:
>
> Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
> Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
> Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
> Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
> Cheers, Annette
Carol again:
Thanks very much, Annette! I'll keep a copy of this useful list for future reference.
Carol
Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
2012-10-09 18:17:58
Heir-male is also agnatic heir
Heir-general is also cognatic heir.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
Carol earlier:
>
> To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
>
> Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive
<snip>
"Annette Carson" responded:
>
> Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
> Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
> Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
> Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
> Cheers, Annette
Carol again:
Thanks very much, Annette! I'll keep a copy of this useful list for future reference.
Carol
Heir-general is also cognatic heir.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Heirs (WAS: bastards)
Carol earlier:
>
> To turn this thread in a slightly different direction, can someone explain this terminology to me:
>
> Heir general, heir male, heir apparent, heir presumptive
<snip>
"Annette Carson" responded:
>
> Heir male = inheritor through an exclusively male descent.
> Heir general = inheritor through descent that includes females.
> Heir apparent = the heir whom no other heir can displace.
> Heir presumptive = someone who is heir today, but whose place in the succession may be overtaken by someone who comes along with a superior claim (e.g. with the later birth of a superior heir).
> Cheers, Annette
Carol again:
Thanks very much, Annette! I'll keep a copy of this useful list for future reference.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-09 21:35:11
The Buckingham claim through Thomas of Woodstock was not a "male line" descent. The Staffords (formerly Bagots) obtained the Buckingham title through marrying Anne of Gloucester, eldest daughter of Woodstock. She was senior heiress to Thomas, and co-heir to the Bohuns (the cause of Henry Buckingham's begging the Bohun lands and titles from Richard III):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Gloucester%c2%a0
However this female link removes any title to the throne, as there were innumerable claimants through senior female lines, even excluding the Beauforts.
The reason Richard's treacherous pal might have been persuaded to support Henry Tudor was as possible nominal heir of Henry to the Beaufort claim. If Henry died without producing children, then who would be his heir? His claim was through his mother, but she could produce no more offspring. So tracing the Beaufort line we come to the 6 daughters of Edmund Beaufort, the Duke of Somerset killed at St Albans (and just possibly father of Edmund Tudor):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Family
Buckingham's mother was one of these, but only the third. Following the principle that a kingdom could not be divided, and that (as in the case of Elizabeth of York) the eldest daughter carries the royal claim, Buckingham would have had to dispose of the claims of the eldest daughter Eleanor, who was married to Sir Robert Spencer of Wormleighton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Beaufort
Her son Henry Spencer would therefore have been senior claimant to any Beaufort line. As the son of a minor west country knight he would hardly have been a match for Buckingham. His sister's descendants include a mistress (and possibly illegitimate children) of Henry VIII, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill and Diana Spencer.
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 16:32
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
Totally claimless through descent, I agree!
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:22:40 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
>
> Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had
legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the
youngest healthy son.
Carol responds:
Oh, good point. The Beaufort women were heiresses, after all, and marriage
to one or descent through one in the female line didn't *preclude* any man
from having a claim to the throne if he had a legitimate claim in the male
line. But descent from one in either line did not in itself *constitute* a
claim to the throne. Which takes us back to the claimless (but legitimate
<winks at Karen>) Henry Tudor.
Carol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Gloucester%c2%a0
However this female link removes any title to the throne, as there were innumerable claimants through senior female lines, even excluding the Beauforts.
The reason Richard's treacherous pal might have been persuaded to support Henry Tudor was as possible nominal heir of Henry to the Beaufort claim. If Henry died without producing children, then who would be his heir? His claim was through his mother, but she could produce no more offspring. So tracing the Beaufort line we come to the 6 daughters of Edmund Beaufort, the Duke of Somerset killed at St Albans (and just possibly father of Edmund Tudor):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Beaufort,_2nd_Duke_of_Somerset#Family
Buckingham's mother was one of these, but only the third. Following the principle that a kingdom could not be divided, and that (as in the case of Elizabeth of York) the eldest daughter carries the royal claim, Buckingham would have had to dispose of the claims of the eldest daughter Eleanor, who was married to Sir Robert Spencer of Wormleighton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Beaufort
Her son Henry Spencer would therefore have been senior claimant to any Beaufort line. As the son of a minor west country knight he would hardly have been a match for Buckingham. His sister's descendants include a mistress (and possibly illegitimate children) of Henry VIII, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill and Diana Spencer.
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 16:32
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Carol
Totally claimless through descent, I agree!
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:22:40 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
"Stephen Lark" <wrote:
>
> Indeed. The Staffords, from the 2nd Duke, were maternal Beauforts but had
legitimate descent through Thomas of Woodstock, although I thought he was the
youngest healthy son.
Carol responds:
Oh, good point. The Beaufort women were heiresses, after all, and marriage
to one or descent through one in the female line didn't *preclude* any man
from having a claim to the throne if he had a legitimate claim in the male
line. But descent from one in either line did not in itself *constitute* a
claim to the throne. Which takes us back to the claimless (but legitimate
<winks at Karen>) Henry Tudor.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 01:09:42
A most illuminating comment, Karen.
Regards. Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
"as really it's down to talking about personal interpretations" Which is
what quite a lot of the study of history is all about.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:09 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485:
Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same
opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I
acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned
King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as
well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't
spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to talking
about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" -
and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or
insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important
thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals
to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time.
Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown
of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I
really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
Regards. Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
"as really it's down to talking about personal interpretations" Which is
what quite a lot of the study of history is all about.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:09 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485:
Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same
opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I
acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned
King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as
well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't
spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to talking
about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
I can think of only one relevant word that could be confused with "fils" -
and the Tydder wasn't claiming to be Henry VI's daughter;)
I suppose we will have to go back to JAH and MKJ for other documents or
insight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Annette Carson
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Well, if this is an exercise in what you say it is ;-), and if the important
thing is whether Henry Tudor said it himself, I leave that up to individuals
to decide for themselves in the light of French politics of the time.
Otherwise I confess to being baffled how Henry Tudor could claim the crown
of England, with his own signet, by "due and lineal inheritance", and I
really don't think there is room for confusion in that statement.
Regards, Annette
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 01:31:59
Annette, I'm not sure why! Considering just how much personal interpretation
is represented here in this forum, not to mention the secondary sources we
severally and jointly refer to. The conclusion that Henry VII deliberately
lied about his parentage; that Richard III did or didn't murder his nephews;
that Elizabeth Wydeville was grasping; that Anne Nevill was a pawnŠ Pretty
much all of them personal interpretations by various historians. I haven't
read your book, but it's likely as full of personal interpretations as
anything written by anyone else. I'm sure we all try to be objective, but we
probably all have some kind of agenda. Mine is to try not to fall into any
of the traps that lurk for those with preconceived ideas.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:09:36 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
A most illuminating comment, Karen.
Regards. Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
"as really it's down to talking about personal interpretations" Which is
what quite a lot of the study of history is all about.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:09 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485:
Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same
opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I
acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned
King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as
well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't
spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to
talking
about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
is represented here in this forum, not to mention the secondary sources we
severally and jointly refer to. The conclusion that Henry VII deliberately
lied about his parentage; that Richard III did or didn't murder his nephews;
that Elizabeth Wydeville was grasping; that Anne Nevill was a pawnŠ Pretty
much all of them personal interpretations by various historians. I haven't
read your book, but it's likely as full of personal interpretations as
anything written by anyone else. I'm sure we all try to be objective, but we
probably all have some kind of agenda. Mine is to try not to fall into any
of the traps that lurk for those with preconceived ideas.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:09:36 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
A most illuminating comment, Karen.
Regards. Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Clark
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
"as really it's down to talking about personal interpretations" Which is
what quite a lot of the study of history is all about.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...
<mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:45:09 +0100
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: bastards
Stephen, you can read what Mike Jones says on pp. 124-125 of "Bosworth 1485:
Psychology of a Battle" (Tempus 2002). Dr Ashdown-Hill is of the same
opinion, in fact it was he who drew my attention to it, as I believe I
acknowledge in my endnote. My own comments are on pp. 244-235 of "Maligned
King", where the full text of Tudor's round-robin letter is also given, as
well as comments from other sources on Tudor's claim to the throne. I won't
spend any more time on this subject just now, as really it's down to
talking
about personal interpretations.
Regards, Annette
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 01:35:12
That's a very interesting set of speculations, Carol.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:28:13 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Šc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence that
this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then he'd have
known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat such
misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a perfectly
good explanation for the error. <snip>
Carol responds:
Since Charles VIII was fourteen years old in November 1484 and not yet
ruling in his own right, the support for Tudor's claim must have come from
his advisers, all of whom were hostile to Richard and happy to support Tudor
for that reason (not to mention that, barring Salic law, Tudor had a better
claim to the throne of France than that of England). Since Charles's father,
Louis XI, had taken an active role in the Wars of the Roses, managing to
bring Margaret of Anjou to terms with Warwick in order to play them both
against Edward IV, the French were thoroughly familiar with Lancastrian
genealogy and knew quite well that the only son of Henry VI had died at
Tewkesbury. They also knew quite well that the Tudors were descended from a
Welsh minstrel and the daughter of the French king Charles VI.
So the "error" must be a fabrication for propaganda purposes, a twisting of
facts similar to Henry Tudor's claim in the round-robin letter (also a
propaganda device intended to recruit pro-Lancastrian malcontents). It
appears that Tudor's "rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that
crown" of which the "unnatural homicide" Richard III has "unjustly" deprived
him must be this [obviously false] claim to be Henry VI's son. The whole
letter is patently a tissue of lies, claiming that Richard has deprived
*him* of his rightful crown, a claim continued after Bosworth when Richard
and his followers are accused of treason against the rightful king.
If the Spider King had been alive at the time, I would suspect him of
engineering the whole charade. Since he wasn't, I suspect Morton. It's
certainly significant that both the French proclamation and the round robin
date from November 1484. Whoever engineered the claim, the French and Tudor
were working together. In any case, the French proclamation could not have
resulted from ignorance as to Henry VI's descendants or Henry Tudor's
ancestry. It must, therefore, have been a deliberate fabrication of which
Henry Tudor appears to have taken full advantage.
Carol
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:28:13 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> The important thing here is that Charles VIII refers to Henry Tudor in this
way, not Henry himself. Unless we come across something like: "Šc¹est que
Monseigneur de Richemont, [qui dit au roi de France en personne qu'il était]
fils du feu roy Henry d¹Angleterre" then we can't say with any confidence that
this came from Henry. If Charles was aware of Henry's parentage, then he'd have
known he wasn't the son of Henry VI and why, then, would he repeat such
misinformation? If he wasn't aware of Henry's parentage, then that's a perfectly
good explanation for the error. <snip>
Carol responds:
Since Charles VIII was fourteen years old in November 1484 and not yet
ruling in his own right, the support for Tudor's claim must have come from
his advisers, all of whom were hostile to Richard and happy to support Tudor
for that reason (not to mention that, barring Salic law, Tudor had a better
claim to the throne of France than that of England). Since Charles's father,
Louis XI, had taken an active role in the Wars of the Roses, managing to
bring Margaret of Anjou to terms with Warwick in order to play them both
against Edward IV, the French were thoroughly familiar with Lancastrian
genealogy and knew quite well that the only son of Henry VI had died at
Tewkesbury. They also knew quite well that the Tudors were descended from a
Welsh minstrel and the daughter of the French king Charles VI.
So the "error" must be a fabrication for propaganda purposes, a twisting of
facts similar to Henry Tudor's claim in the round-robin letter (also a
propaganda device intended to recruit pro-Lancastrian malcontents). It
appears that Tudor's "rightful claim, due and lineal inheritance of that
crown" of which the "unnatural homicide" Richard III has "unjustly" deprived
him must be this [obviously false] claim to be Henry VI's son. The whole
letter is patently a tissue of lies, claiming that Richard has deprived
*him* of his rightful crown, a claim continued after Bosworth when Richard
and his followers are accused of treason against the rightful king.
If the Spider King had been alive at the time, I would suspect him of
engineering the whole charade. Since he wasn't, I suspect Morton. It's
certainly significant that both the French proclamation and the round robin
date from November 1484. Whoever engineered the claim, the French and Tudor
were working together. In any case, the French proclamation could not have
resulted from ignorance as to Henry VI's descendants or Henry Tudor's
ancestry. It must, therefore, have been a deliberate fabrication of which
Henry Tudor appears to have taken full advantage.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 03:54:08
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> That's a very interesting set of speculations, Carol.
>
Carol responds:
Thank you, I think. You'll note, though, that I did indicate when I was speculating. That the French court was thoroughly familiar with both Lancastrian and Tudor genealogy is, however, a fact, as is the close blood connection between the Houses of Lancaster, Valois, and, later, Tudor. That Charles VIII was a minor and not yet ruling in his own name is also a fact. The regent was his sister, Anne of Beaujeau, who ruled in his name until 1491. As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both the proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own opinion, but it is certainly in character. And both the timing and the contents of the proclamation and the round robin suggest (but, of course, don't prove) that they were tied together.
By the way, Karen, I do recommend Annette's book, which does exactly what you say that you want to do--examine the facts with as few preconceptions as possible and acknowledge speculation and bias when it occurs.
I'm a bit tired of the acrimony on this thread, so I'll drop the subject for now.
Carol
>
> That's a very interesting set of speculations, Carol.
>
Carol responds:
Thank you, I think. You'll note, though, that I did indicate when I was speculating. That the French court was thoroughly familiar with both Lancastrian and Tudor genealogy is, however, a fact, as is the close blood connection between the Houses of Lancaster, Valois, and, later, Tudor. That Charles VIII was a minor and not yet ruling in his own name is also a fact. The regent was his sister, Anne of Beaujeau, who ruled in his name until 1491. As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both the proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own opinion, but it is certainly in character. And both the timing and the contents of the proclamation and the round robin suggest (but, of course, don't prove) that they were tied together.
By the way, Karen, I do recommend Annette's book, which does exactly what you say that you want to do--examine the facts with as few preconceptions as possible and acknowledge speculation and bias when it occurs.
I'm a bit tired of the acrimony on this thread, so I'll drop the subject for now.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 04:11:05
I think, by it's very nature, a lot of the ideas we have about history can't
be anything but speculative. I don't mean 'speculation' to be any kind of
insult! I'm tired of the acrimony as well, Carol. I've detected something of
a sneering tone from some people, and if I were a little thinner skinned, it
might bother me a great deal more than it does. I'd like to think
disagreement, discussion and debate are possible here without the need for
hostility.
I'm still ferreting my way through the 1450s at the moment, there are still
some documents I need to finish that off, but when I get to it I'll be happy
to take a look at Annette's book.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:54:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> That's a very interesting set of speculations, Carol.
>
Carol responds:
Thank you, I think. You'll note, though, that I did indicate when I was
speculating. That the French court was thoroughly familiar with both
Lancastrian and Tudor genealogy is, however, a fact, as is the close blood
connection between the Houses of Lancaster, Valois, and, later, Tudor. That
Charles VIII was a minor and not yet ruling in his own name is also a fact.
The regent was his sister, Anne of Beaujeau, who ruled in his name until
1491. As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both the
proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own opinion, but
it is certainly in character. And both the timing and the contents of the
proclamation and the round robin suggest (but, of course, don't prove) that
they were tied together.
By the way, Karen, I do recommend Annette's book, which does exactly what
you say that you want to do--examine the facts with as few preconceptions as
possible and acknowledge speculation and bias when it occurs.
I'm a bit tired of the acrimony on this thread, so I'll drop the subject for
now.
Carol
be anything but speculative. I don't mean 'speculation' to be any kind of
insult! I'm tired of the acrimony as well, Carol. I've detected something of
a sneering tone from some people, and if I were a little thinner skinned, it
might bother me a great deal more than it does. I'd like to think
disagreement, discussion and debate are possible here without the need for
hostility.
I'm still ferreting my way through the 1450s at the moment, there are still
some documents I need to finish that off, but when I get to it I'll be happy
to take a look at Annette's book.
Karen
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:54:06 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: bastards
Karen Clark wrote:
>
> That's a very interesting set of speculations, Carol.
>
Carol responds:
Thank you, I think. You'll note, though, that I did indicate when I was
speculating. That the French court was thoroughly familiar with both
Lancastrian and Tudor genealogy is, however, a fact, as is the close blood
connection between the Houses of Lancaster, Valois, and, later, Tudor. That
Charles VIII was a minor and not yet ruling in his own name is also a fact.
The regent was his sister, Anne of Beaujeau, who ruled in his name until
1491. As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both the
proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own opinion, but
it is certainly in character. And both the timing and the contents of the
proclamation and the round robin suggest (but, of course, don't prove) that
they were tied together.
By the way, Karen, I do recommend Annette's book, which does exactly what
you say that you want to do--examine the facts with as few preconceptions as
possible and acknowledge speculation and bias when it occurs.
I'm a bit tired of the acrimony on this thread, so I'll drop the subject for
now.
Carol
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 07:29:24
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both >the proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own >opinion, but it is certainly in character.
>Carol
What is a round robin, in this context?
In days of yore, before email and Facebook, my aunts used to circulate what they called round robins, which were letters that someone would start, mail to someone who would add more comments and information to the bottom, mail it to the next person, and so on. Eventually it would return to the originator, who would then be caught up on everyone's news, and would launch a new one into circulation.
We still have a number of these round robins from the 1940s and 50s, and they're fascinating looks at the ordinary lives of those times, long after all the participants are gone.
But I doubt that is what a Medieval round robin was. Educate me, someone?
Katy
> As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both >the proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own >opinion, but it is certainly in character.
>Carol
What is a round robin, in this context?
In days of yore, before email and Facebook, my aunts used to circulate what they called round robins, which were letters that someone would start, mail to someone who would add more comments and information to the bottom, mail it to the next person, and so on. Eventually it would return to the originator, who would then be caught up on everyone's news, and would launch a new one into circulation.
We still have a number of these round robins from the 1940s and 50s, and they're fascinating looks at the ordinary lives of those times, long after all the participants are gone.
But I doubt that is what a Medieval round robin was. Educate me, someone?
Katy
Re: bastards
2012-10-10 14:09:07
I remember many years ago when I was a little girl, Im not saying how many
years ago koff koff, but I remember my dad coming home from work one night
very upset. He had heard at work a story about a little boy going alone
into a public toilet where he was attacked and raped...Now Im pretty sure
his colleagues went home that day and told their families, who also spread
the word amongst family, friends and neighbours and I went to school and
told my friends who would have gone home and told their parents, who then
told....you get it. This story, which was very shocking at the time,
spread like wildfire because it actually was later announced in the
newspapers that it was a total fabrication. This could be construed as a
verbal round robin. Can you imagine in medieval England how easily a story
could be made up and spread around. Taverns, market places, in church,
housewives doing the washing etc., etc. Eileen
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:29 AM, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
>
> > As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both >the
> proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own >opinion,
> but it is certainly in character.
>
> >Carol
>
> What is a round robin, in this context?
>
> In days of yore, before email and Facebook, my aunts used to circulate
> what they called round robins, which were letters that someone would start,
> mail to someone who would add more comments and information to the bottom,
> mail it to the next person, and so on. Eventually it would return to the
> originator, who would then be caught up on everyone's news, and would
> launch a new one into circulation.
>
> We still have a number of these round robins from the 1940s and 50s, and
> they're fascinating looks at the ordinary lives of those times, long after
> all the participants are gone.
>
> But I doubt that is what a Medieval round robin was. Educate me, someone?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
years ago koff koff, but I remember my dad coming home from work one night
very upset. He had heard at work a story about a little boy going alone
into a public toilet where he was attacked and raped...Now Im pretty sure
his colleagues went home that day and told their families, who also spread
the word amongst family, friends and neighbours and I went to school and
told my friends who would have gone home and told their parents, who then
told....you get it. This story, which was very shocking at the time,
spread like wildfire because it actually was later announced in the
newspapers that it was a total fabrication. This could be construed as a
verbal round robin. Can you imagine in medieval England how easily a story
could be made up and spread around. Taverns, market places, in church,
housewives doing the washing etc., etc. Eileen
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:29 AM, oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
>
> > As for the speculations, for example, that Morton was behind both >the
> proclamation and the round robin, of course, that's only my own >opinion,
> but it is certainly in character.
>
> >Carol
>
> What is a round robin, in this context?
>
> In days of yore, before email and Facebook, my aunts used to circulate
> what they called round robins, which were letters that someone would start,
> mail to someone who would add more comments and information to the bottom,
> mail it to the next person, and so on. Eventually it would return to the
> originator, who would then be caught up on everyone's news, and would
> launch a new one into circulation.
>
> We still have a number of these round robins from the 1940s and 50s, and
> they're fascinating looks at the ordinary lives of those times, long after
> all the participants are gone.
>
> But I doubt that is what a Medieval round robin was. Educate me, someone?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.