Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Aurelius Conanus

At the Norfolk Study Day last year, I heard thatHenry Tudor, whilst in France before his invasion claimed to be the son of Henry VI, which leads me to an idea I expounded in the March bulletin:
It is hard to believe in Henry VI having two sons but is it almost as hard to believe, because of his unworldliness, that he fathered one. What does the group think???
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Aurelius Conanus


--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Hello Marie!
>
> You wrote: > When I called Buckingham a Lancastrian, I was thinking
> about what I'd read about his grandfathers and father.
> P.M. Kendall says they all fought for Henry VI.
> (Richard III, p. 209)
>
> I have a lot to learn about geneology, and I need to
> keep it more in mind as I'm studying Richard's life
> and times.
>
> I've looked at 2 charts, and if I understand them
> correctly, Buckingham's claim to the throne was
> stronger than Henry Tudor's because Buckingham's
> parents and grandparents were legitimate. Even though
> Thomas of Woodstock was younger than John of Gaunt,
> his descendant, Buckingham, descended from legitimate
> marriages.
>
> John of Gaunt's descendant, Henry Tudor, descended
> from two illigitimate unions--John and Katherine
> Swynford's plus Queen Catherine's and Owen Tudor's.
> Did these disqualify him automatically from the
> throne?
>
> Could Henry have claimed the throne in spite of these,
> if Richard II hadn't banned the Beauforts from the
> throne?
>
> Did Henry VII get away with breaking the rules of
> inheritance? Or does it look that way to me because I
> don't understand the rules?

Yes. I've just started looking at Buckingham to try and get a better
grasp. Early days yet, but he was evidently very interested in his
own royal blood. Apparently he had got himself granted the right to
bear Thomas of Woodstock's arms without any quartering, some years
before Edward IV died.
But he did also have a good Beaufort line. His mother, another
Margaret Beaufort, was a first cousin of Henry Tudor's mother.
Basically, John of Gaunt's son John Earl of Somerset had two sons who
produced issue: the elder, John (Henry Tudor's mother was his only
child) and the younger Edmund (had a large family, including
Buckingham's mother). The earldom (by then duchy) of Somerset passed
to Edmund after John's death, as it was held in tail male. Edmund had
two sons as well as a few daughters, but I don't think either of them
married, probably because of the wars.
Anyway, they weren't originally barred from the throne when Richard
II legitimised them. That was added later. And it is said that
Buckingham had procured for himself a copy of the original Act, in
which there was no mention of any exclusion from the succession.

Well, Henry knew he was breaking the rules of inheritance, I think
(although the legitimacy of Catherine de Valois's union with Owen
Tudor was not relevant since he would have had no claim through them
anyway). Which is why he based his claim on right of conquest and
dated his reign from the day before Bosworth.

Marie

> ***
>
> You wrote: Actually, I think it may have been someone
> else who gave the quotes?
> ***
>
> Colleen gave the four quotes in her post.
>
> ***
>
> I must admit at one point I was starting to wonder
> myself if myths &
> legends might actaully have some life of their own,
> some of the
> mythic parallels in this era are so extraordinary.
> But it makes much
> more sense if these were actually being contrived.
> ***
>
> It seems like a process of interaction to me. People
> tell the stories, which affect their attitudes and
> actions. Their actions create more stories, more
> conversation, attitude changes, more action down
> through the generations.
>
> Some people are more aware of the stories and the
> patterns than others. Some use the stories to give
> themselves an advantage over others, IMO.
>
> I'd say that only Henry VII and his supporters knew
> how sincerely they believed in the stories they told.
> We'll never have the evidence we need to prove that
> they were deliberately distorting facts and contriving
> the stories for their own advantage. We can only
> compare what they said to what they did, and decide
> for ourselves.
>
> In "Growing Up in Medieval London," Barbara Hanawalt
> says that people in those times had more faith in
> spoken oaths than written ones.
>
> So it seems to me that a lot of the evidence we'd need
> to give fair answers to the questions we're discussing
> is impossible to find. It never existed in visible,
> tangible form.
>
> ***
>
> You would think, wouldn't you, that with such stories
> current Henry
> VII could have made great capital out of naming
> Richard as a second
> AC or Godrich? Just as he could have made great
> capital out of
> accusing Richard straightforwardly of murdering the
> princes rather
> than just allowing people to think it. There must
> have been some
> reason why he didn't.
> ***
>
> I agree.
>
> My notion is that he didn't dare in the early years of
> his reign, because the living nephews might return to
> prove him wrong.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated 5/6/03 5:12:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
smlark@... writes:


> It is hard to believe in Henry VI having two sons but is it almost as hard
> to believe, because of his unworldliness, that he fathered one. What does
> the group think???

He must have. I think he had enough sense to recognize that his job as king
included fathering heirs and it only took him and Margaret eight years
because his confessor always told him never to have "sport" with his wife.
(Just got a biography on Henry VI so I've been reading up on this topic lol)
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

In a message dated 5/6/03 4:51:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
marie@... writes:


> and the younger Edmund (had a large family, including
> Buckingham's mother). The earldom (by then duchy) of Somerset passed
> to Edmund after John's death, as it was held in tail male. Edmund had
> two sons as well as a few daughters, but I don't think either of them
> married, probably because of the wars.
>

Was this the same Edmund Beaufort who was thought to have fathered Margaret
of Anjou's son Edward of Lancaster?
Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

From Lomond Handley
lomondhandley@...

Regarding the question of how the descent of King
Henry VII could support his claim to the throne, it
must not be forgotten that he married Elizabeth of
York, daughter of Edward IV, who herself had a valid
claim, as she was the rightful heir after her two
brothers, Edward V and Richard Duke of York, both of
whom had disappeared during mid-1483.

Henry wasted little time in marrying Elizabeth,
possibly going as far as to declare his intention of
doing so, even before the Battle of Bosworth and as he
hadn't set eyes on the lady previously, it is logical
to assume that he didn't do this for love of her,
although there is no doubt that their relationship
blossomed after their wedding and when she died in
childbirth some years later, having provided Henry
with a prolific brood,(which wasn't as many as her own
mother had produced), Henry was very upset and
sincerely mourned her.

It would seem that Henry Tudor's eagerness to marry
Elizabeth of York was 'Political' and had the added
bonus of consolidating his claim to the throne.

He may have married her after his coronation, which if
so was a shrewd move to ensure that he was safely
crowned, before taking a Queen.

It would be very difficult in that maze of Angevin
descendants to pinpoint who had the best claim to the
crown and even the most dedicated and learned
genealogists could be forgiven for declining to lay
odds on who was best qualified through their lineage.

One thing is certain in that Elizabeth of York had as
good a claim as anyone and was very popular.

The fate of her two brothers, (the princes in the
Tower), invoked much public sympathy and Henry Tudor
was no fool.

Lomond Handley


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

> From: LOMOND HANDLEY <lomondhandley@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:21:57 +0100 (BST)
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Genealogy of Henry Tudor and his
> right to the English crown.
>
> Henry wasted little time in marrying Elizabeth,
sorry to say that this is incorrect as Henry prevaricated, wanting to see
himself as King in his own right not as her husband. he waited so long in
fact that Parliament had to petition him after 18 months to marry her which
he then, reluctantly it seems, did.
Paul

> From: LOMOND HANDLEY <lomondhandley@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 10:21:57 +0100 (BST)
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Genealogy of Henry Tudor and his
> right to the English crown.
>
> The fate of her two brothers, (the princes in the
> Tower), invoked much public sympathy
this is just the Tudor propganda. Conjecture maybe, but sympathy, no.
Paul

Paul

In fact, Henry Tudor did not procrastinate at all over his marriage
to Elizabeth, since the wedding took place on 18th January 1486.
According to S.B. Chrimes, this was a mere two days after the papal
dispensation, necessary in order for the marriage to be valid and the
legitimacy of any children unquestionable, reached London. There was
also no delay in consummating the marriage, since Arthur Tudor was
born (presumably prematurely) on 18th September.

I wonder whether you are mixing up the marriage with Elizabeth's
coronation, which was somewhat delayed.

Interestingly enough, Tudor parted from previous practice in that he
did not have Parliament pass an Act setting out his title to the
throne - he simply had the Parliament of November 1485 declare that
the crown now vested in him, pretty much as a fait accompli.

Ann

> > Henry wasted little time in marrying Elizabeth,
> sorry to say that this is incorrect as Henry prevaricated, wanting
to see
> himself as King in his own right not as her husband. he waited so
long in
> fact that Parliament had to petition him after 18 months to marry
her which
> he then, reluctantly it seems, did.
> Paul