Henry Tudor's father

Hello Victoria!

You wrote: (Just got a biography on Henry VI so I've
been reading up on this topic lol)
***

Have you read anything about Henryýs activities and
whereabouts in April/May of 1456? Is it possible that
he got together with Margaret Beaufort then?

TIA!

Marion


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Apologies if two copies of this post show up. It
looks like my first effort didn't go through.

Hello Stephen!

You wrote: At the Norfolk Study Day last year, I heard
that Henry 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???
***

It sounds like Henry was accusing his mother Margaret
Beaufort of adultery. Is it likely he would have done
that? Wasnýt that asking for trouble?

According to what Iýve just read, Margaret Beaufort
married her first husband in 1456. She was 13 years
old. She gave birth to Henry Tudor on Jan. 28, 1957.


In order for Henry VI to have been Henry Tudorýs
father, Henry VI and Margaret would have had to commit
adultery sometime in April or May of 1456. How likely
was that?

If Henry VIýs confessor told him not to ýsportý with
his own wife, what would that confessor say about
making another manýs wife pregnant?

It sounds completely out of character for Henry VI to
me.

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

I think this was being claimed in France on his behalf. Presumably
his real link to the Lancastrian line was both too complicated and
too unimpressive. I don't imagine it would have involved his mother.
I guess folk were meant to assume he was a son of Margaret of Anjou.

Marie

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Apologies if two copies of this post show up. It
> looks like my first effort didn't go through.
>
> Hello Stephen!
>
> You wrote: At the Norfolk Study Day last year, I heard
> that Henry 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???
> ***
>
> It sounds like Henry was accusing his mother Margaret
> Beaufort of adultery. Is it likely he would have done
> that? Wasn't that asking for trouble?
>
> According to what I've just read, Margaret Beaufort
> married her first husband in 1456. She was 13 years
> old. She gave birth to Henry Tudor on Jan. 28, 1957.
>
>
> In order for Henry VI to have been Henry Tudor's
> father, Henry VI and Margaret would have had to commit
> adultery sometime in April or May of 1456. How likely
> was that?
>
> If Henry VI's confessor told him not to "sport" with
> his own wife, what would that confessor say about
> making another man's wife pregnant?
>
> It sounds completely out of character for Henry VI to
> me.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com

Hello Stephen!

You wrote: At the Norfolk Study Day last year, I
heard that Henry 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???

***

It sounds like Henry was accusing his mother, Margaret
Beaufort of adultery. Is it likely he would have done
that? Wasnýt that asking for trouble?

According to what Iýve just read, Margaret Beaufort
married her first husband in 1456. She was 13 years
old. She gave birth to Henry Tudor on Jan. 28, 1957.
(Richard III, P.M. Kendall)

In order for Henry VI to have been Henry Tudorýs
father, Henry VI and Margaret would have had to commit
adultery sometime in April or May of 1456. How likely
was that?

If Henry VIýs confessor told him not to ýsportý with
his own wife, what would that confessor say about
making another manýs wife pregnant?

It sounds completely out of character for Henry VI to
me.

Marion


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

I knew I'd recently seen something about this topic but have only just found
the reference. It is, as I should have known, but forgive me that a veil
often passes over my brain when Tydder is mentioned, in Michael Jones book
on Bosworth.

"In November 1484 the minority government of Charles VIII (of France)
formally approved Henry's claim as king (of England) and promised its
backing. Yet astonishingly his right to that position was deemed to be that
he was a younger son of the murdered Lancastrian King Henry VI. What on
earth was going on here? The French were well aware who Henry Tudor was, for
his uncle Jasper had been a pensioner at he court of Charles's father, Louis
XI. They were also fully aware that Henry VI had no son other than his sole
heir, cut down in the aftermath of the battle of Tewkesbury.
Tudor was being asked to play the part of a pretender.

Although the French government knew Henry's real identity, the majority of
the populace had no idea who he was......The regime was being criticised
internally for lacking a dynamic foreign policy. The arrival of Tudor and
his band of exiles was fortuitous if they could be made to appear an obvious
threat to Richard III and hence a powerful resource for French strategy. The
vagaries of Henry's Lancastrian lineage, and a marriage (to Elizabeth of
York) that might or might not take place, were insufficiently impressive. He
would have to be dressed in a different royal outfit to be the French
candidate of choice.......
Towards the end of their stay in Brittany, Henry and his supporters had been
in receipt of a monthly stipend in recognition of their rank and status. The
French were not moved to continue this and in its place made a one-off
payment, with conditions. Tudor was in no position to decline. He would play
his part as a pretended son and heir of the Lancastrian Henry VI.......
It was not enough for the French regime to announce the arrival of a son of
Henry VI. They wanted to show Henry Tudor, their adopted pretender, now
acting the part. A confident assertion of kingship was required. So Henry
wrote as if he were already king,...and used a regal signature, a large
stylised capital 'H' to push his point home."
Pretty clear explanation and typical of the French who, as Michael also
said, would over the years show a predeliction for supporting pretenders to
the English throne.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I knew I'd recently seen something about this topic but have only
just found
> the reference. It is, as I should have known, but forgive me that a
veil
> often passes over my brain when Tydder is mentioned, in Michael
Jones book
> on Bosworth.
>
> "In November 1484 the minority government of Charles VIII (of
France)
> formally approved Henry's claim as king (of England) and promised
its
> backing. Yet astonishingly his right to that position was deemed to
be that
> he was a younger son of the murdered Lancastrian King Henry VI.
What on
> earth was going on here? The French were well aware who Henry Tudor
was, for
> his uncle Jasper had been a pensioner at he court of Charles's
father, Louis
> XI. They were also fully aware that Henry VI had no son other than
his sole
> heir, cut down in the aftermath of the battle of Tewkesbury.
> Tudor was being asked to play the part of a pretender.
>
> Although the French government knew Henry's real identity, the
majority of
> the populace had no idea who he was......The regime was being
criticised
> internally for lacking a dynamic foreign policy. The arrival of
Tudor and
> his band of exiles was fortuitous if they could be made to appear
an obvious
> threat to Richard III and hence a powerful resource for French
strategy. The
> vagaries of Henry's Lancastrian lineage, and a marriage (to
Elizabeth of
> York) that might or might not take place, were insufficiently
impressive. He
> would have to be dressed in a different royal outfit to be the
French
> candidate of choice.......
> Towards the end of their stay in Brittany, Henry and his supporters
had been
> in receipt of a monthly stipend in recognition of their rank and
status. The
> French were not moved to continue this and in its place made a one-
off
> payment, with conditions. Tudor was in no position to decline. He
would play
> his part as a pretended son and heir of the Lancastrian Henry
VI.......
> It was not enough for the French regime to announce the arrival of
a son of
> Henry VI. They wanted to show Henry Tudor, their adopted pretender,
now
> acting the part. A confident assertion of kingship was required. So
Henry
> wrote as if he were already king,...and used a regal signature, a
large
> stylised capital 'H' to push his point home."
> Pretty clear explanation and typical of the French who, as Michael
also
> said, would over the years show a predeliction for supporting
pretenders to
> the English throne.
> Paul

Yes, I'm sure it was Michael Jones at a talk in York last year said
there is a case for looking at Bosworth not as the last battle in the
Wars of the Roses but as the last battle of the Hundred Years War.
Food for thought, eh?

Marie

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:50 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father
>
> I'm sure it was Michael Jones at a talk in York last year said
> there is a case for looking at Bosworth not as the last battle in the
> Wars of the Roses but as the last battle of the Hundred Years War.
> Food for thought, eh?

Agreed, although I've always seen Shrewsbury as the first, and Stoke as the
last in the WOTR!
Doesn't mean Bosworth can't still be thelast of the Hundred Years War. It
was certainly the last time we were invaded by a foreign army......
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:47:50 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father
> >
> > I'm sure it was Michael Jones at a talk in York last year said
> > there is a case for looking at Bosworth not as the last battle in
the
> > Wars of the Roses but as the last battle of the Hundred Years War.
> > Food for thought, eh?
>
> Agreed, although I've always seen Shrewsbury as the first, and
Stoke as the
> last in the WOTR!
> Doesn't mean Bosworth can't still be thelast of the Hundred Years
War. It
> was certainly the last time we were invaded by a foreign army......
> Paul

Certainly Bosworth wasn't the last battle of the Wars of the Roses,
but the idea that this was the culmination of the French threat that
had been hanging over the country since we pulled out of France in
the 1450s is very interesting.

A propos of the French putting forward Henry Tudor as a younger son
of Henry VI . . . . As it happens I was reading an article by John
Ashdown-Hill in the Society's Festschrift last night which seems to
illuminate a few recent issues.
It seems the Lancastrian claim had nothing to do with John of Gaunt
as is now generally supposed (I guess they knew that wouldn't wash as
Lionel of Clarence's line had seniority). No, it seems Henry IV
claimed the throne through his late mother Blanche of Lancaster, who
was the heir of Edward I's brother Edmund Crouchback. The claim was
(and it had apparently been made before despite being bunk) that
Edmund Crouchback was older than Edward I but had been set aside
because of his mental debility.
So in fact only the descendants of John of Gaunt's marriage to
Blanche had any Lancastrian claim at all. And this was very well
known on the continent, because Henry IV's full sister, Philippa, was
the ancestress of the houses of Burgundy and Portugal, who cited it
at various times (Philip II of Spain actually tried to make good his
claim with the Armada - nothing to do with his former marriage to
Mary Tudor). Which would be why Henry Tudor was put forward in France
as a son of Henry VI, and why he had to use right of conquest as a
claim.

Of course, this wouldn't have worried those alchemists. They were
only looking for descendants of Cadwallader to fulfill the prophecies
and resummon King Arthur.

Unsurprisingly, the bastardy of Edward IV's children was also
accepted by these same European houses. So I think it also shows why
the Tudors were so insecure as to need to completely demonise the man
from whom they took the throne.
And if you wanted to regard John of Gaunt as the fount of the
Lancastrian dynasty, then before any Beaufort claim you had the house
of Castile with legitimate descent from Gaunt's second marriage. [In
reverse, the Yorkists had Castilian descent through Edmund of
Langley's wife Isabel of Castile, which apparently gave them some
sort of claim on that kingdom.] Consequently, both the Yorkists and
the Tudors showed an interest in marrying into the House of Castile.
Referring back to a recent topic on the forum: one of the the true
Lancastrian heirs (and potentially the most dangerous) when Henry VII
tried to marry Catherine of Aragon & Castile's sister Juana the Mad
was Juana's little son Charles, grandson of Mary of Burgundy (future
Emperor Charles V). . . . I wonder how long that little prince would
have lasted in stepdaddy's care.

Marie

This is all very interesting. I was under the impression that Henry
IV had sought to give legitimacy to his usurpation by claiming that
Edmund Crouchback had been the elder son of Henry III, but dropped
the idea when no evidence could be found. And I'd never heard of
Crouchback's 'mental debility' - I thought the suggestion was that he
was physically malformed (though no evidence of that either). I'll
have to look at my Festschrift volume and see what evidence Ashdown-
Hill comes up with.

Ann
>


> A propos of the French putting forward Henry Tudor as a younger son
> of Henry VI . . . . As it happens I was reading an article by John
> Ashdown-Hill in the Society's Festschrift last night which seems to
> illuminate a few recent issues.
> It seems the Lancastrian claim had nothing to do with John of
Gaunt
> as is now generally supposed (I guess they knew that wouldn't wash
as
> Lionel of Clarence's line had seniority). No, it seems Henry IV
> claimed the throne through his late mother Blanche of Lancaster,
who
> was the heir of Edward I's brother Edmund Crouchback. The claim was
> (and it had apparently been made before despite being bunk) that
> Edmund Crouchback was older than Edward I but had been set aside
> because of his mental debility.

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> This is all very interesting. I was under the impression that Henry
> IV had sought to give legitimacy to his usurpation by claiming that
> Edmund Crouchback had been the elder son of Henry III, but dropped
> the idea when no evidence could be found. And I'd never heard of
> Crouchback's 'mental debility' - I thought the suggestion was that
he
> was physically malformed (though no evidence of that either). I'll
> have to look at my Festschrift volume and see what evidence Ashdown-
> Hill comes up with.
>
> Ann


Hi. I know you'll read the article yourself, but just for any other
listers:
Ashdown-Hill doesn't suggest that Henry IV dropped the Crouchback
claim, although he would indeed have been unable to find any
documentary evidence to support it. His title as set out in
parliament is admittedly very vague but can only refer to the claim
through Crouchback - he was "descended by right line of blood coming
from Henry III'. Henry III being, of course, the father of Edward I
and Edmind Crouchback. Also, when Richard Duke of York laid his claim
to the throne before Parliament he brought forward this very issue,
quoting chapter and verse on the birthdates of Edward I and Edmund
Crouchback to give the lie to the Lancastrian story.
The mental debility refers to Adam of Usk's chronicle , which
says "they declared that the same Edmund was the eldest son of King
Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness, his birthright
had been set aside and his younger brother, Edward, preferred in his
place." Adam was apparently a personal friend of Richard II and very
close to events; he had even been with Richard for some time during
his imprisonment. It is of course not unusual for mental and physical
disabilities to go hand in hand.

In fact, I wonder - in naming his own second son Edward and third son
Edmund, was Richard Duke of York making the same point twenty years
earlier? Of course, these were family names but he may have been
aware of the double significance of using them in this way.

Marie

Exactly; I'm from Ipswich and J.A-H is my Chairman, his article being based on a lecture he gave us early last year. Henry VII's claim to be the son of Henry VI was indeed revealed by Michael K.Jones. Which leaves me thinking, who are Richard's heirs today? When I have some time, I intend to look them up properly, but there will be different answers depending on whether:
1) Edward IV was illegitimate,
2) His children were illegitimate,
3) The Beauforts were given the right to inherit the crown,
4) Clarence's attainder disqualified his descendents.
Four questions, sixteen possible cases.

I can just picture Mary Tudor surrounded by a husband and Archbishop (Cardinal Reginald POLE!), both of whom had good claims to her throne.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father


--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> This is all very interesting. I was under the impression that Henry
> IV had sought to give legitimacy to his usurpation by claiming that
> Edmund Crouchback had been the elder son of Henry III, but dropped
> the idea when no evidence could be found. And I'd never heard of
> Crouchback's 'mental debility' - I thought the suggestion was that
he
> was physically malformed (though no evidence of that either). I'll
> have to look at my Festschrift volume and see what evidence Ashdown-
> Hill comes up with.
>
> Ann


Hi. I know you'll read the article yourself, but just for any other
listers:
Ashdown-Hill doesn't suggest that Henry IV dropped the Crouchback
claim, although he would indeed have been unable to find any
documentary evidence to support it. His title as set out in
parliament is admittedly very vague but can only refer to the claim
through Crouchback - he was "descended by right line of blood coming
from Henry III'. Henry III being, of course, the father of Edward I
and Edmind Crouchback. Also, when Richard Duke of York laid his claim
to the throne before Parliament he brought forward this very issue,
quoting chapter and verse on the birthdates of Edward I and Edmund
Crouchback to give the lie to the Lancastrian story.
The mental debility refers to Adam of Usk's chronicle , which
says "they declared that the same Edmund was the eldest son of King
Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness, his birthright
had been set aside and his younger brother, Edward, preferred in his
place." Adam was apparently a personal friend of Richard II and very
close to events; he had even been with Richard for some time during
his imprisonment. It is of course not unusual for mental and physical
disabilities to go hand in hand.

In fact, I wonder - in naming his own second son Edward and third son
Edmund, was Richard Duke of York making the same point twenty years
earlier? Of course, these were family names but he may have been
aware of the double significance of using them in this way.

Marie


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.

Thank you. Of course, the fact that it was claimed that Edmund
Crouchback was mentally deficient doesn't mean that it was true. I'll
have to do some checking when I get home, but as far as I recall
Edmund, though somewhat in Edward's shadow (not surprisingly, as
Edward was such a larger-than-life individual) had a normally active
career, including acting as Keeper of the Realm during his brother's
absences abroad (this was not simply a nominal appointment as it
carried considerable power and there was a furore when Edward II made
Piers Gaveston Keeper!), and certainly married and had issue, which
to my mind doesn't go with any degree of mental deficiency. My
feeling is that any mentally deficient royal in those days would have
been quietly shunted off to a monastery.

You raise an interesting point about the names York gave his sons. Of
course, Edward and Edmund were very much family names - Edward was
the childless uncle from whom York inherited his dukedom, and Edmund
was his grandfather. The eldest son was called Henry, which I suspect
was simply an allusion to Henry VI, the monarch of the day. There
were two more who died in infancy - I will need to check on their
names, but I think that they were John and Thomas, both typical
later Plantagenet names. Finally we get to George - very much a
Neville name, and Richard after his papa.

Ann

> The mental debility refers to Adam of Usk's chronicle , which
> says "they declared that the same Edmund was the eldest son of King
> Henry III, but that on account of his mental weakness, his
birthright
> had been set aside and his younger brother, Edward, preferred in
his
> place." Adam was apparently a personal friend of Richard II and
very
> close to events; he had even been with Richard for some time during
> his imprisonment. It is of course not unusual for mental and
physical
> disabilities to go hand in hand.
>
> In fact, I wonder - in naming his own second son Edward and third
son
> Edmund, was Richard Duke of York making the same point twenty years
> earlier? Of course, these were family names but he may have been
> aware of the double significance of using them in this way.
>
> Marie

You wrote:
> Of course, the fact that it was claimed that Edmund
> Crouchback was mentally deficient doesn't mean that it was true.
I'll
> have to do some checking when I get home, but as far as I recall
> Edmund, though somewhat in Edward's shadow (not surprisingly, as
> Edward was such a larger-than-life individual) had a normally
active
> career, including acting as Keeper of the Realm during his
brother's
> absences abroad (this was not simply a nominal appointment as it
> carried considerable power and there was a furore when Edward II
made
> Piers Gaveston Keeper!), and certainly married and had issue, which
> to my mind doesn't go with any degree of mental deficiency. My
> feeling is that any mentally deficient royal in those days would
have
> been quietly shunted off to a monastery.

I'll have to pass on that as I don't know much at all about that
period. I'm sure you're right - you seem to know your stuff.As you
say, all we are talking about here is the argument put forward by
Henry IV in 1399; I suppose he had to come up with some reason why
Henry III would have swapped his sons.
Nobody shunted Henry VI off to a monastery though, even though he
wished they would. .
Marie

>
> You raise an interesting point about the names York gave his sons.
Of
> course, Edward and Edmund were very much family names - Edward was
> the childless uncle from whom York inherited his dukedom, and
Edmund
> was his grandfather. The eldest son was called Henry, which I
suspect
> was simply an allusion to Henry VI, the monarch of the day. There
> were two more who died in infancy - I will need to check on their
> names, but I think that they were John and Thomas, both typical
> later Plantagenet names. Finally we get to George - very much a
> Neville name, and Richard after his papa.

I agree that Henry must have been named for the King (as Margaret,
the first girl born after Henry's marriage, was surely named for the
Queen). After that most often the father's name (ie the child's
grandfather)would be honoured, except that in this case York couldn't
so easily use 'Richard' because of his father's treason. But you
might have expected the name of his grandfather instead rather than
his uncle, particularly as his Mortimer great-grandfather was also
Edmund. He may well have chosen that order of names anyway, of
course, but knowing the Lancastrian claim, York can hardly have been
unaware of the parallel.
After that it's difficult to know who the boys were named for. John
and Thomas may have been for Henry VI's uncles, maybe not. There was
another son after that who also died - William. Cecily did have a
brother of that name (Lord Fauconberg), but it could as easily have
been for St William of York. Just as the daughter who died in
infancy, Ursula, was alomst certainly named in honour of St Ursula of
the umpteen virgins (unless anybody else knows of another Ursula in
the family?).
You say George was 'very much a Neville name'. But again I feel St
George was probably more to the fore here. Yes, it's true that Cecily
had a brother George (Lord Latimer), and so did Salisbury (the later
Archbishop Neville). But this new use of the name was completely
linked to the cult of St George in England. I have my own theory on
why York chose to name this particular child George, but it's a bit
off the wall and I haven't researched it properly yet.

Marie

PS On the debit side for John A-H's article, I seem to rememeber once
reading (somewhere in the Complete Peerage, I think) that the Act of
Pariliament setting out Henry IV's claim alleged that Lionel of
Clarence's daughter Philippa was illegitimate. Rubbish again, of
course. But this would have given Henry a claim through John of Gaunt
himself. This is a very old memory (or fantasy?). Can anyone else
help here?

In a message dated 5/14/2003 3:34:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:

> I agree that Henry must have been named for the King (as Margaret,
> the first girl born after Henry's marriage, was surely named for the
> Queen).

I forgot which book I read this in...but in it the author states that
Margaret Beaufort did name Henry Tudor after Henry VI and that Henry VI was
his godfather as well.
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 5/14/2003 3:34:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@r... writes:
>
> > I agree that Henry must have been named for the King (as
Margaret,
> > the first girl born after Henry's marriage, was surely named for
the
> > Queen).
>
> I forgot which book I read this in...but in it the author states
that
> Margaret Beaufort did name Henry Tudor after Henry VI and that
Henry VI was
> his godfather as well.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulté Me Lie{

I'm sure she did name him after Henry VI - many of the aristocracy
did that. However, Henry Tudor was born in Pembroke Castle and
baptisms always took place within the first few days of life soHenry
can't have been the godfather; he didn't make any journeys like that
during that period, I'm pretty sure.
There was a tradition in many areas that children were named for
their godparents, and some authors seem to have assumed this was a
universal practice in the Middle Ages and included the aristocracy.
It wasn't universal as Nicholas Orme explains in his recent book, and
certainly the aristocracy didn't follow it particularly. Neither of
Edward of Lancaster's godfathers was named Edward, for instance. But
this may be how this statement originated.
Marie


>
>
>

Marie

You are entirely correct that baptisms always took place soon after
birth in this period - indeed often within hours of birth. However,
if the Catholic church allowed proxies to stand in for the godparents
there would be nothing to prevent Henry VI from being Henry Tudor's
godfather. Presumably parents chose the godparents before the birth,
and given that births did not necessarily happen on time and it would
be unrealistic to keep a set of aristocratic godparents waiting about
for 2-3 weeks so that they would be on hand for the baptism as soon
as the child arrived, I would imagine that proxies were often used if
the church permitted it.

Henry VI would be an obvious choice for Henry Tudor's godfather, as
he was Tudor's uncle and Tudor was born posthumously. It seems to me
that someone as pious as Henry VI would take a special interest in
the welfare of his fatherless nephew!

Ann

> I'm sure she did name him after Henry VI - many of the aristocracy
> did that. However, Henry Tudor was born in Pembroke Castle and
> baptisms always took place within the first few days of life
soHenry
> can't have been the godfather; he didn't make any journeys like
that
> during that period, I'm pretty sure.
>
> >

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> You are entirely correct that baptisms always took place soon after
> birth in this period - indeed often within hours of birth. However,
> if the Catholic church allowed proxies to stand in for the
godparents
> there would be nothing to prevent Henry VI from being Henry Tudor's
> godfather. Presumably parents chose the godparents before the
birth,
> and given that births did not necessarily happen on time and it
would
> be unrealistic to keep a set of aristocratic godparents waiting
about
> for 2-3 weeks so that they would be on hand for the baptism as soon
> as the child arrived, I would imagine that proxies were often used
if
> the church permitted it.
>
> Henry VI would be an obvious choice for Henry Tudor's godfather, as
> he was Tudor's uncle and Tudor was born posthumously. It seems to
me
> that someone as pious as Henry VI would take a special interest in
> the welfare of his fatherless nephew!
>
> Ann


I had thought of the possibility of a proxy, but:

a) Orme's quite detailed chapter on baptisms makes no mention of such
a practice. In fact, he indicates that for royal offspring at least
godparents were kept waiting in just the way you describe, and if
godparents weren't on hand the baby was kept waiting! Viz:

"Occasionally, baptism might be delayed by a day or two through the
need to contact godparents and by their travelling arrangements,
especially if the birth happened earlier than expected. The
fourtheenth-century version of the romance 'Lay le Freine' imagines
such a situation. A knight's wife gives birth to twins. He summons a
messenger and orders him to ride quickly to his neighbour, another
knight, to ask him to come to be his child's godparent.' (p24)

"Royal godparents were chosen before the birth and lodged nearby,
ready for the event." (p33)

"Henry VII's first child, Prince Arthur, was born on a Wednesday, 20
September 1486, at Winchester. . . and the christening was not
carried out until the following Sunday. It was a cold wet season, and
the Earl of Oxford, one of the intended godparents, was delayed in
arriving by floods." (p34)

Where the godparent was of higher status than the child's parents, I
grant that they could not have been summoned from afar. Still, I know
of no evidence that one could use a proxy. Weren't proxy marriages
followed up by face-to-face ones when the couple actually met?

b)Had Edmund Tudor wanted his child to be sponsored by Henry VI he
would surely have arranged for the baby to be born at Westminster
(Henry was born during the Christmas season, and the monarch always
kept Christmas at Westminster, so assuming Henry was actually due
then .....). But perhaps Margaret wanted to stay in Wales when
Edmund was imprisoned in Carmarthen, and then she was too far gone to
make the journey. Anyway, she was at Pembroke specifically because
Jasper Tudor had taken her into his care - I've absolutely no doubt
he was one of the godfathers (there would have been two, for a boy).
Whether Henry VI was mentally fit to take on such responsibilities by
1457 is a question in itself, of course.

.

I once read a novel - the sort that reads like incompletely
fictionalised history so you think everything in it comes from some
genuine source - which asserted that Margaret of Anjou was the
godmother of Margaret of York. Yet I see from Christine Weightman's
book that we know virtually nothing in fact about Margaret of York's
birth. Even the birthplace of Fotheringhay traditionally assigned to
her has turned out to be incorrect. So that royal godparent story at
least was assumption based merely on the name. Of course, the Queen
could have been one of Margaret's godmothers, but we don't KNOW. On
the subject of names, Orme writes:

"Philip Nimes . . found that out of 302 documented children, 261
(86%) were given the name of one of their godparents. . . . Louis
Haas, on the other hand, has argued the need to look beyond the
godparents. Using a smaller sample of feudal heirs in Yorkshire, he
pointed out that parents may have chosen godparents who would give
the name the parents wanted. Some godparents, he noticed, had the
same name as the gender parent; others, he thought, were inferior in
rank to the parents, implying that the latter selected them in order
to dictate the choice of name"
Henry Tudor, in other words, may have been named for the King but
have had some relatievly lowly Henry for a godfather.

I'm afraid I'll only be prepared to accept that Henry VI was Henry
Tudor's godfather if someone can quote me documentary evidence. And
then I'll pipe down. As John Ashdown-Hill observes in his article,
Tudor benefited from the sense of closeness to Henry VI, even though
he was not close in any way that gave him any claim to the throne.

Has anyone else read that Henry VI was Tudor's godfather?

Marie

Marie

There is a lot here. I've yet to get hold of Orme's book so my
suggestion of the use of proxies was no more than a hypothesis.

I will have to check on Edmund Tudor's movements (once again I'm at
work without the right books), but if I remember correctly he was
taken prisoner by the Yorkists some time in the summer/autumn of
1456, and died during the November, so for much of his wife's
pregnancy not in a position to make arrangements for the child to be
born at Westminster or wherever the king was at the due time. Henry
Tudor was born on 28th January 1457, rather after the Christmas
season, though we do not know whether he was early, late or roughly
on time.

Proxy marriages were indeed normally followed by face-to-face
weddings. Proxy godparents do occasionally appear today, though not
all that often as there isn't the hurry there used to be to get the
child baptised, but I don't know whether there is any sort of
formal 'taking-over' ceremony when the real godparent is finally in
the same place as the infant!

As far as I'm aware, Henry VI was reasonably compos mentis in late
1456 - early 1457.

Ann
>


> I had thought of the possibility of a proxy, but:
>
> a) Orme's quite detailed chapter on baptisms makes no mention of
such
> a practice. In fact, he indicates that for royal offspring at least
> godparents were kept waiting in just the way you describe, and if
> godparents weren't on hand the baby was kept waiting! Viz:
>
> "Occasionally, baptism might be delayed by a day or two through the
> need to contact godparents and by their travelling arrangements,
> especially if the birth happened earlier than expected. The
> fourtheenth-century version of the romance 'Lay le Freine' imagines
> such a situation. A knight's wife gives birth to twins. He summons
a
> messenger and orders him to ride quickly to his neighbour, another
> knight, to ask him to come to be his child's godparent.' (p24)
>
> "Royal godparents were chosen before the birth and lodged nearby,
> ready for the event." (p33)
>
> "Henry VII's first child, Prince Arthur, was born on a Wednesday,
20
> September 1486, at Winchester. . . and the christening was not
> carried out until the following Sunday. It was a cold wet season,
and
> the Earl of Oxford, one of the intended godparents, was delayed in
> arriving by floods." (p34)
>
> Where the godparent was of higher status than the child's parents,
I
> grant that they could not have been summoned from afar. Still, I
know
> of no evidence that one could use a proxy. Weren't proxy marriages
> followed up by face-to-face ones when the couple actually met?
>
> b)Had Edmund Tudor wanted his child to be sponsored by Henry VI he
> would surely have arranged for the baby to be born at Westminster
> (Henry was born during the Christmas season, and the monarch always
> kept Christmas at Westminster, so assuming Henry was actually due
> then .....). But perhaps Margaret wanted to stay in Wales when
> Edmund was imprisoned in Carmarthen, and then she was too far gone
to
> make the journey. Anyway, she was at Pembroke specifically because
> Jasper Tudor had taken her into his care - I've absolutely no doubt
> he was one of the godfathers (there would have been two, for a
boy).
> Whether Henry VI was mentally fit to take on such responsibilities
by
> 1457 is a question in itself, of course.
>

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Marie
>
> There is a lot here. I've yet to get hold of Orme's book so my
> suggestion of the use of proxies was no more than a hypothesis.
>
> I will have to check on Edmund Tudor's movements (once again I'm at
> work without the right books), but if I remember correctly he was
> taken prisoner by the Yorkists some time in the summer/autumn of
> 1456, and died during the November, so for much of his wife's
> pregnancy not in a position to make arrangements for the child to
be
> born at Westminster or wherever the king was at the due time.

Yes, I think I alluded to that. I'm also without all my notes due to
decorating; It doesn't help, does it? All I have is my family tree
software (which I should have checked for Henry's birth - you're
right. He was born rather later in the month than I remembered).
Theoretically Margaret could have made the arrangements for herself -
I'm sure she must still have been contact with Edmund and known his
wishes, but perhaps she didn't want to leave Wales while he was still
in prison, and then couldn't. Said software tells me Edmund Tudor
died on 3rd November.



> Tudor was born on 28th January 1457, rather after the Christmas
> season, though we do not know whether he was early, late or roughly
> on time.

Fair cop.

>
> Proxy marriages were indeed normally followed by face-to-face
> weddings. Proxy godparents do occasionally appear today, though not
> all that often as there isn't the hurry there used to be to get the
> child baptised, but I don't know whether there is any sort of
> formal 'taking-over' ceremony when the real godparent is finally in
> the same place as the infant!

That's interesting. Just after I posted I thought of a reason why
proxy godparents might not have been favoured. Simply that the
godparent - called by the church the sponsor - is a proxy to start
with - for the child. I must admit that in all my Catholic upbringing
I was never told of the possibility of using proxies at a baptism,
though I did hear about proxy marriages.

>
> As far as I'm aware, Henry VI was reasonably compos mentis in late
> 1456 - early 1457.

Yes, I'm aware that this wasn't during one of his periods of complete
and utter breakdown which necessitated a protectorate, but I think
his mental health was never very good after that. Indeed, he had been
accused of being somewhat soft in the head as early as the 1440s.
Also Hughes' book details the preoccupations of some of Henry's
physicians, which certainly suggest they thought they had a big
problem on their hands (including with Henry's libido, re earlier
debates about the paternity of Edward of Lancaster). Certainly he
didn't have enough get-up-and-go to be organising anything
personally, and whether anyone else at court was sufficiently
bothered I don't know. Certainly no one helped Edmund Tudor.

I'd still like to see any evidence that something as unusual as a
proxy baptism took place here. My suspicion is that, having the baby
in Pembroke Margaret would have made do with the best available - for
godfathers Jasper Tudor and perhaps the Bishop of St Davids if he was
around (I'm not convinced it had to be a Henry - compare George of
Clarence's baptism with godfathers James & Richard). Though I
wouldn't be at all surprised if Henry VII didn't later encourage the
idea that he was Henry VI's godson.

I don't think we're likely to agree, but for myself like St Thomas I
await the proofs.

Marie

--- In , aelyon2001 <
>
> I will have to check on Edmund Tudor's movements (once again I'm at
> work without the right books), but if I remember correctly he was
> taken prisoner by the Yorkists some time in the summer/autumn of
> 1456, and died during the November, so for much of his wife's
> pregnancy not in a position to make arrangements for the child to
be
> born at Westminster or wherever the king was at the due time. Henry
> Tudor was born on 28th January 1457, rather after the Christmas
> season, though we do not know whether he was early, late or roughly
> on time.
My last message seems to have got lost in the ether, so apologies if
you get all this twice.

Firstly, sorry, you're right about Henry's birthdate. I'm also
working without my notes due to decorating. But I do have a family
tree on computer, which I should have checked! I did in fact allude
to Margaret's possible logistical problems caused by her husband's
trouble. But presumably she was in touch with Edmund throughout.
>
> Proxy marriages were indeed normally followed by face-to-face
> weddings. Proxy godparents do occasionally appear today, though not
> all that often as there isn't the hurry there used to be to get the
> child baptised, but I don't know whether there is any sort of
> formal 'taking-over' ceremony when the real godparent is finally in
> the same place as the infant!

Interesting. I must admit I've never heard of proxy baptisms. I had a
pretty thorough old-fashioned Catholic education and the possibility
was never mentioned. In fact, I wondered afterwards whether the
problem with using proxies for godparents might not be the fact that
they themselves are proxies - for the child. The Church always refers
to them as sponsors.

>
> As far as I'm aware, Henry VI was reasonably compos mentis in late
> 1456 - early 1457.

Well, he wasn't having one of his two periods of total breakdown, but
one gets the impression his mental health was never very solid
afterwards. Indeed, I seem to remember a case back in the 1440s of
some poor man being tried for saying the King was the medieval
equivalent of daft as a brush. I suspect that in his 'lucid' periods
he was just lucid enough to sign what was needed. Hughes' book
discusses evidence from the writings of some of his physicians, which
apparently suggest they had serious concerns (including with Henry's
libido, re recent debates on the paternity of Prince Edward). I don't
get the impression HVI had much initiative left, so unless someone
else made the arrangements I can't see him getting to grips with the
coming Tudor infant (and certainly no one at court succeeded in doing
anything for Edmund Tudor).

My own feeling is that, having found herself in Pembroke, Margaret
would have made the best of it and had Jasper for one godfather and
the best available locally for the other - perhaps the Bishop of St
Davids if he was around. I'm not even convinced it had to be a Henry.
Every time I think of an aristocratic baptism where I know the
sponsors the names DON'T match the baby's. I've just remembered
George of Clarence and his godfathers James Earl of Ormond and Bishop
Richard Talbot.

I wouldn't put it past HT to encourage the idea later in life that
Henry VI had been his godfather, though.

I don't suppose we're likely to agree, but for myself like St Thomas
I await the proofs. Until then I'll continue to think it an unlikely
scenario.

Marie

In a message dated 5/15/2003 3:21:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:

> Neither of
> Edward of Lancaster's godfathers was named Edward, for instance. But
> this may be how this statement originated.
> Marie
>
Edward of Lancaster was named for St. Edward the Confessor because I believe
he was born on the saint's feast day (which I believe is October 14th or
15th). Henry Tudor was also born shortly after Henry VI awoke from his stupor
so he must have been really weak and probably couldn't have traveled to the
christening, come to think of it.
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

In a message dated 5/15/2003 12:33:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:

> Yes, I'm aware that this wasn't during one of his periods of complete
> and utter breakdown which necessitated a protectorate, but I think
> his mental health was never very good after that.

in 1455, around the Battle of St Albans, didn't Henry have a relapse? That
would have deteriortated him more by 1457
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 5/15/2003 3:21:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@r... writes:
>
> > Neither of
> > Edward of Lancaster's godfathers was named Edward, for instance.
But
> > this may be how this statement originated.
> > Marie
> >
> Edward of Lancaster was named for St. Edward the Confessor because
I believe
> he was born on the saint's feast day (which I believe is October
14th or
> 15th). Henry Tudor was also born shortly after Henry VI awoke from
his stupor
> so he must have been really weak and probably couldn't have
traveled to the
> christening, come to think of it.
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulté Me Lie{

Yes, it was good timing, particularly since Edward was born at
Westminster and could therefore be christened in the abbey. In fact,
Henry was still right in the middle of his stupour, and I'm pretty
sure he hadn't even made it back to Westminster. He certainly wasn't
at the christeneing.
But certainly Margaret didn't feel the need to find a godfather
called Edward. One was Edmund Duke of Somerset. The other was a
bishop, but offhand I can't remember which one. But he wasn't an
Edward. I remember thinking that when I read about it.

Marie
>
>
>

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 5/15/2003 12:33:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> marie@r... writes:
>
> > Yes, I'm aware that this wasn't during one of his periods of
complete
> > and utter breakdown which necessitated a protectorate, but I
think
> > his mental health was never very good after that.
>
> in 1455, around the Battle of St Albans, didn't Henry have a
relapse? That
> would have deteriortated him more by 1457
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulté Me Lie{


Yes, and there were suggestions of another brief one afterwards -
the following January perhaps, but I can't remember for sure.
Marie
>
>
>

> > >
> > Edward of Lancaster was named for St. Edward the Confessor
because
> I believe
> > he was born on the saint's feast day (which I believe is October
> 14th or
> > 15th). Henry Tudor was also born shortly after Henry VI awoke
from
> his stupor
> > so he must have been really weak and probably couldn't have
> traveled to the
> > christening, come to think of it.
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulté Me Lie{
>
> Yes, it was good timing, particularly since Edward was born at
> Westminster and could therefore be christened in the abbey. In
fact,
> Henry was still right in the middle of his stupour, and I'm pretty
> sure he hadn't even made it back to Westminster. He certainly
wasn't
> at the christeneing.

Henry VI was very much in his stupor at the time of Edward of
Lancaster's birth. It was only a year later that he emerged from the
stupor (which began in August 1453 and was possibly triggered by the
news of the defeat at Castillon) and famously said that the child
must have been begotten by the Holy Ghost, as he himself had no
recollection of doing so.

Ann
>> >
> >

Marie
I'm not seriously disagreeing with you on this occasion, just putting
forward a possible solution. I've never heard of proxy godparents in
the Catholic Church (they weren't all that uncommon at C of E
baptisms in the 19th century and first half of the 20th - where
parents were, say, in India, and wanted a particular person to be a
godparent but distance precluded a presence at the baptism.

As far as Henry VI's mental state in January 1457 is concerned, all I
meant to say is that he wasn't in the midst of total breakdown at the
time. Quite possibly he was lacking in initiative as you suggest, but
since he was a very religious man the plight of his half-brother's
posthumous infant could have been one of the few things to make much
impression on him. Whether he would (or could) have stirred his
stumps enough to do anything about it is another matter.

>
> My own feeling is that, having found herself in Pembroke, Margaret
> would have made the best of it and had Jasper for one godfather and
> the best available locally for the other - perhaps the Bishop of St
> Davids if he was around. I'm not even convinced it had to be a
Henry. Every time I think of an aristocratic baptism where I know
the sponsors the names DON'T match the baby's. I've just remembered
> George of Clarence and his godfathers James Earl of Ormond and
Bishop Richard Talbot.
>
> I wouldn't put it past HT to encourage the idea later in life that
> Henry VI had been his godfather, though.
>
Entirely possible - Tudor would have been keen to push every possible
connection with the main Lancastrian line.

Ann

The clues are building up. Is it really so far-fetched that Margaret and some other man did Henry a dynastic favour? Perhaps we should think about Henry's appearance and Edward of Lancaster's...................
----- Original Message -----
From: aelyon2001
To:
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father


> > >
> > Edward of Lancaster was named for St. Edward the Confessor
because
> I believe
> > he was born on the saint's feast day (which I believe is October
> 14th or
> > 15th). Henry Tudor was also born shortly after Henry VI awoke
from
> his stupor
> > so he must have been really weak and probably couldn't have
> traveled to the
> > christening, come to think of it.
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulté Me Lie{
>
> Yes, it was good timing, particularly since Edward was born at
> Westminster and could therefore be christened in the abbey. In
fact,
> Henry was still right in the middle of his stupour, and I'm pretty
> sure he hadn't even made it back to Westminster. He certainly
wasn't
> at the christeneing.

Henry VI was very much in his stupor at the time of Edward of
Lancaster's birth. It was only a year later that he emerged from the
stupor (which began in August 1453 and was possibly triggered by the
news of the defeat at Castillon) and famously said that the child
must have been begotten by the Holy Ghost, as he himself had no
recollection of doing so.

Ann
>> >
> >


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 5/16/2003 5:09:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
smlark@... writes:

> Perhaps we should think about Henry's appearance and Edward of
> Lancaster's...................

Is there any surviving portrait of Edward of Lancaster? I always thought
there wasn't...
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

I'm not aware of any portraits of Edward of Lancaster, nor any
descriptions of his appearance. A surviving likeness of Margaret of
Anjou shows her as very dark, and not dissimilar to her father, Rene
of Anjou. If Edward of Lancaster looked unlike Henry VI, he may
simply have taken after his mother's family (just as Napoleon's son
by Marie Louise looked very Habsburg).

I don't think we have any likenesses or descriptions of Edmund
Beaufort either.

So we are left, as usual, with little to go on. Just Henry's famous
remark after Edward of Lancaster being fathered by the Holy Ghost,
and the fact that Henry and Margaret had been married for eight years
before Edward's birth.

Ann

>
> Is there any surviving portrait of Edward of Lancaster? I always
thought
> there wasn't...
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulté Me Lie{
>
>
>

In a message dated 5/17/2003 4:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

> A surviving likeness of Margaret of
> Anjou shows her as very dark, and not dissimilar to her father, Rene
> of Anjou.

In my Henry VI biography is a picture from I guess a manuscript, showing John
Talbot I think it was presenting a book to Margaret, who's sitting next to
Henry. She's blond and fair in it. But manuscripts don't go for accuracy do
they?
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> In a message dated 5/17/2003 4:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > A surviving likeness of Margaret of
> > Anjou shows her as very dark, and not dissimilar to her father,
Rene
> > of Anjou.
>
> In my Henry VI biography is a picture from I guess a manuscript,
showing John
> Talbot I think it was presenting a book to Margaret, who's sitting
next to
> Henry. She's blond and fair in it. But manuscripts don't go for
accuracy do
> they?
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulté Me Lie{
>
>No they like to make ladies blonde; perhaps if they were alive today
they'd all be hairdressers. The only proper contemporary likeness I
know of Queen Margaret is a medal, so obviously that doesn't tell you
about colouring. But I have read a contemporary report of her arrival
at the English court which says she was good looking except rather
dark. I think the writer was Italian, so she must have been pretty
dark. I've never seen any likeness of Edmund Beaufort or Edward of
Lancaster, nor read any contemporary descriptions.

As I put in an earlier message, the only positive evidence we have
that Henry might have fathered Edward of Lancaster is that he was
actually resident at Queen Margaret's palace of Greenwich at the
critical time. However, if she'd decided she needed to get someone
else to father the child that could also have been an ideal
arrangement. Henry would need to have been available if she were to
pass the child off as his, but at Greenwich she would have a fair
degree of privacy if she wished to smuggle in a stand-in (could we
call him a proxy?).
So I don't suppose we'll ever know.
By the way, I don't think Anne and I are very far apart on the Tudor
godfather question. Just that given the circumstances I don't see any
reason to suppose King Henry was the godfather unless there is some
contemporary evidence to that effect. My point was really that the
book you read saying he was MAY have been just making that assumption
because he was called Henry.
Marie

In a message dated 5/17/2003 12:24:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
marie@... writes:

> My point was really that the
> book you read saying he was MAY have been just making that assumption
> because he was called Henry.
>

That was probably it. There's a likeness of Edmund Beaufort on the tomb of
the Earl of Salisbury (I think), but his head is covered by the hood of his
cloak lol
Victoria

{Loyaulté Me Lie{

But manuscripts don't go for
> accuracy do
> > they?
> > Victoria
> >
> > {Loyaulté Me Lie{
> >
> >No they like to make ladies blonde; perhaps if they were alive
today
> they'd all be hairdressers. The only proper contemporary likeness I
> know of Queen Margaret is a medal, so obviously that doesn't tell
you
> about colouring. But I have read a contemporary report of her
arrival
> at the English court which says she was good looking except rather
> dark. I think the writer was Italian, so she must have been pretty
> dark. I've never seen any likeness of Edmund Beaufort or Edward of
> Lancaster, nor read any contemporary descriptions.

To judge by one portrait I have seen Rene of Anjou was dark (his
mother was an infanta of Aragon) and rather handsome, with a similar
cast of feature to the dark-haired portrait of Margaret. But that
doesn't really prove anything as an artist might well want to make
his subject look like the parents. Also there are definite fashions
in portrait painting - I sometimes think all the people in Tudor
portraits have exactly the same nose.
>
> As I put in an earlier message, the only positive evidence we have
> that Henry might have fathered Edward of Lancaster is that he was
> actually resident at Queen Margaret's palace of Greenwich at the
> critical time. However, if she'd decided she needed to get someone
> else to father the child that could also have been an ideal
> arrangement. Henry would need to have been available if she were
to
> pass the child off as his, but at Greenwich she would have a fair
> degree of privacy if she wished to smuggle in a stand-in (could we
> call him a proxy?).

And a household full of potential stand-ins, which she might not have
in some remote hunting lodge.

> So I don't suppose we'll ever know.

> By the way, I don't think Anne and I are very far apart on the
Tudor
> godfather question. Just that given the circumstances I don't see
any
> reason to suppose King Henry was the godfather unless there is some
> contemporary evidence to that effect. My point was really that the
> book you read saying he was MAY have been just making that
assumption
> because he was called Henry.

I agree. I was simply suggesting a mechanism by which Henry VI COULD
have been Tudor's godfather. As it happens a Catholic colleague of
mine is this weekend becoming a godmother. I will ask her if she
knows anything about the use of proxy godparents in the Catholic
church - she has had to go to Londonderry to take up her spiritual
duties.

Ann

Hello Victoria and Marie!

You wrote: But manuscripts don't go for
accuracy do they?
Victoria
***

> >No they like to make ladies blonde; perhaps if they
were alive today they'd all be hairdressers.

Marie

***

I've had the opposite experience with Edward IV.
Somehow I got the impression that Edward IV was blond.
Maybe it was Shakespeare's "glorious summer by this
Sun of York" line. I was quite surprised that every
painting and manuscript reproduction I've seen shows
Edward IV with dark hair--brown or even black.

Marion

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

Hello Victoria!

Thanks to the new Google search feature on the
American Branch of Richard III Society site, I was
able to find this half-remembered quote quickly:

"His attacks on his mother's morals are more than
striking, they are shocking. He claimed that both
Edward IV and George, Duke of Clarence, Richard's
older brothers, were not sons of his father. In fact
the surviving iconographical records show that both
Edward and George were *fleshy and blonde* and that
Richard was slender and dark."

quoted from:

Chapter 7: The History of King Richard III
(Part Two of Two)

Richard Marius, Thomas More
Alfred A. Knopf, 1984
ý 1984, Richard Marius; used with permission


I'm not sure what Richard Marius means by surviving
iconographical records. But I am sure that the
reproductions I've seen of Edward IV show him with
dark hair.

Has anyone seen paintings or iconographical records
that show Edward IV as blonde?

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
>>
> "His attacks on his mother's morals are more than
> striking, they are shocking. He claimed that both
> Edward IV and George, Duke of Clarence, Richard's
> older brothers, were not sons of his father. In fact
> the surviving iconographical records show that both
> Edward and George were *fleshy and blonde* and that
> Richard was slender and dark."
>
> quoted from:
>
> Chapter 7: The History of King Richard III
> (Part Two of Two)
>
> Richard Marius, Thomas More
> Alfred A. Knopf, 1984
> © 1984, Richard Marius; used with permission
>
>
> I'm not sure what Richard Marius means by surviving
> iconographical records. But I am sure that the
> reproductions I've seen of Edward IV show him with
> dark hair.
>
> Has anyone seen paintings or iconographical records
> that show Edward IV as blonde?
>
> Marion
>

For my part, none at all. All I've seen show Edward with brown/ dark
mouse hair. Also, I've seen nothing contemporary of Clarence other
than line drawings in genealogical rolls. Of course, line drawings
make everyone look fair-haired.

Novelists typically depict Edward as blond, also perhaps populist
histories, but I've never read any contemporary description that
mentions his hair colour - only height & good looks. Perhaps the
blond hair was 'extrapolated' from the general description, but as
everyone else says, seems to be out of line with contemporary
representations. Things repeated sufficiently often become "true".
Don't we know it?
Does anyone else know of a contemporary, or even Tudor, description
of Edward which says he was blond?

Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 23:14:13 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father
>
> Does anyone else know of a contemporary, or even Tudor, description
> of Edward which says he was blond?
No but the sample of his hair in the Society of Antiquities in London that I
held in my hand once is definitely straw yellow.
Paul
yes I know I shouldn't have held it, but when keft alone I couldn't resist!

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 23:14:13 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father
> >
> > Does anyone else know of a contemporary, or even Tudor,
description
> > of Edward which says he was blond?
> No but the sample of his hair in the Society of Antiquities in
London that I
> held in my hand once is definitely straw yellow.
> Paul
> yes I know I shouldn't have held it, but when keft alone I couldn't
resist!

That's interesting. I've heard hair can change colour as it slowly
decays, but that's with dark hair turning to ginger. Does anyone know
anything about this subject?
I wonder if Edward's dark hair in pictures, then, wasn't the male
equivalent of the blonde ladies of the manuscripts. Hughes, if I
remember him correctly, explains that the ideal male would be of a
more sanguine balance, with golden or ruddy complexion, whereas the
natural balance for a woman would be more phlegmatic and therefore
paler. Perhaps the difference in hair colour in these representations
was also meant to reflect this.

Or is there any possibility that Edward was dying his hair???

Marie

> That's interesting. I've heard hair can change colour as it slowly
> decays, but that's with dark hair turning to ginger.


Edward and his siblings are descendants of the earlier
Plantaganents.......who were, I have always understood, red-ginger in
hair colouring.....If this means anything at all, as I don't know
anything of Edward's mother's colouring.

I can concur however that hair colour, when in strands taken from a
living person or from a recent corpse, does diminish in colour
intensity with after a large number of years. [But as I read that in
a det. fiction novel, I do not know how legit. is the evidence, even
tho' the author is famous for doing her research thoroughly.]

Ana

> From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 18:20:57 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father
>
> I've heard hair can change colour as it slowly
> decays, but that's with dark hair turning to ginger.
so can paint Marie, which is more probable than his hair.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
> > From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@r...>
> > Reply-To:
> > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 18:20:57 -0000
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Henry Tudor's father
> >
> > I've heard hair can change colour as it slowly
> > decays, but that's with dark hair turning to ginger.
> so can paint Marie, which is more probable than his hair.
> Paul

Point taken, but there are manuscript piactures showing Edward with
dark hair and Elizabeth Woodville & the Prince of Wales blonde, so in
that case at least the brown paint would not seem to be decomposed
yellow!

I'm not being silly about hair changing colour. The ginger phenomenon
is usual. I remember seeing a shrunken head in the Natural History
Museum long ago with ginger hair; the label said it would originally
have been black, but this is what happens to black hair over time.
Similarly, ginger-nob mummies in S. America on recent history
programme. Also, many years ago a friend had attended some sort of
talk or something on the skeleton of little Anne Mowbray. The hair
attaching to the skull is apparently copper-coloured, but they were
told this would not have been its original colour.

Looking through my books, I see Edward's hair is in many MS paintings
significantly darker than that of many of the other men, so that the
fairness you describe in the hair sample is a bit surprising. As for
my theory that maybe they showed all men as dark-haired - well,
there's that portrait of Richard II, isn't there, distinctly blonde?


I suppose the other question is - what is the provenance of this lock
of hair? Can we be sure it really did come from the head of Edward
IV? Again, this is a serious question. I'm sure I've got some info on
this lock of hair somewhere, but I can't locate it (I do remember
it's been checked for DNA, and none surviving, by the by).

As regards the Plantagenet descent, of course it's possible that
Edward would have inherited red-gold hair from that line, BUT :-
300 years, and so about 10 generations, separate Edward from the
first Plantagenets. Since the number of ancestors doubles each
generation, he would have had about 512 different direct ancestors
alive at that time (say, 400, if we allow for aristocratic in-
breeding). So the chance that he was carying, still less displaying,
the gene from any particular one of these ancestors is probably no
better than 1 in 800.

Also, as I'm sure most listers know, the gene for fair hair is
recessive, so that one has to inherit a fair-haired gene from BOTH
parents in order to be fair-haired. This does not, of course, mean
that both parents must have been fair - they could both have been
dark with a recessive fair-haired gene (conversely, a dark-haired
child MUST have had a least one dark-haired parent.)
But it does mean that we should not expect that Plantagenet fair hair
to keep re-emerging in individual after individual generation after
generation.
It does seem that Elizabeth of York was fair-haired. Of course, her
mother was blonde, but for Elizabeth to have inherited this her
father must also have been carrying at least one blonde gene. And, if
Richard III was dark, then either Richard Duke of York or Cecily
Neville must also have been dark-haired. But that's all the basic
rules of genetics will tell us. On this basis, Edward IV could have
been either fair or dark (ie carrying either 2 fair-hair genes or 1
fair + 1 dark).

Marie