Henry VIII Choice of names for children

Slightly of subject, the group seem to have a wealth of knowledge, I can understand where the names of Mary and Elizabeth came from.

But why Edward for the heir, is it as simple as previous sons by the name of Henry has died - is it after Edward VI

Also does anyone know if Henry VIII ever mentioned his uncles (the princes).

Any guidance appreciated

Marion


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

--- In , marion cheatham
<marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> Slightly of subject, the group seem to have a wealth of knowledge,
I can understand where the names of Mary and Elizabeth came from.
>
> But why Edward for the heir, is it as simple as previous sons by
the name of Henry has died - is it after Edward VI
>
> Also does anyone know if Henry VIII ever mentioned his uncles (the
princes).
>
> Any guidance appreciated
>
> Marion

I don't know. I guess it would have been for Edward IV, who was
Henry's grandfather. Henry much preferred his mother to his father,
didn't he? He could have reused the name Henry if he'd wanted to, I
suppose (wasn't Anne Boleyn's son Henry? Help me, I'm vague). Would
it also be any kind of evidence that playing the York card would have
been thought to be a popular move, even at that date????

Marie

>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> I don't know. I guess it would have been for Edward IV, who was
> Henry's grandfather. Henry much preferred his mother to his
father,
> didn't he? He could have reused the name Henry if he'd wanted to,
I
> suppose (wasn't Anne Boleyn's son Henry? Help me, I'm vague).
Would
> it also be any kind of evidence that playing the York card would
have
> been thought to be a popular move, even at that date????
>
> Marie
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?> --- In ,
marion cheatham
> <marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> > Slightly of subject, the group seem to have a wealth of
knowledge,
> I can understand where the names of Mary and Elizabeth came from.
> >
> > But why Edward for the heir, is it as simple as previous sons by
> the name of Henry has died - is it after Edward VI
> >
> > Also does anyone know if Henry VIII ever mentioned his uncles
(the
> princes).
> >
> > Any guidance appreciated
> >
> > Marion


<<Hi all. I'm a lurker normally :-) but being far more familiar with
Henry VIII than Henry VII I'm de-lurking for a moment. I would
suggest that it was a for some very good reasons. First, if you look
at the list of his children below you will see two called Henry -
one from Catherine of A and one from Anne Boleyn. I believe that the
son from 1513 was going to be called Henry (I seem to recall I read
that in a dusty tome a while back) and of course Henry Fitzroy (his
by-blow by Bessie Blount) isn't on this list. So that's Henry's name
out of the running, 5 times is not a charm. By the time he is
married to Jane Seymour who gives him Edward he's had all the hoo-ha
with several Tom's - Thomas Boleyn (Anne's father), Norfolk
(executed 1527), Wolsey, More etc etc. So no to Tom. No to George -
Clarence aside, Henry couldn't have named his son after George
Boleyn - who stood up in court and forfeited his life when he dared
to read the charge no one else would, that Anne had said Henry was
impotent. Arthur of course had failed his brother as a name-charm
and it has been suggested the son of 1514 was also an Arthur. No to
Owen because it reminds everybody of him getting a throne through
less than pure blood lines, definitely not the name to inspire
empire building in English folk. Definite no to Richard... Charles
is out because of the never-forgotten struggle with and treachery
(as H VIII saw it) of Katherine's family...

Edward has the virtue of being a family name and very loudly and
proudly declaring "I displace and *replace* the Edwards of before
(IV and V)"

With so many names with too many connotations I'm surprised he
didn't just bellow, "To hell with it, the brat's called X!"



Nia




Henry's Children

1510 Unnamed Daughter - died of natural causes
1511 Henry Tudor - Son - died aged 53 days of natural causes
1513 Unnamed Son - died on day of birth of natural causes
1514 Unnamed Son - died on day of birth of natural causes
1516 Mary - survived
1518 Unnamed Daughter - died of natural causes
1533 Elizabeth - survived
1534 Henry Tudor - Son - died on day of birth of natural causes
1535 unknown - died on day of birth of natural causes
1536 Unnamed Son - died of natural causes
1537 Edward - survived

>
> <<Hi all. I'm a lurker normally :-) but being far more familiar
with
> Henry VIII than Henry VII I'm de-lurking for a moment. I would
> suggest that it was a for some very good reasons. First, if you
look
> at the list of his children below you will see two called Henry -
> one from Catherine of A and one from Anne Boleyn. I believe that
the
> son from 1513 was going to be called Henry (I seem to recall I
read
> that in a dusty tome a while back) and of course Henry Fitzroy
(his
> by-blow by Bessie Blount) isn't on this list. So that's Henry's
name
> out of the running, 5 times is not a charm. By the time he is
> married to Jane Seymour who gives him Edward he's had all the hoo-
ha
> with several Tom's - Thomas Boleyn (Anne's father), Norfolk
> (executed 1527), Wolsey, More etc etc. So no to Tom. No to George -

> Clarence aside, Henry couldn't have named his son after George
> Boleyn - who stood up in court and forfeited his life when he
dared
> to read the charge no one else would, that Anne had said Henry was
> impotent. Arthur of course had failed his brother as a name-charm
> and it has been suggested the son of 1514 was also an Arthur. No
to
> Owen because it reminds everybody of him getting a throne through
> less than pure blood lines, definitely not the name to inspire
> empire building in English folk. Definite no to Richard... Charles
> is out because of the never-forgotten struggle with and treachery
> (as H VIII saw it) of Katherine's family...
>
> Edward has the virtue of being a family name and very loudly and
> proudly declaring "I displace and *replace* the Edwards of before
> (IV and V)"
>
> With so many names with too many connotations I'm surprised he
> didn't just bellow, "To hell with it, the brat's called X!"
>
>
>
> Nia

I agree to that, and have one other thought to add to it. Edward II
and V aside it is also a name of a series of successful and often
martial monarchs, also the name of Edward's maternal uncle, and it
even crossed my mind that by this point in Henry's life his ego may
have been so monstrous as to wish not to have another Henry after
him, so as to be, as it were, the last of a series or line. To be
the central Henry in 3 may make him indistinguishable in his eyes,
perhaps, if that makes sense.
Brunhild
>
>
>
>
> Henry's Children
>
> 1510 Unnamed Daughter - died of natural causes
> 1511 Henry Tudor - Son - died aged 53 days of natural causes
> 1513 Unnamed Son - died on day of birth of natural causes
> 1514 Unnamed Son - died on day of birth of natural causes
> 1516 Mary - survived
> 1518 Unnamed Daughter - died of natural causes
> 1533 Elizabeth - survived
> 1534 Henry Tudor - Son - died on day of birth of natural causes
> 1535 unknown - died on day of birth of natural causes
> 1536 Unnamed Son - died of natural causes
> 1537 Edward - survived

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> He may have been so monstrous as to wish not to have another Henry
after
> him, so as to be, as it were, the last of a series or line. To be
> the central Henry in 3 may make him indistinguishable in his eyes,
> perhaps, if that makes sense.
> Brunhild
> >


<<<Exactly so. He was never one to forget that he was starting a
Great Dynasty. You just have to view that perfectly hideous, vulgar
and propaganda-based potrait of him, Jane, the goddesses and the
living kids to see how much the idea ate him up. I've always thought
that a great deal of the poison that rotted his leg came from pure
malice/envy at watching other men with their sons... as well as the
eating and drinking of course. :-)

Nia

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , marion cheatham
> <marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> > Slightly of subject, the group seem to have a wealth of
knowledge,
> I can understand where the names of Mary and Elizabeth came from.
> >
> > But why Edward for the heir, is it as simple as previous sons by
> the name of Henry has died - is it after Edward VI
> >
> > Also does anyone know if Henry VIII ever mentioned his uncles
(the
> princes).
> >
> > Any guidance appreciated
> >
> > Marion
>
> I don't know. I guess it would have been for Edward IV, who was
> Henry's grandfather. Henry much preferred his mother to his
father,
> didn't he? He could have reused the name Henry if he'd wanted to, I
> suppose (wasn't Anne Boleyn's son Henry? Help me, I'm vague). Would
> it also be any kind of evidence that playing the York card would
have
> been thought to be a popular move, even at that date????
>
> Marie


I had wondered, too, and recently some TV show on Henry VIII stated
that his son Edward was given that name because he was born (or was
it conceived?) on or close to the feast day of some Edward..probably
Edward the Confessor. Perhaps someone with access to a saint's-days
calendar could check that out. (Actually, I'm not sure they said a
feast day...maybe it was Edward the C's birthday, or something...at
any rate appaently he was named Edward for luck, so to speak...Henry
VIII needed all the luck he could get, at that point, where male
progeny were concerned.)

Katy

Edward VI was born on 12th October 1537. The feast of Edward the
Confessor is 13th October. This is the 'obvious' reason for his name,
although calling him Edward would have made eminent sense for reasons
already discussed.

Henry VI's son was born on 13th October, and that is presumably why
he was also called Edward.

Ann

>
> I had wondered, too, and recently some TV show on Henry VIII stated
> that his son Edward was given that name because he was born (or was
> it conceived?) on or close to the feast day of some
Edward..probably
> Edward the Confessor. Perhaps someone with access to a saint's-
days
> calendar could check that out. (Actually, I'm not sure they said a
> feast day...maybe it was Edward the C's birthday, or something...at
> any rate appaently he was named Edward for luck, so to
speak...Henry
> VIII needed all the luck he could get, at that point, where male
> progeny were concerned.)
>

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Edward VI was born on 12th October 1537. The feast of Edward the
> Confessor is 13th October. This is the 'obvious' reason for his
name,
> although calling him Edward would have made eminent sense for
reasons
> already discussed.
>
> Henry VI's son was born on 13th October, and that is presumably
why
> he was also called Edward.
>
> Ann
>
> >
> > I had wondered, too, and recently some TV show on Henry VIII
stated
> > that his son Edward was given that name because he was born (or
was
> > i
t conceived?) on or close to the feast day of some
> Edward..probably
> > Edward the Confessor. Perhaps someone with access to a saint's-
> days
> > calendar could check that out. (Actually, I'm not sure they
said a
> > feast day...maybe it was Edward the C's birthday, or
something...at
> > any rate appaently he was named Edward for luck, so to
> speak...Henry
> > VIII needed all the luck he could get, at that point, where male
> > progeny were concerned.)
> >
Brunhild smacks head: "Idiot!" There we all were being "clever" and
I for one completely forgot about his birth date of October 12th,
the eve of St Edward's day. Doh!
There are stories that he was born by Caesarian and records in the
Elizabethan period at the papacy where they were, naturally, anti-
Henry VIII, suggest he chose that his sone live and wife die, but
it's all rather fanciful and no-one at the time of the birth
suggested there was a caesarian, only a 14 hour + labour and
indicators are that Jane actually died of puerperal fever.
B

> > >
> Brunhild smacks head: "Idiot!" There we all were being "clever" and
> I for one completely forgot about his birth date of October 12th,
> the eve of St Edward's day. Doh!
> There are stories that he was born by Caesarian and records in the
> Elizabethan period at the papacy where they were, naturally, anti-
> Henry VIII, suggest he chose that his sone live and wife die, but
> it's all rather fanciful and no-one at the time of the birth
> suggested there was a caesarian, only a 14 hour + labour and
> indicators are that Jane actually died of puerperal fever.
> B

If I remember correctly, Jane Seymour died 12 days after Edward's
birth, which is completely inconsistent with a caesarean of the
medieval kind. I can't remember where I read it (possibly in
connection with Kaiser Wilhelm II, who would have been spared a
withered arm if it had been possible to carry out a caesarean at the
time of his birth (1859) without killing the mother), but the first
caesarean where the mother survived only took place in the 1880s. No
doubt someone will put me right if I'm mistaken, but my understanding
is that the big problem was blood loss, which would, of course, kill
in minutes or hours rather than days.

Ann

When we were living in North Wales we used to walk a great deal and
would often borrow books of walks from the local library to add
background to some of the routes.

One walk I remember very well included passing a house at "World's
End" near Llangollen and the guide book said local rumour has it
Lizzie I gave birth to a baby in the house. No other details were
given and it just stuck in the back of my mind (for 20 tears!) Anyone
else know of this?

I don't recall the name of the book of course!

Just curious......

Helen in Scotland

--- In , "helenmpearson"
<Helen@C...> wrote:
> When we were living in North Wales we used to walk a great deal
and
> would often borrow books of walks from the local library to add
> background to some of the routes.
>
> One walk I remember very well included passing a house at "World's
> End" near Llangollen and the guide book said local rumour has it
> Lizzie I gave birth to a baby in the house. No other details were
> given and it just stuck in the back of my mind (for 20 tears!)
Anyone
> else know of this?
>
> I don't recall the name of the book of course!
>
> Just curious......
>
> Helen in Scotland

Check these out:
http://englishculture.allinfoabout.com/features/francis-bacon.html
http://www.barnum.org/nti02935.htm

It is hard to give them any credence but they may be of interest.
Brunhild

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > Brunhild smacks head: "Idiot!" There we all were being "clever"
and
> > I for one completely forgot about his birth date of October
12th,
> > the eve of St Edward's day. Doh!
> > There are stories that he was born by Caesarian and records in
the
> > Elizabethan period at the papacy where they were, naturally,
anti-
> > Henry VIII, suggest he chose that his sone live and wife die,
but
> > it's all rather fanciful and no-one at the time of the birth
> > suggested there was a caesarian, only a 14 hour + labour and
> > indicators are that Jane actually died of puerperal fever.
> > B
>
> If I remember correctly, Jane Seymour died 12 days after Edward's
> birth, which is completely inconsistent with a caesarean of the
> medieval kind. I can't remember where I read it (possibly in
> connection with Kaiser Wilhelm II, who would have been spared a
> withered arm if it had been possible to carry out a caesarean at
the
> time of his birth (1859) without killing the mother), but the
first
> caesarean where the mother survived only took place in the 1880s.
No
> doubt someone will put me right if I'm mistaken, but my
understanding
> is that the big problem was blood loss, which would, of course,
kill
> in minutes or hours rather than days.
>
> Ann

Excuse the typo - that was a 24 hour + labour, not 14, and yes, it
was 12 days and a caesarian was apparently guaranteed to kill mother
almost immediately so most unlikely to have been this. Blood loss
is certainly a factor and possible major cause of death in difficult
delivery but puerperal fever seems to fit the patern better, in that
she appeared to be recovering after a few exhausted days, and then
worsened as I understand it.
Brunhild

>
> Excuse the typo - that was a 24 hour + labour, not 14, and yes, it
> was 12 days and a caesarian was apparently guaranteed to kill
mother
> almost immediately so most unlikely to have been this. Blood loss
> is certainly a factor and possible major cause of death in
difficult
> delivery but puerperal fever seems to fit the patern better, in
that
> she appeared to be recovering after a few exhausted days, and then
> worsened as I understand it.


Sorry, I didn't express myself too well here - I meant that blood
loss used to be a major problem in caesareans before modern
techniques developed and blood transfusions became available.

Jane Seymour was well enough to attend Edward VI's baptism on 15th
October - 3 days after the birth. Lying on a day bed admittedly, but
there is a possibility that this was custom as much as necessity, at
least in some cases. There is a letter from the Kaiser's mother to
Queen Victoria saying that it was the done thing in Prussia for royal
mothers to lie on a day bed at baptisms (the Kaiser's baptism was a
month after the birth), but she would do no such thing!

Ann

Interesting but no evidence.

From what I remember the child rumoured to have been born at World's
End was born before Elizabeth became Queen. Trying to find some facts
about this might make a retirement interest in another 20 years!

Helen in Scotland.

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , "helenmpearson"
> <Helen@C...> wrote:
> > When we were living in North Wales we used to walk a great deal
> and
> > would often borrow books of walks from the local library to add
> > background to some of the routes.
> >
> > One walk I remember very well included passing a house
at "World's
> > End" near Llangollen and the guide book said local rumour has it
> > Lizzie I gave birth to a baby in the house. No other details were
> > given and it just stuck in the back of my mind (for 20 tears!)
> Anyone
> > else know of this?
> >
> > I don't recall the name of the book of course!
> >
> > Just curious......
> >
> > Helen in Scotland
>
> Check these out:
> http://englishculture.allinfoabout.com/features/francis-bacon.html
> http://www.barnum.org/nti02935.htm
>
> It is hard to give them any credence but they may be of interest.
> Brunhild