Coronation Day

Well as nobody else has bothered, I'll remind everyone that today is the
anniversary of the Coronation of King Richard III abd Queen Anne, a rare
joint ceremony in Westminster Abbey, 1483.

Paul wrote: ... today is the anniversary of the
Coronation of King Richard III abd Queen Anne, a rare
joint ceremony in Westminster Abbey, 1483.

***

Thanks for pointing out that Richard and Anne's joint
ceremony is rare, Paul. I had taken their joint
ceremony for granted, because I'm not well-enough
informed to know how seldom kings and queens were
crowned together.

Until now, I've been thinking that Elizabeth of York's
coronation was unusual, and evidence of Henry and
Margaret Beaufort's determination to hold the Yorkists
down. But now that I think twice about it, I don't
know of any joint coronation ceremonies except Richard
and Anne's. Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville
married Henry VI and Edward IV years after their
husbands had been crowned. So they didn't have joint
coronation ceremonies.

Can anyone name other kings and queens who had joint
ceremonies? Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of
Aragon seem like potential candidates, but I believe
Isabella ruled independently before she married
Ferdinand. Is that correct?

Can anyone recommend a book or website that discusses
coronation ceremonies (English and non-English) that
would tell which kings and queens had joint coronation
ceremonies?

TIA!

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

How about Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?

Galen



--- marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
> Paul wrote: ... today is the anniversary of the
> Coronation of King Richard III abd Queen Anne, a
> rare
> joint ceremony in Westminster Abbey, 1483.
>
> ***
> Can anyone name other kings and queens who had joint
> ceremonies? Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of
> Aragon seem like potential candidates, but I believe
> Isabella ruled independently before she married
> Ferdinand. Is that correct?




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From: Galen <galenbrux@...>

Can anyone name other kings and queens who had joint
> ceremonies? Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of
> Aragon seem like potential candidates, but I believe
> Isabella ruled independently before she married
> Ferdinand. Is that correct?
-------------------------------------------------

Isabel married Fernando in 1468 and became queen of Castile in 1474, as soon after the death of half-brother Enrique IV as she could -- before putative daughter of Enrique, Juana "la Beltraneja" could get to do it. Fernando became king of Aragon in 1479, after his papa, Juan II of Aragon died. Each was consort to the spouse kingdom, but regnant in their own. Before sending Fernando off on the hazardous journey to marry Isabel, Juan II of Aragon made his son king of Sicily.

Far from having a joint coronation, Isabel and Fernando had a public argument after Isabel's solo crowning in Segovia. Fernando had been in Aragon at the time, and came racing back complaining, as I remember, about the coronation in general the carrying of the Sword of Justice before the female ruler in particular. It was as a consequence of this that the two of them finally hit on the joint-venture concept, nutshelled in the famous motto of "tanto monta, monta tanto, Isabel como Fernando".

Maria
elena@...
(who must apologize for small, rushed and infrequent posts, as work and house-moving are rapidly taking over! Should be back to normal after July 30).

Happy San Fermin to all!

> How about Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?
>
> Galen
>
>
>
> --- marion davis <phaecilia@...> wrote:
>> Paul wrote: ... today is the anniversary of the
>> Coronation of King Richard III abd Queen Anne, a
>> rare
>> joint ceremony in Westminster Abbey, 1483.
>>
>> ***
>> Can anyone name other kings and queens who had joint
>> ceremonies? Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of
>> Aragon seem like potential candidates, but I believe
>> Isabella ruled independently before she married
>> Ferdinand. Is that correct?


They were married before Louis became king. I don't recall there being a
joint coronation. But I was talking of the English monarchy anyway.
Paul

> How about Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?
>
> Galen

Just checked. Mercy the Austiran Ambassador pushed for a double ceremony but
was rebuffed. Louis was crowned alone with his wife watching wearing one of
the most expensive dresses ever made!
Paul

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Paul wrote: ... today is the anniversary of the
> Coronation of King Richard III abd Queen Anne, a rare
> joint ceremony in Westminster Abbey, 1483.
>
> ***
>
> Thanks for pointing out that Richard and Anne's joint
> ceremony is rare, Paul. I had taken their joint
> ceremony for granted, because I'm not well-enough
> informed to know how seldom kings and queens were
> crowned together.
>
> Until now, I've been thinking that Elizabeth of York's
> coronation was unusual, and evidence of Henry and
> Margaret Beaufort's determination to hold the Yorkists
> down. But now that I think twice about it, I don't
> know of any joint coronation ceremonies except Richard
> and Anne's. Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville
> married Henry VI and Edward IV years after their
> husbands had been crowned. So they didn't have joint
> coronation ceremonies.
>
> Can anyone name other kings and queens who had joint
> ceremonies? Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of
> Aragon seem like potential candidates, but I believe
> Isabella ruled independently before she married
> Ferdinand. Is that correct?
>
> Can anyone recommend a book or website that discusses
> coronation ceremonies (English and non-English) that
> would tell which kings and queens had joint coronation
> ceremonies?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

Sorry, can't help with precedents. But Peter Hammond & Anne Sutton
have published a book on Richard & Anne's coronation which may
discuss this (I don't have it, unfortunately). Also there is
discussion of the single/ joint coronation of queens in
Laynesmith's "Last Medieval Queens". It seems that joint coronations
weren't so much a weird idea as a situation which in practice had
rarely arisen. Interestingly, though, re your reference to Henry VII,
Laynesmith says "For Anne Neville and Richard III's coronation
a 'Little Device' was drawn up, including a liturgy based on various
fourth-recension tracts. This manuscript was adapted for Henry VII,
perhaps by men who assumed that Henry too would be crowned with his
queen." (p98)

Of course, Henry made sure to get himself crowned before his marriage
to Elizabeth of York so that the question didn't arise (and then put
off her coronation for almost a further two years).
I find pro-HT excuses such as waiting for the dispensation and
Elizabeth's pregnancy unconvincing - even if Henry had to get himself
crowned immediately, and had to wait for a papal dispensation to
marry Elizabeth, he could have - surely should have - had her
coronation organised to follow on immediately from the marriage,
before pregnancy became an issue. I wonder if Elizabeth would ever
have been crowned if there had been no Yorkist rebellions.

Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> I find pro-HT excuses such as waiting for the dispensation and
> Elizabeth's pregnancy unconvincing - even if Henry had to get
himself
> crowned immediately, and had to wait for a papal dispensation to
> marry Elizabeth, he could have - surely should have - had her
> coronation organised to follow on immediately from the marriage,
> before pregnancy became an issue. I wonder if Elizabeth would ever
> have been crowned if there had been no Yorkist rebellions.
>
> Marie

Was Elizabeth of York pregnant at the time of her marriage, or was
baby Arthur premature? She was married to Henry the Weasel on 18
January 1486 and Arthur was born 20 September 1486.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> > I find pro-HT excuses such as waiting for the dispensation and
> > Elizabeth's pregnancy unconvincing - even if Henry had to get
> himself
> > crowned immediately, and had to wait for a papal dispensation to
> > marry Elizabeth, he could have - surely should have - had her
> > coronation organised to follow on immediately from the marriage,
> > before pregnancy became an issue. I wonder if Elizabeth would
ever
> > have been crowned if there had been no Yorkist rebellions.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Was Elizabeth of York pregnant at the time of her marriage, or was
> baby Arthur premature? She was married to Henry the Weasel on 18
> January 1486 and Arthur was born 20 September 1486.
>
> Katy

Of course they never said, but it appears most likely that Arthur was
premature. Royal godparents were chosen well in advance, and lodged
ready nearby, but in this case the main godfather, Oxford, was a long
way from Winchester when the baby was born, and was so long getting
there that eventually the ceremony had to proceed without him.

It has of course been suggested that Henry waited until Elizabeth was
pregnant before marrying her, but this doesn't really pan out. If
Arthur was full-term then he would have been conceived around 3
January (perhaps someone can check this for me), and Elizabeth's next
period would not have been due till the 17th - the day before the
wedding. So neither she nor Henry could have known she was pregnant.
Also, the preparations for the wddding had been ordered as far back
as 11th December (coincidentally, the day after Parliament got nasty
about it).
The other 'already pregnant' spin - that she and Henry were so madly
in love they couldn't keep their hands off each other takes some
swallowing. Alison Weir thinks it likely they were "already sharing a
bed", but Oxford's non-presence when he was born suggests Henry did
not believe the child was due.
Of course, there is another possibility. . . but that's just
mischievous.

Marie

Was Elizabeth of York pregnant at the time of her marriage, or was
baby Arthur premature? She was married to Henry the Weasel on 18
January 1486 and Arthur was born 20 September 1486.

Katy

I cannot imagine the Yorkists or especially the Woodvilles allowing
Elizabeth and Henry to have pre marital sex, which would have put into doubt
the legitimacy of future children. In view of what happened to Elizabeth of
York's mother because of a secret marriage, I find the thought of anything
other than marriage first, faintly ridiculous.
Paul

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "marie"
<marie@r...>
> > wrote:
> > > I find pro-HT excuses such as waiting for the dispensation and
> > > Elizabeth's pregnancy unconvincing - even if Henry had to get
> > himself
> > > crowned immediately, and had to wait for a papal dispensation
to
> > > marry Elizabeth, he could have - surely should have - had her
> > > coronation organised to follow on immediately from the
marriage,
> > > before pregnancy became an issue. I wonder if Elizabeth would
> ever
> > > have been crowned if there had been no Yorkist rebellions.
> > >
> > > Marie
> >
> > Was Elizabeth of York pregnant at the time of her marriage, or
was
> > baby Arthur premature? She was married to Henry the Weasel on 18
> > January 1486 and Arthur was born 20 September 1486.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Of course they never said, but it appears most likely that Arthur
was
> premature. Royal godparents were chosen well in advance, and lodged
> ready nearby, but in this case the main godfather, Oxford, was a
long
> way from Winchester when the baby was born, and was so long getting
> there that eventually the ceremony had to proceed without him.
>
> It has of course been suggested that Henry waited until Elizabeth
was
> pregnant before marrying her, but this doesn't really pan out. If
> Arthur was full-term then he would have been conceived around 3
> January (perhaps someone can check this for me),

Just checked it myself. Thought it sounded wrong. If Arthur were born
on exact "due" day, then he would have been conceived on 28th
December. Still makes it impossible for Henry to have waited to marry
Elizabeth until she was pregnant.

Wouldn't it be nice if Henry wasn't the father? No, looked too much
like him

Marie

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Was Elizabeth of York pregnant at the time of her marriage, or was
> baby Arthur premature? She was married to Henry the Weasel on 18
> January 1486 and Arthur was born 20 September 1486.
>
> Katy
>
> I cannot imagine the Yorkists or especially the Woodvilles allowing
> Elizabeth and Henry to have pre marital sex, which would have put
into doubt
> the legitimacy of future children. In view of what happened to
Elizabeth of
> York's mother because of a secret marriage, I find the thought of
anything
> other than marriage first, faintly ridiculous.
> Paul

Premarital sex, the marriage followed on fairly quickly, would not
have "put into doubt the legitimacy of future children", assuming
that Henry firmly acknowledged the child as his own (as he would have
done). A child was only illegitimate if BORN after the marriage of
its parents. I do concur that after the experience with Edward V's
coronation the Woodvilles would have been chary re whether planned
events would actually come off. However, I am not sure whether we
know Elizabeth to have been in her mother's custody before the
marriage. She was (according to Vergil) brought south from Shieriff
Hutton by Henry's man (Willoughby), and in February 1486 her sisters
and Warwick were in Margaret Beaufort's household.

Marie

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> The other 'already pregnant' spin - that she and Henry were so
madly
> in love they couldn't keep their hands off each other takes some
> swallowing. Alison Weir thinks it likely they were "already sharing
a
> bed", but Oxford's non-presence when he was born suggests Henry did
> not believe the child was due.
> Of course, there is another possibility. . . but that's just
> mischievous.
>
> Marie


The Holy Ghost?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> > The other 'already pregnant' spin - that she and Henry were so
> madly
> > in love they couldn't keep their hands off each other takes some
> > swallowing. Alison Weir thinks it likely they were "already
sharing
> a
> > bed", but Oxford's non-presence when he was born suggests Henry
did
> > not believe the child was due.
> > Of course, there is another possibility. . . but that's just
> > mischievous.
> >
> > Marie
>
>
> The Holy Ghost?
>
> Katy

Busy chap, that Holy Ghost

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "marie"
<marie@r...>
> > wrote:
> > > The other 'already pregnant' spin - that she and Henry were so
> > madly
> > > in love they couldn't keep their hands off each other takes
some
> > > swallowing. Alison Weir thinks it likely they were "already
> sharing
> > a
> > > bed", but Oxford's non-presence when he was born suggests Henry
> did
> > > not believe the child was due.
> > > Of course, there is another possibility. . . but that's just
> > > mischievous.
> > >
> > > Marie
> >
> >
> > The Holy Ghost?
> >
> > Katy
>
> Busy chap, that Holy Ghost

Now I'm curious. What was the ppossibility you had in mind?

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> > --- In , oregonkaty
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "marie"
> <marie@r...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > The other 'already pregnant' spin - that she and Henry were
so
> > > madly
> > > > in love they couldn't keep their hands off each other takes
> some
> > > > swallowing. Alison Weir thinks it likely they were "already
> > sharing
> > > a
> > > > bed", but Oxford's non-presence when he was born suggests
Henry
> > did
> > > > not believe the child was due.
> > > > Of course, there is another possibility. . . but that's just
> > > > mischievous.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > > The Holy Ghost?
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > Busy chap, that Holy Ghost
>
> Now I'm curious. What was the ppossibility you had in mind?
>
> Katy

Nothing, really. I was, as I said, being mischievous. It's just that
the only possible interpretation of Arthur's birth date, other than
prematurity, is Elizabeth having slept with SOMEONE ELSE over the
Christmas holiday. Last chance, perhaps.
Sadly, I don't actually think she did, at least not if Arthur's
portrait is in any way accurate. He just looks TOO much like Henry
the Seventh.
Also, if she were in Margaret Beaufort's custody, which seems
probable - no chance.
Ah, what might have been. . . .

Marie

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
It's just that
> the only possible interpretation of Arthur's birth date, other than
> prematurity, is Elizabeth having slept with SOMEONE ELSE over the
> Christmas holiday. Last chance, perhaps.
> Sadly, I don't actually think she did, at least not if Arthur's
> portrait is in any way accurate. He just looks TOO much like Henry
> the Seventh.
> Also, if she were in Margaret Beaufort's custody, which seems
> probable - no chance.
> Ah, what might have been. . . .
>
> Marie

Weren't the spans of time between a betrothal and the marriage --
what we would now call the engagement -- originally intended to give
time for any illicit pregnancy, or pregnancy by the previous husband,
in the case of a widow, to become apparent? If so, I guess either
Henry and his lovely mother thought five and a half months (since
Bosworth) were long enough in Elizabeth of York's case. Especially
since Parliament was pressuring him to get on with it, after all his
declarations about how he was going to marry her as soon ashe took
the crown.

Katy

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> It's just that
> > the only possible interpretation of Arthur's birth date, other
than
> > prematurity, is Elizabeth having slept with SOMEONE ELSE over the
> > Christmas holiday. Last chance, perhaps.
> > Sadly, I don't actually think she did, at least not if Arthur's
> > portrait is in any way accurate. He just looks TOO much like
Henry
> > the Seventh.
> > Also, if she were in Margaret Beaufort's custody, which seems
> > probable - no chance.
> > Ah, what might have been. . . .
> >
> > Marie
>
> Weren't the spans of time between a betrothal and the marriage --
> what we would now call the engagement -- originally intended to
give
> time for any illicit pregnancy, or pregnancy by the previous
husband,
> in the case of a widow, to become apparent? If so, I guess either
> Henry and his lovely mother thought five and a half months (since
> Bosworth) were long enough in Elizabeth of York's case. Especially
> since Parliament was pressuring him to get on with it, after all
his
> declarations about how he was going to marry her as soon ashe took
> the crown.
>
> Katy
>
> Katy

Probably not I would have thought, in this era, since intercourse
after the betrothal itself finalised the marriage, so there would
have been an issue regarding proving that one hadn't got the bride
pregnant oneself. I guess this would still have been a problem even
after Hardwicke's Act. In the case of widows there was a problem,
which is why widows (though not widowers) were required to wait 9
months before remarrying (I susoect that may also have included
formal betrothal since the two were so difficult to separate out).

Since Elizabeth was at Sheriff Hutton, I don't think Henry can have
been worried that she might have been pregnant by Richard. Nor, I
think, would he have been seriously worried that she was pregnant by
anyone else. And I don't think there was any betrothal other than
Henry's own promise in Vannes cathedral. I suspect he was actually
toying with the idea of not marrying her at all but of taking a
foreign queen with no claim on power, but he was persuaded by
Parliament that the country wouldn't stand for it. And after marrying
her he was reluctant to see her crowned.

Someone told us on the forum a while back that the dispensation only
came in in December, but I don't know what our source is for that.
Nor why, if Henry made it clear he was waiting for the dis.,
Parliament was getting so rebellious over the issue. NOR why, if
Elizabeth's mother was really involved, Tudor hadn't applied to Rome
for it way back in 1484. Morton seems to have been able to get
anything he liked out of the Pope.
I have to say that, modern research having a) disposed of the Tudor
claim that HT was the object of Buckingham's rebellion (thus also
making nonsense of the story of Margaret Beaufort smuggling Reynold
Bray into sanctuary to negotiate the marriage agreement), and b) cast
doubt on whether Elizabeth was ever in her mother's custody after
Bosworth (I refer to Ann Wroe's find that Warwick and her sisters
were in Margaret Beaufort's household in February 1484), we are left
with no evidence at all that Elizabeth Woodville was ever in favour
of the Tudor match. Why would she be, unless she had absolute proof
that her sons were dead? And why, if she had such proof, did she not
pass it on to Henry VII?

Marie

Have to say how apt the discription is of Henry 7. Don't think in my wildest dreams it was a love match, more from Elizabeths view a matter of keeping her dignity and also would not put it past Tudor to try the goods before so to speak ......... it was certainly something his son as guilty of.

Think they may have learned to live with each other eventually which may have blossomed (but I am a romantic at heart)

Does anyone know of any illegimate children of Henry 7 or did she keep him on the straight and narrow (did he have time with all that money to count!!!!)

marie <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> It's just that
> > the only possible interpretation of Arthur's birth date, other
than
> > prematurity, is Elizabeth having slept with SOMEONE ELSE over the
> > Christmas holiday. Last chance, perhaps.
> > Sadly, I don't actually think she did, at least not if Arthur's
> > portrait is in any way accurate. He just looks TOO much like
Henry
> > the Seventh.
> > Also, if she were in Margaret Beaufort's custody, which seems
> > probable - no chance.
> > Ah, what might have been. . . .
> >
> > Marie
>
> Weren't the spans of time between a betrothal and the marriage --
> what we would now call the engagement -- originally intended to
give
> time for any illicit pregnancy, or pregnancy by the previous
husband,
> in the case of a widow, to become apparent? If so, I guess either
> Henry and his lovely mother thought five and a half months (since
> Bosworth) were long enough in Elizabeth of York's case. Especially
> since Parliament was pressuring him to get on with it, after all
his
> declarations about how he was going to marry her as soon ashe took
> the crown.
>
> Katy
>
> Katy

Probably not I would have thought, in this era, since intercourse
after the betrothal itself finalised the marriage, so there would
have been an issue regarding proving that one hadn't got the bride
pregnant oneself. I guess this would still have been a problem even
after Hardwicke's Act. In the case of widows there was a problem,
which is why widows (though not widowers) were required to wait 9
months before remarrying (I susoect that may also have included
formal betrothal since the two were so difficult to separate out).

Since Elizabeth was at Sheriff Hutton, I don't think Henry can have
been worried that she might have been pregnant by Richard. Nor, I
think, would he have been seriously worried that she was pregnant by
anyone else. And I don't think there was any betrothal other than
Henry's own promise in Vannes cathedral. I suspect he was actually
toying with the idea of not marrying her at all but of taking a
foreign queen with no claim on power, but he was persuaded by
Parliament that the country wouldn't stand for it. And after marrying
her he was reluctant to see her crowned.

Someone told us on the forum a while back that the dispensation only
came in in December, but I don't know what our source is for that.
Nor why, if Henry made it clear he was waiting for the dis.,
Parliament was getting so rebellious over the issue. NOR why, if
Elizabeth's mother was really involved, Tudor hadn't applied to Rome
for it way back in 1484. Morton seems to have been able to get
anything he liked out of the Pope.
I have to say that, modern research having a) disposed of the Tudor
claim that HT was the object of Buckingham's rebellion (thus also
making nonsense of the story of Margaret Beaufort smuggling Reynold
Bray into sanctuary to negotiate the marriage agreement), and b) cast
doubt on whether Elizabeth was ever in her mother's custody after
Bosworth (I refer to Ann Wroe's find that Warwick and her sisters
were in Margaret Beaufort's household in February 1484), we are left
with no evidence at all that Elizabeth Woodville was ever in favour
of the Tudor match. Why would she be, unless she had absolute proof
that her sons were dead? And why, if she had such proof, did she not
pass it on to Henry VII?

Marie




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
Does anyone know of any illegimate children of Henry 7 or did she keep him on the straight and narrow (did he have time with all that money to count!!!!)


I read that Henry had a son by a Breton lady though I assume that would have been when he was still an exile. It was mentioned in that book about Royal Families by Alison Weir (am I allowed to mention her name?)

In the chairman's note in the Winter 2003 Ricardian Bullentin it was mentioned about Henry VII being a "womanising gambler". I gather it was in a talk given by Ann Wroe on Perkin Warbeck. It does boggle the imagination. Does anyone know anything about that?

Helen

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!





Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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





---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
>
> marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any illegimate children of Henry 7 or did she
keep him on the straight and narrow (did he have time with all that
money to count!!!!)
>
>
> I read that Henry had a son by a Breton lady though I assume that
would have been when he was still an exile. It was mentioned in that
book about Royal Families by Alison Weir (am I allowed to mention
her name?)
>
> In the chairman's note in the Winter 2003 Ricardian Bullentin it
was mentioned about Henry VII being a "womanising gambler". I gather
it was in a talk given by Ann Wroe on Perkin Warbeck. It does boggle
the imagination. Does anyone know anything about that?
>
> Helen

No, but I'm sure this is easy to find out. I actually know someone's
whose family tradition is that they are descnded from an illegitiame
child of Henry VII. She has done some looking into this and, as I
recall her telling me, I think there ware a few to choose from.

As I say, my reason for not believing Henry slept with Elizabeth
before the wedding night is simply that he seems to have been so
unprepared for the baby arriving less than 9 months after the
wedding. Also, the baby probably was genuinely premature as Jones
says "Arthur was too weak to travel with the royal entourage after
his birth at Winchester and had to be left for six months at Farnham
Castle to be nursed to recovery." (Bosworth 1485, p67)

Marie


>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
>
>
>

> I read that Henry had a son by a Breton lady though I assume that would have
> been when he was still an exile. It was mentioned in that book about Royal
> Families by Alison Weir (am I allowed to mention her name?)

Go and wash your mouth out, then disinfect your computer for mentioning that
name!!!!! :-)

> In the chairman's note in the Winter 2003 Ricardian Bullentin it was mentioned
> about Henry VII being a "womanising gambler". I gather it was in a talk given
> by Ann Wroe on Perkin Warbeck. It does boggle the imagination. Does anyone
> know anything about that?

i think it impossible to either gamble or womanise when using one hand to
hold your crown on your head, as Henry is said to have done!!!!
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: P.T.Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Henry the Weasel


> I read that Henry had a son by a Breton lady though I assume that would have
> been when he was still an exile. It was mentioned in that book about Royal
> Families by Alison Weir (am I allowed to mention her name?)

Go and wash your mouth out, then disinfect your computer for mentioning that
name!!!!! :-)

> In the chairman's note in the Winter 2003 Ricardian Bullentin it was mentioned
> about Henry VII being a "womanising gambler". I gather it was in a talk given
> by Ann Wroe on Perkin Warbeck. It does boggle the imagination. Does anyone
> know anything about that?

i think it impossible to either gamble or womanise when using one hand to
hold your crown on your head, as Henry is said to have done!!!!
Paul

We all tend to think of Henry the Weasel as the cold, parsimonious, control freak of the early sixteenth century, not the desperate chancer in exile before Bosworth. Think of his first thirty years and the idea of illegitimate children is not so far-fetched. After Bosworth (and Stoke), he is a different man - who would have demanded DNA tests had they been available.
PS To change the subject almost completely, the library will have Robinson's book "The Staffords" for me soon and has ordered the Clarence volume of Ruvigny so that I can tackle the mystery of Lt-Gen. Edward Pole (C18).

Stephen



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

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

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

Marion:
> Think they may have learned to live with
> each other eventually which may have
> blossomed (but I am a romantic at heart)

Ann:
Elizabeth, like other princesses, would surely have been
expecting to make a state marriage. The marriage she actually made
might have had some consolations -- it DID end the civil war, she did
not have to go abroad for the rest of her life -- presumably she saw
more of her sisters and cousins than she'd have been likely to
otherwise. And while Henry probably was never a young girl's dream,
the fact that we can't tell offhand whether he had any illegitimate
children at all -- well, we know Henry never humiliated Elizabeth
with mistresses as Edward IV did her mother. Who knows? she may have
regarded it as rather restful.

Marion:
> Does anyone know of any illegimate children
> of Henry 7 or did she keep him on the straight
> and narrow (did he have time with all that money
> to count!!!!)

Ann:
I can't find anything in the obvious places, but if someone has
access to "The Descendants of the Illegitimate Sons and Daughters of
the Kings of Britain. Lineage Book." Havertown, PA: The Society,
1979, that would be a place to check. To join this lineage society
the applicant must document a descent from a royal bastard, and the
requirements for proof are stringent -- some lineage societies allow
what I'd consider sloppy proofs, but not this one.

L.P.H.,

Ann

--- In , marion cheatham
<marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> Have to say how apt the discription is of Henry 7. Don't think in
my wildest dreams it was a love match, more from Elizabeths view a
matter of keeping her dignity and also would not put it past Tudor
to try the goods before so to speak ......... it was certainly
something his son as guilty of.
>
> Think they may have learned to live with each other eventually
which may have blossomed (but I am a romantic at heart)
>
> Does anyone know of any illegimate children of Henry 7 or did she
keep him on the straight and narrow (did he have time with all that
money to count!!!!)


I have definitely read of an illegitimate son born in Brittany but
can't find the reference now.
Brunhild


>
> marie <marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "marie"
<marie@r...>
> > wrote:
> > It's just that
> > > the only possible interpretation of Arthur's birth date, other
> than
> > > prematurity, is Elizabeth having slept with SOMEONE ELSE over
the
> > > Christmas holiday. Last chance, perhaps.
> > > Sadly, I don't actually think she did, at least not if
Arthur's
> > > portrait is in any way accurate. He just looks TOO much like
> Henry
> > > the Seventh.
> > > Also, if she were in Margaret Beaufort's custody, which seems
> > > probable - no chance.
> > > Ah, what might have been. . . .
> > >
> > > Marie
> >
> > Weren't the spans of time between a betrothal and the marriage --

> > what we would now call the engagement -- originally intended to
> give
> > time for any illicit pregnancy, or pregnancy by the previous
> husband,
> > in the case of a widow, to become apparent? If so, I guess
either
> > Henry and his lovely mother thought five and a half months
(since
> > Bosworth) were long enough in Elizabeth of York's case.
Especially
> > since Parliament was pressuring him to get on with it, after all
> his
> > declarations about how he was going to marry her as soon ashe
took
> > the crown.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> > Katy
>
> Probably not I would have thought, in this era, since intercourse
> after the betrothal itself finalised the marriage, so there would
> have been an issue regarding proving that one hadn't got the bride
> pregnant oneself. I guess this would still have been a problem
even
> after Hardwicke's Act. In the case of widows there was a problem,
> which is why widows (though not widowers) were required to wait 9
> months before remarrying (I susoect that may also have included
> formal betrothal since the two were so difficult to separate out).
>
> Since Elizabeth was at Sheriff Hutton, I don't think Henry can
have
> been worried that she might have been pregnant by Richard. Nor, I
> think, would he have been seriously worried that she was pregnant
by
> anyone else. And I don't think there was any betrothal other than
> Henry's own promise in Vannes cathedral. I suspect he was actually
> toying with the idea of not marrying her at all but of taking a
> foreign queen with no claim on power, but he was persuaded by
> Parliament that the country wouldn't stand for it. And after
marrying
> her he was reluctant to see her crowned.
>
> Someone told us on the forum a while back that the dispensation
only
> came in in December, but I don't know what our source is for that.
> Nor why, if Henry made it clear he was waiting for the dis.,
> Parliament was getting so rebellious over the issue. NOR why, if
> Elizabeth's mother was really involved, Tudor hadn't applied to
Rome
> for it way back in 1484. Morton seems to have been able to get
> anything he liked out of the Pope.
> I have to say that, modern research having a) disposed of the
Tudor
> claim that HT was the object of Buckingham's rebellion (thus also
> making nonsense of the story of Margaret Beaufort smuggling
Reynold
> Bray into sanctuary to negotiate the marriage agreement), and b)
cast
> doubt on whether Elizabeth was ever in her mother's custody after
> Bosworth (I refer to Ann Wroe's find that Warwick and her sisters
> were in Margaret Beaufort's household in February 1484), we are
left
> with no evidence at all that Elizabeth Woodville was ever in
favour
> of the Tudor match. Why would she be, unless she had absolute
proof
> that her sons were dead? And why, if she had such proof, did she
not
> pass it on to Henry VII?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
>
>

Sorry we didn't snap right too the date. There are still folks doing 4th of July fireworks over here. We can ascribe the continued celebration here to a long ago glorious day.