pregnancy before marriage?

Arthur showed all the signs of a premature infant-small, weak, and with respiratory problems. Furthermore, loss of virginity would have devalued Elizabeth as a bride to anyone-and suppose Tudor had decided not to marry her? Not only would her mother have thought about that, but Tudor might have thought of her as a prize to be bestowed-and an illegitimate child would have been a disaster for all concerned.
Carol


wrote:

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Henry the Weasel
From: marion cheatham


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: marion cheatham
Subject: Re: Henry the Weasel

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 wrote:
--- In , oregonkaty
wrote:
> --- In , "marie"
> 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!





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



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




------------------------------------------------------------------------




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

> Arthur showed all the signs of a premature infant-small, weak, and with
> respiratory problems. Furthermore, loss of virginity would have devalued
> Elizabeth as a bride to anyone-and suppose Tudor had decided not to marry her?
> Not only would her mother have thought about that, but Tudor might have
> thought of her as a prize to be bestowed-and an illegitimate child would have
> been a disaster for all concerned.
> Carol

Absolutely agree with you Carol.
Well said.
Paul