Help required re Henry Tudor (Henry VII)

Are there any members of the Richard III forum who can help with my
queries?

Henry Tudors`s claim was through the maternal line, but nevertheless
his pedigree goes back directly to John of Gaunt albeit originating
from illegitimate issue. However when Gaunt eventually married his
hitherto mistress Catherine Swynford, a Pope`s dispensation (through
Richard II) legitimised their issue, with an agreement that the
Swynford line was barred from succession to the throne. But,
notwithstanding the bar, one can see why Henry considered that he had
a genuine claim. If it hadn`t been for the bar he would have had a
better claim than the Duke of Buckingham, as Buckingham`s line is
from Thomas of Woodstock, Gaunt`s younger sibling.

My questions are:

a) Who actually barred the Swynford line? Was it the Pope, Richard
II, or others? There will be proof of the dispensation, but is there
any documentary proof of the bar and the agreement other than later
written hearsay of chroniclers etc.?

b) Was there ever a challenge in law of the bar, the agreement, and
dispensation, either then or since?

Thanks,
Alan Thomas.

Apart from anything else, there were living, legitimate descendants
of John of Gaunt through his daughters by his legal wife, who had an
indisputably better claim than Henry Tudor. This included European
royalty, but also the Holland line which in 1485 would be
represented by the Earl of Westmoreland. Of course there were
attainders involved, but attainders, like illegitimacy, could be
reversed by legislation. Note that Tudor also ignored the claims of
his mother through who he inherited his shaky claim, or perhaps
England was not yet ready for a female monarch, even though she was
undoubtedly the power behind Henry's thone.

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Are there any members of the Richard III forum who can help with
my
> queries?
>
> Henry Tudors`s claim was through the maternal line, but
nevertheless
> his pedigree goes back directly to John of Gaunt albeit
originating
> from illegitimate issue. However when Gaunt eventually married his
> hitherto mistress Catherine Swynford, a Pope`s dispensation
(through
> Richard II) legitimised their issue, with an agreement that the
> Swynford line was barred from succession to the throne. But,
> notwithstanding the bar, one can see why Henry considered that he
had
> a genuine claim. If it hadn`t been for the bar he would have had a
> better claim than the Duke of Buckingham, as Buckingham`s line is
> from Thomas of Woodstock, Gaunt`s younger sibling.
>
> My questions are:
>
> a) Who actually barred the Swynford line? Was it the Pope, Richard
> II, or others? There will be proof of the dispensation, but is
there
> any documentary proof of the bar and the agreement other than
later
> written hearsay of chroniclers etc.?
>
> b) Was there ever a challenge in law of the bar, the agreement,
and
> dispensation, either then or since?
>
> Thanks,
> Alan Thomas.
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Are there any members of the Richard III forum who can help with my
> queries?
>
> Henry Tudors`s claim was through the maternal line, but
nevertheless
> his pedigree goes back directly to John of Gaunt albeit originating
> from illegitimate issue. However when Gaunt eventually married his
> hitherto mistress Catherine Swynford, a Pope`s dispensation
(through
> Richard II) legitimised their issue, with an agreement that the
> Swynford line was barred from succession to the throne. But,
> notwithstanding the bar, one can see why Henry considered that he
had
> a genuine claim. If it hadn`t been for the bar he would have had a
> better claim than the Duke of Buckingham, as Buckingham`s line is
> from Thomas of Woodstock, Gaunt`s younger sibling.
>
> My questions are:
>
> a) Who actually barred the Swynford line? Was it the Pope, Richard
> II, or others? There will be proof of the dispensation, but is
there
> any documentary proof of the bar and the agreement other than later
> written hearsay of chroniclers etc.?
>
> b) Was there ever a challenge in law of the bar, the agreement, and
> dispensation, either then or since?
>
> Thanks,
> Alan Thomas.
>
Alan, I have to say I cannot completely answer your first question
because I just read it thirty years ago whilst at primary school. I
would imagine that it was the Pope or Richard II. I do know that
Buckingham (and Richard) had Beaufort descent but had other claims as
well.
To your second question, the only challenge was by Tydder after his
victory - he had effectively removed the bar himself and his early
Parliaments, through his Titulus Regius, would have codified this.
Could I refer this message to one of the Society's senior experts?

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > Are there any members of the Richard III forum who can help with
my
> > queries?
> >
> > Henry Tudors`s claim was through the maternal line, but
> nevertheless
> > his pedigree goes back directly to John of Gaunt albeit
originating
> > from illegitimate issue. However when Gaunt eventually married
his
> > hitherto mistress Catherine Swynford, a Pope`s dispensation
> (through
> > Richard II) legitimised their issue, with an agreement that the
> > Swynford line was barred from succession to the throne. But,
> > notwithstanding the bar, one can see why Henry considered that he
> had
> > a genuine claim. If it hadn`t been for the bar he would have had
a
> > better claim than the Duke of Buckingham, as Buckingham`s line is
> > from Thomas of Woodstock, Gaunt`s younger sibling.
> >
> > My questions are:
> >
> > a) Who actually barred the Swynford line? Was it the Pope,
Richard
> > II, or others? There will be proof of the dispensation, but is
> there
> > any documentary proof of the bar and the agreement other than
later
> > written hearsay of chroniclers etc.?
> >
> > b) Was there ever a challenge in law of the bar, the agreement,
and
> > dispensation, either then or since?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alan Thomas.
> >
> Alan, I have to say I cannot completely answer your first question
> because I just read it thirty years ago whilst at primary school. I
> would imagine that it was the Pope or Richard II. I do know that
> Buckingham (and Richard) had Beaufort descent but had other claims
as
> well.
> To your second question, the only challenge was by Tydder after his
> victory - he had effectively removed the bar himself and his early
> Parliaments, through his Titulus Regius, would have codified this.
> Could I refer this message to one of the Society's senior experts?
>

Many thanks Stephen, and also to "theblackprussian". By all means
refer the question to any expert you wish, I`d be very interested in
their answer(s). If you do get a reply from them, I`d be grateful if
you`d let me know. Thanks again.

Alan

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are there any members of the Richard III forum who can help
with
> my
> > > queries?
> > >
> > > Henry Tudors`s claim was through the maternal line, but
> > nevertheless
> > > his pedigree goes back directly to John of Gaunt albeit
> originating
> > > from illegitimate issue. However when Gaunt eventually married
> his
> > > hitherto mistress Catherine Swynford, a Pope`s dispensation
> > (through
> > > Richard II) legitimised their issue, with an agreement that
the
> > > Swynford line was barred from succession to the throne. But,
> > > notwithstanding the bar, one can see why Henry considered that
he
> > had
> > > a genuine claim. If it hadn`t been for the bar he would have
had
> a
> > > better claim than the Duke of Buckingham, as Buckingham`s line
is
> > > from Thomas of Woodstock, Gaunt`s younger sibling.
> > >
> > > My questions are:
> > >
> > > a) Who actually barred the Swynford line? Was it the Pope,
> Richard
> > > II, or others? There will be proof of the dispensation, but is
> > there
> > > any documentary proof of the bar and the agreement other than
> later
> > > written hearsay of chroniclers etc.?

My understanding is that the legitimation of the Beauforts - with
the proviso barring them from the succession - was effected by Act
of Parliament and therefore was only a legitimation as it affected
English laws of inheritance. I don't believe the pope ever
legitimised them at all but I may be wrong.


Also, there is a further complication in that Henry IV's initial
claim was through his mother Blanche of Lancaster. He was convinced
that her ancestor, Edmund Crouchback had been older than his brother
Edward I but denied the throne because of his deformity. It was
shown him that he was wrong, but by that time he had taken the
throne and the Crouchback claim was never really dropped. This means
that the Lancastrian claim, cockeyed though it was, really rested on
descent from Blanche of Lancaster, not John of Gaunt, a fact which
became of great interest to European rulers descended from Henry
IV's full sister Philippa.

And of course her sister Elizabeth's descendents the Hollands and
their numerous offspring.

Marie Walsh wrote:

> My understanding is that the legitimation of the Beauforts - with
> the proviso barring them from the succession - was effected by Act
> of Parliament and therefore was only a legitimation as it affected
> English laws of inheritance. I don't believe the pope ever
> legitimised them at all but I may be wrong.
>
>
> Also, there is a further complication in that Henry IV's initial
> claim was through his mother Blanche of Lancaster. He was
convinced
> that her ancestor, Edmund Crouchback had been older than his
brother
> Edward I but denied the throne because of his deformity. It was
> shown him that he was wrong, but by that time he had taken the
> throne and the Crouchback claim was never really dropped. This
means
> that the Lancastrian claim, cockeyed though it was, really rested
on
> descent from Blanche of Lancaster, not John of Gaunt, a fact which
> became of great interest to European rulers descended from Henry
> IV's full sister Philippa.
>