Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Help required re Henry Tudor (H

Henry Lancaster was actually a son from John of Gaunt's first marriage to
Blanche of Lancaster. Catherine's children Henry, John, Thomas, & Joan
Beaufort were legitimatized by Parliament with the agreement that none of
their descendants succeed to the throne.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Help required re Henry Tudor (Henry
VII)


--- 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?




Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Henry Lancaster was actually a son from John of Gaunt's first
marriage to
> Blanche of Lancaster. Catherine's children Henry, John, Thomas, &
Joan
> Beaufort were legitimatized by Parliament with the agreement that
none of
> their descendants succeed to the throne.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
Tudor (Henry
> VII)
>
> My questions were not about Henry (later Henry IV) the son of
Blanche of Lancaster, but of Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) who was
descended from Catherine Swynford. And my questions were...

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?



> --- 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?
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > Henry Lancaster was actually a son from John of Gaunt's first
> marriage to
> > Blanche of Lancaster. Catherine's children Henry, John, Thomas, &
> Joan
> > Beaufort were legitimatized by Parliament with the agreement that
> none of
> > their descendants succeed to the throne.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
> Tudor (Henry
> > VII)
> >
> > My questions were not about Henry (later Henry IV) the son of
> Blanche of Lancaster, but of Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) who was
> descended from Catherine Swynford. And my questions were...
>
> 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?

Alan
>
>
>
> > --- 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?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

The three sons were legitimized with the assent of Parliament 9 Feb
1396/7 the patent confirmed by Henry IV on 10 Feb 1406, but with the saving
clause barring them from succession to the throne. I hope this helps answer
the question. See Plantagenet Ancestry 1st & 3rd Ed.
Le .
----- Original Message -----
From: "alanth252" <alanth252@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Help required re Henry Tudor (Henry
VII)


--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> Henry Lancaster was actually a son from John of Gaunt's first
marriage to
> Blanche of Lancaster. Catherine's children Henry, John, Thomas, &
Joan
> Beaufort were legitimatized by Parliament with the agreement that
none of
> their descendants succeed to the throne.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
Tudor (Henry
> VII)
>
> My questions were not about Henry (later Henry IV) the son of
Blanche of Lancaster, but of Henry Tudor (later Henry VII) who was
descended from Catherine Swynford. And my questions were...

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?



> --- 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?
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct claim to the
throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred II through
the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in
Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: Help required re Henry Tudor (Henry
VII)


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.
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

In reply to "Le Bateman" below...

I`ve just traced the male Neville line back to Duncan who was killed
at the Battle of Dundrub. That would appear to be a Norman/Scottish
line rather than Saxon. I was using RootsWeb.com

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?
op=PED&db=utzing&id=I016998

Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my messages
above or below the post I wish to reply to?

Alan

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

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct claim
to the
> throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred II
through
> the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge
in
> Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
Tudor (Henry
> VII)
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> In reply to "Le Bateman" below...
>
> I`ve just traced the male Neville line back to Duncan who was
killed
> at the Battle of Dundrub. That would appear to be a Norman/Scottish
> line rather than Saxon. I was using RootsWeb.com
>
> http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?
op=GET&db=utzing&id=I018385>

> Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my
messages
> above or below the post I wish to reply to?
>
> Alan
>
> --------------------
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct
claim
> to the
> > throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred
II
> through
> > the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and
Revenge
> in
> > Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
> Tudor (Henry
> > VII)
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> In reply to "Le Bateman" below...
>
> I`ve just traced the male Neville line back to Duncan who was
killed
> at the Battle of Dundrub. That would appear to be a Norman/Scottish
> line rather than Saxon. I was using RootsWeb.com
>
> http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?
> op=PED&db=utzing&id=I016998
>
> Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my
messages
> above or below the post I wish to reply to?
>
> Alan
>
Alan, it doesn't really matter. I hope Jacob has effectively answered
your question in that it was Richard II who legitimised his cousins
and Henry IV who ratified this but disbarred them - dates and source
added.

There is a lot of great genealogical information on the internet
provided that you are sensible in the way you approach it.

Jacob, you have found the Nevilles to be descended from Ethelred (II)
Unraed's daughter? The problem is that the Plantagenets from 1154
(and Matilda) and Scottish Kings from 1097 were all descended from
Edmund (II) Ironside, who was Ethelred's SON. Under modern law,
Edmund's son (Edward Atheling) would have been King in 1042 when the
House of Wessex was restored but Edmund's half-brother was chosen.
This is part of an article I am writing for the Society's Scottish
Court (Branch).

In the eleventh century, Scotland had good relations with the Saxons
but not the Normans.
> --------------------
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct
claim
> to the
> > throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred
II
> through
> > the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and
Revenge
> in
> > Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
> Tudor (Henry
> > VII)
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

use caution with all on line gedcoms. dave utzinger's is one of the better ones at rootsweb. always look for verifying sources. utzinger supplies them for most of his individuals.

regarding reply placement.

traditionally, you are supposed to reply at the bottom of a message. however, many people making a quick reply, do so at the top of the message.

i think the bottom reply was started to ensure an individual had actually read the message before replying. for the most part i reply at the top of a message, simply because, i've read the msg and have a comment, i hit reply and start typing.

if it is a long message, replying within the message is best..however make sure you clearly indicate where you have responded to a comment.

whenever possible, snip text for brevity. the >>> can be very distracting, and even hide your response.

my biggest pet peeve is when people reply, and they supply none of the message they are replying to. i've a good memory, but boy sometimes i'm left floating as to why a person made a comment.

if you are using a program that strips the message you are replying to..use the copy and paste feature an your machine...and again elimnate the unnecessary comments as much as possible.

i think the most important thing is make sure your response is easy to find and clearly marked...delete the unnecessary >>>>portions...or your response might not get "heard".
roslyn

alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
In reply to "Le Bateman" below...

I`ve just traced the male Neville line back to Duncan who was killed
at the Battle of Dundrub. That would appear to be a Norman/Scottish
line rather than Saxon. I was using RootsWeb.com

http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?
op=PED&db=utzing&id=I016998

Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my messages
above or below the post I wish to reply to?

Alan

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

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct claim
to the
> throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred II
through
> the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge
in
> Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
Tudor (Henry
> VII)
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Thanks for the advice Roslyn. Much appreciated.

Alan

==================

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> use caution with all on line gedcoms. dave utzinger's is one of the
better ones at rootsweb. always look for verifying sources. utzinger
supplies them for most of his individuals.
>
> regarding reply placement.
>
> traditionally, you are supposed to reply at the bottom of a
message. however, many people making a quick reply, do so at the top
of the message.
>
> i think the bottom reply was started to ensure an individual had
actually read the message before replying. for the most part i reply
at the top of a message, simply because, i've read the msg and have a
comment, i hit reply and start typing.
>
> if it is a long message, replying within the message is
best..however make sure you clearly indicate where you have responded
to a comment.
>
> whenever possible, snip text for brevity. the >>> can be very
distracting, and even hide your response.
>
> my biggest pet peeve is when people reply, and they supply none
of the message they are replying to. i've a good memory, but boy
sometimes i'm left floating as to why a person made a comment.
>
> if you are using a program that strips the message you are
replying to..use the copy and paste feature an your machine...and
again elimnate the unnecessary comments as much as possible.
>
> i think the most important thing is make sure your response is
easy to find and clearly marked...delete the unnecessary
>>>>portions...or your response might not get "heard".
> roslyn
>
> alanth252 <alanth252@...> wrote:
> In reply to "Le Bateman" below...
>
> I`ve just traced the male Neville line back to Duncan who was
killed
> at the Battle of Dundrub. That would appear to be a Norman/Scottish
> line rather than Saxon. I was using RootsWeb.com
>
> http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?
> op=PED&db=utzing&id=I016998
>
> Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my
messages
> above or below the post I wish to reply to?
>
> Alan
>
> --------------------
>
> --- In , "Le Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct claim
> to the
> > throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred
II
> through
> > the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and
Revenge
> in
> > Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
> > Le
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
> Tudor (Henry
> > VII)
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Alan, Forum etiquette seems to vary between Forums (Fora ?) - in
some Yahoo groups the tendency is to do it one way, in others the
norm is another. If the new message is placed at the top, with the
extract from the message being replied to below it (as I have done
here), I find this is clearest - and the start of the new message
appears on the summary page. Spreading the reply through the copy of
the original message I find can be difficult to pick out, especially
in a long message. At the end of the day it is down to individual
posters, unless the Forum Moderator wants to make a ruling. But in
general, it is appreciated if sections of the original message that
are not being replied to are deleted from the reply.

Richard G

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my
> messages
> above or below the post I wish to reply to?
>
> Alan

Hi Richard, Sent Email to thank you. Not sure if it got through. Much
obliged for your help.

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

In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Alan, Forum etiquette seems to vary between Forums (Fora ?) - in
> some Yahoo groups the tendency is to do it one way, in others the
> norm is another. If the new message is placed at the top, with the
> extract from the message being replied to below it (as I have done
> here), I find this is clearest - and the start of the new message
> appears on the summary page. Spreading the reply through the copy
of
> the original message I find can be difficult to pick out,
especially
> in a long message. At the end of the day it is down to individual
> posters, unless the Forum Moderator wants to make a ruling. But in
> general, it is appreciated if sections of the original message that
> are not being replied to are deleted from the reply.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally I`m new on these forums. Should I be placing my
> > messages
> > above or below the post I wish to reply to?
> >
> > Alan
>

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> One question. Why didn't any of the Nevilles make a direct claim
to the
> throne? They were descended from Ælfgifu the daughter of Æþelred II
through
> the male line. See Richard Fletcher's Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge
in
> Anglo-Saxon England. Also Origins of the Neville Family.
> Le
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Help required re Henry
Tudor (Henry
> VII)
> Thanks again, Jacob - tracked them down last night and it was easy
once I had spotted that magic word "Raby".
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>