The "Great Tudor Myths"

The first one is obvious - the circular argument that Edward IV's sons
must have been killed in 1483 because they were never seen again AND
they couldn't have been seen again because they were killed in 1483.
This used to hang on the 1674 bone find, which is now greatly disputed.

The Second Great Tudor Myth, which I now wish to discuss, is "Who cares
if we were usurpers because all of the alternatives either died in
battle, were executed or took holy orders (a form of social
castration)." It is easy to be taken in by this if you have just read
about 1499, 1513 or 1538-41.

However, it has clearly been shown that there are a lot of legitimate
descendants of the Duke of Clarence and of the Duchess of Exeter still
alive. Furthermore, the de la Pole line is almost proven and may turn
out to be legitimate - after all the Beauforts were born illegitimate,
Henry VIII tried to legitimise his son Henry Fitzroy. Fitzroy was
conceived when Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon whilst Lord
Richard de la Pole was probably single when he fathered a daughter by
the woman of Metz - was she?

The Parliamentary bar on the Beauforts succeeding could always be
overturned by another act of Parliament, as indeed it was. After
all by 1450 half the nobility had Beaufort blood, including the Duke
of York's wife and children. The whole history of the period shows
that succession according to the doctrines of inheritance was
considered sacred and thus more binding than mere Parliamentary
laws. That's why the vast majority of attainders and bars on
inheritance were overturned.
As to who were the true heirs to the English throne, it all depends
on how you ask the question. I've been considering this for my new
version of Kingmaker; in particular the order of succesion to the
House of Lancaster.
If you ask who is the true heir of Edward III then of course it has
to be the Duke of York as heir general. But if you consider Henry IV
to be King by "Right of Couquest" then determining his true heir in
1453 (before the birth of the Prince of Wales) is much trickier,
there being at least 4 resonable candidates.
Margaret Beaufort's (and hence Henry VII's) claim is based on being
in the senior line of descent from a son of John of Gaunt, while her
Uncle the Duke of Somerset could claim the senior unbroken male line
of descent.
However, as I understand the then well established practice, the law
of the exclusion of the half blood makes the representatives of
Henry IV's FULL sisters his true heirs in preference to the Beaufort
lines (younger HALF brothers). These were represented in 1453 by
the King of Portugal and Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter. At the very
least, these would have a good claim to divide the Duchy of
Lancaster between them.
This confusion of claims is why Henry never seems to have had a
designated successor between the death of his uncles and the birth
of his (or at least his wife's) son.
After 1475 the Hollands would be represented by the Earl of
Westmoreland (son of Exeter's sister), yet this line never seems to
have been considered seriously despite it having a clearly superior
claim to the Beauforts/Tudors.
But then as you suggest by this time it was really all about who had
the power to enforce their will. Henry VII was rightful King because
he said so; I wonder if anyone seriously though he had the best
claim. He deliberately delayed the Coronation of his wife to
emphasise that he didn't rule in her right.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> The first one is obvious - the circular argument that Edward IV's
sons
> must have been killed in 1483 because they were never seen again
AND
> they couldn't have been seen again because they were killed in
1483.
> This used to hang on the 1674 bone find, which is now greatly
disputed.
>
> The Second Great Tudor Myth, which I now wish to discuss, is "Who
cares
> if we were usurpers because all of the alternatives either died in
> battle, were executed or took holy orders (a form of social
> castration)." It is easy to be taken in by this if you have just
read
> about 1499, 1513 or 1538-41.
>
> However, it has clearly been shown that there are a lot of
legitimate
> descendants of the Duke of Clarence and of the Duchess of Exeter
still
> alive. Furthermore, the de la Pole line is almost proven and may
turn
> out to be legitimate - after all the Beauforts were born
illegitimate,
> Henry VIII tried to legitimise his son Henry Fitzroy. Fitzroy was
> conceived when Henry was married to Catherine of Aragon whilst
Lord
> Richard de la Pole was probably single when he fathered a daughter
by
> the woman of Metz - was she?
>