Baroness of Books
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2011
- Messages
- 5,806
- City
- Bookstacks
- Country
- United States
Happy birthday, My Lady the King's Mother! Thanks for the photo, An Ard Ri, Lady Margaret looked like she chewed nails for breakfast!
Henry VII (1457-1509) and Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)
- Thread starter Zonk
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 44,093
- City
- An Iarmhí
- Country
- Ireland
Happy birthday, My Lady the King's Mother! Thanks for the photo, An Ard Ri, Lady Margaret looked like she chewed nails for breakfast!
Ha ha ,she was quite formidable looking alright
ukchrisuk
Commoner
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 19
- City
- Wouldham
- Country
- United Kingdom
Henry VII- a concise history of the 1st Tudor King
Hi, I have just written a concise history about Henry VII and histenuous claim to the throne leading to the Tudor dynasty which ruled for 118 years. It is only 1400 words long so it should not take to long to read. You can find the link here King Henry VII
Hi, I have just written a concise history about Henry VII and histenuous claim to the throne leading to the Tudor dynasty which ruled for 118 years. It is only 1400 words long so it should not take to long to read. You can find the link here King Henry VII
Warren
Administrator in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 15,447
- City
- Sydney
- Country
- Australia
An interesting read.
One correction, in the 2nd para:
"...the House of York and the House of Lancaster, whose heraldic symbols were the red rose and white rose respectively."
→ should be the other way round: York white, Lancaster red.
ukchrisuk
Commoner
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 19
- City
- Wouldham
- Country
- United Kingdom
An interesting read.
One correction, in the 2nd para:
"...the House of York and the House of Lancaster, whose heraldic symbols were the red rose and white rose respectively."
→ should be the other way round: York white, Lancaster red.
Many thanks for spotting the mistake. A transcription error on my part and now updated
XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
So the Duke of Buckingham turned against Richard around the time the princes disappeared; do you think this happened because he thought Richard was responsible, or because 2 obstacles to him becoming King were gone so he decided to try and get the crown?
XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
Has anyone ever wondered what changed in the decades between Elizabeth of York and Mary I that England was all of a sudden ready to have a Queen Regent? After her brothers deaths Elizabeth should have become Queen but it seems no one really wanted that. Fast forward to 1553 and when Edward VI dies the country is happy to embrace a Queen Mary.
Ana Von Cleves
Gentry
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 98
- City
- Our Town
- Country
- United States
My take on Richard III
The following is just my opinion based on all I have read on the subject:
I think Richard snapped.
Yes, he was a loyal brother to Edward IV and was loved in the North where he was in charge during Edward's reign.
We should remember that for most of Richard's life, he was at war on behalf of Edward IV. I think when he was on that road on the way to intercept Edward V and his party, he thought....No, I am not spending the next 8 or more years fighting for someone else, especially not the Woodvilles. It's my turn now.
I believe it is very telling the Elizabeth feared him enough to flee to sanctuary with Prince Richard when she heard Richard had intercepted her sons. We have not really discussed this aspect.
And do I think Richard had the young king and his brother killed? YES,
They disappeared while in his custody. He was well aware of the rumors concerning them and had only to produce them to prove they were well.
I simply don't buy for a minute the possibility that Richard would have one or both of the boys hidden away. They were too old to forget who they were and no one knew better than Richard III that a teenager could lead an army and win battles. He had done it himself.
Also, never forget "means, motive and opportunity" which only applies to Henry VII IF they were alive and still prisoners in the tower after he won at Bosworth.
I believe Elizabeth Woodville only entered into that deal with Margaret Beaufort because she believed her sons were dead and it was the only hope for her remaining family. I believe that if she suspected that her sons were alive she would have fought for them.
Just my opinions!!
The following is just my opinion based on all I have read on the subject:
I think Richard snapped.
Yes, he was a loyal brother to Edward IV and was loved in the North where he was in charge during Edward's reign.
We should remember that for most of Richard's life, he was at war on behalf of Edward IV. I think when he was on that road on the way to intercept Edward V and his party, he thought....No, I am not spending the next 8 or more years fighting for someone else, especially not the Woodvilles. It's my turn now.
I believe it is very telling the Elizabeth feared him enough to flee to sanctuary with Prince Richard when she heard Richard had intercepted her sons. We have not really discussed this aspect.
And do I think Richard had the young king and his brother killed? YES,
They disappeared while in his custody. He was well aware of the rumors concerning them and had only to produce them to prove they were well.
I simply don't buy for a minute the possibility that Richard would have one or both of the boys hidden away. They were too old to forget who they were and no one knew better than Richard III that a teenager could lead an army and win battles. He had done it himself.
Also, never forget "means, motive and opportunity" which only applies to Henry VII IF they were alive and still prisoners in the tower after he won at Bosworth.
I believe Elizabeth Woodville only entered into that deal with Margaret Beaufort because she believed her sons were dead and it was the only hope for her remaining family. I believe that if she suspected that her sons were alive she would have fought for them.
Just my opinions!!
Ana Von Cleves
Gentry
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 98
- City
- Our Town
- Country
- United States
In response to Xenia about Mary I.
I believe everyone was sick of war. Also, I believe the only close alternatives were Scottish or French. There were some English Dukes who could have been considered. But Henry VIII had actually named both Mary and Elizabeth as heirs after Edward and I don't know if that had ever been done since the time of Henry I.
I believe everyone was sick of war. Also, I believe the only close alternatives were Scottish or French. There were some English Dukes who could have been considered. But Henry VIII had actually named both Mary and Elizabeth as heirs after Edward and I don't know if that had ever been done since the time of Henry I.
Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
I disagree, Mary didn't succeed because people were sick of war, Mary succeeded because there were no male alternatives.
When Henry VIII created his Third Succession Act (I believe in 1544), 7 of the first 8 people in the line of succession (which favoured the descendants of his younger sister, Mary, over his elder sister, Margaret) were female. The only male descendants of Henry VII's alive at the time of Henry VIII's death were Edward VI and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, who was 2. Henry Stuart would have been 8 when Edward died, meaning that the choice for the succession was either a woman - Mary, as named by Henry, or Jane, as named by Edward - or else an 8 year old Scottish boy.
Things were very different in Elizabeth of York's time. There was never any real consideration of Elizabeth as a potential monarch, as any claim she would have had was immediately superseded by her uncle Richard. She was also declared to be of an illegitimate line - Richard used as his justification the idea that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid and therefore their children were illegitimate (not to mention the rumour that Edward himself was illegitimate).
During Elizabeth's time there was no point when she could have been declared monarch, nor would she have likely gathered any support had she done so. She was what, 18 when her father died? And female? And instantly facing a war with her uncle over the succession? Not to mention the Lancasters? In the mind of the 15th century individual, a woman could barely lead the country, let alone do so in a time of Civil War.
Adding to that was the fact that there were far too many possible male claimants. There were her brothers, whose deaths weren't clarified. There was Richard III, who had himself declared king. There was Edward Plantagenet, the only son of the brother in between Edward IV and Richard III. There was Henry Tudor, the Lancastrian claimant. There were too many male options to chose between to consider supporting Elizabeth as a viable option.
That Henry VIII went out and deliberately named his daughters (and nieces) in the line of succession while Edward didn't becomes a matter of "what if." While that would have given Elizabeth a claim, it also would have endangered her life. Richard III had no problem with at minimum locking up Edward IV's sons, and likely having them killed, and may very well have done the same to his nieces had they been named in a succession.
I don't believe any woman was named in the line of succession between when Henry I named his daughter his heir and when Henry VIII named his daughters as in the succession. Between the two, however, there wasn't ever any lack of male heirs. What the situation that evolved after Matilda's failure to succeed to the throne was the fact that women couldn't inherit, but men could inherit if they were descended from the monarch in a male line - Stephen could inherit through his mother, who was still alive when Stephen became king, as could Henry II or Henry VII (whose mothers were also still alive), but not their actual mothers.
When Henry VIII created his Third Succession Act (I believe in 1544), 7 of the first 8 people in the line of succession (which favoured the descendants of his younger sister, Mary, over his elder sister, Margaret) were female. The only male descendants of Henry VII's alive at the time of Henry VIII's death were Edward VI and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, who was 2. Henry Stuart would have been 8 when Edward died, meaning that the choice for the succession was either a woman - Mary, as named by Henry, or Jane, as named by Edward - or else an 8 year old Scottish boy.
Things were very different in Elizabeth of York's time. There was never any real consideration of Elizabeth as a potential monarch, as any claim she would have had was immediately superseded by her uncle Richard. She was also declared to be of an illegitimate line - Richard used as his justification the idea that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid and therefore their children were illegitimate (not to mention the rumour that Edward himself was illegitimate).
During Elizabeth's time there was no point when she could have been declared monarch, nor would she have likely gathered any support had she done so. She was what, 18 when her father died? And female? And instantly facing a war with her uncle over the succession? Not to mention the Lancasters? In the mind of the 15th century individual, a woman could barely lead the country, let alone do so in a time of Civil War.
Adding to that was the fact that there were far too many possible male claimants. There were her brothers, whose deaths weren't clarified. There was Richard III, who had himself declared king. There was Edward Plantagenet, the only son of the brother in between Edward IV and Richard III. There was Henry Tudor, the Lancastrian claimant. There were too many male options to chose between to consider supporting Elizabeth as a viable option.
That Henry VIII went out and deliberately named his daughters (and nieces) in the line of succession while Edward didn't becomes a matter of "what if." While that would have given Elizabeth a claim, it also would have endangered her life. Richard III had no problem with at minimum locking up Edward IV's sons, and likely having them killed, and may very well have done the same to his nieces had they been named in a succession.
I don't believe any woman was named in the line of succession between when Henry I named his daughter his heir and when Henry VIII named his daughters as in the succession. Between the two, however, there wasn't ever any lack of male heirs. What the situation that evolved after Matilda's failure to succeed to the throne was the fact that women couldn't inherit, but men could inherit if they were descended from the monarch in a male line - Stephen could inherit through his mother, who was still alive when Stephen became king, as could Henry II or Henry VII (whose mothers were also still alive), but not their actual mothers.
XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
It does seem like accepting Mary could have been due to the fact that all the heirs were girls (haha suck Henry VIII). I guess that could be said to be the biggest difference between Elizabeth of York just being Queen Consort and Mary I being regent. I wonder if Elizabeth ever contemplated having herself declared Queen after her brothers death/disappearance. But really it probably couldn't work she had too many male relatives.
Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
It wasn't just that there were no male heirs for Henry, although that was a major factor. The big deciding factor is that when faced with a minimal potential for male heirs - Henry had one son, no brothers, and no nephews outside of the Scottish monarch, and didn't have the option of naming a distant cousin as being in the line of succession - Henry had no choice but to include women in the line of succession, starting with Mary. The important thing here is that Henry listed women in the line of succession, giving them a right to inherit that hadn't been seen in England since the Anarchy.
Elizabeth of York had no right to inherit her father's throne. Edward did not make any effort to include his daughters in a line of succession - it went his sons, in succession, then his brother, then Richard's son. This was keeping with a practice that had existed in England for some 300 years at the time. The Anarchy was fought essentially over the idea of whether or not female succession could occur, and while Stephen may have eventually been forced to name his opponent's son as his heir, the lasting result of the period was the idea that women could not inherit, but men could inherit through female lines.
Elizabeth likely wouldn't have been taken seriously had she put herself forward as a possible monarch, but she just as likely would have been killed. In order for her to be the monarch she would have had to fight for the throne against both Richard III and Henry VII. She would have had to gain followers and make men fight for her. All while having others being very determined to kill her. I don't think she would have stood a chance of surviving, let alone winning.
Elizabeth of York had no right to inherit her father's throne. Edward did not make any effort to include his daughters in a line of succession - it went his sons, in succession, then his brother, then Richard's son. This was keeping with a practice that had existed in England for some 300 years at the time. The Anarchy was fought essentially over the idea of whether or not female succession could occur, and while Stephen may have eventually been forced to name his opponent's son as his heir, the lasting result of the period was the idea that women could not inherit, but men could inherit through female lines.
Elizabeth likely wouldn't have been taken seriously had she put herself forward as a possible monarch, but she just as likely would have been killed. In order for her to be the monarch she would have had to fight for the throne against both Richard III and Henry VII. She would have had to gain followers and make men fight for her. All while having others being very determined to kill her. I don't think she would have stood a chance of surviving, let alone winning.
XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
Just I understand, are you saying that Edward named his successors his sons then his brother then his brothers son? Or are you saying that that is the rule that was followed but that Edward didn't specifically exclude his daughters?
Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
I'm not saying that Edward specifically named his sons his successors and excluded his daughters, but that was the convention of the time.
The difference between him and Henry is that Edward neglected to name a succession so the conventions of the time were followed - his sons, then his brother, then his nephew. Henry however did name a succession, so when he died there was an idea of what the succession should be under law - Edward, Edward's descendants, Mary, Mary's descendants, Elizabeth, Elizabeth's descendants, the descendants of Henry's younger sister.
Even then, this was contested - first Edward tried to name his cousin Jane as his successor over his sister, then when Elizabeth died it was decided that the senior descendant of Henry's elder sister, James VI of Scotland, should inherit over the senior descendant of Henry's younger sister, Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, despite the stipulations of Henry's act of succession.
The difference between him and Henry is that Edward neglected to name a succession so the conventions of the time were followed - his sons, then his brother, then his nephew. Henry however did name a succession, so when he died there was an idea of what the succession should be under law - Edward, Edward's descendants, Mary, Mary's descendants, Elizabeth, Elizabeth's descendants, the descendants of Henry's younger sister.
Even then, this was contested - first Edward tried to name his cousin Jane as his successor over his sister, then when Elizabeth died it was decided that the senior descendant of Henry's elder sister, James VI of Scotland, should inherit over the senior descendant of Henry's younger sister, Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp, despite the stipulations of Henry's act of succession.
CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,549
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
In order to process important cases quickly and decisively Henry VII revived the Court of Star Chamber, in which members of the Privy Council made rapid and often ruthless legal determinations in defense of royal prerogatives.
Elizabeth of York, Queen Consort of Henry VII, died on February 11, 1503.
In The Other Tudors, Philippa Jones wrote: Isabella (of Spain) recommended Henry VII to consider marriage to Joan, the widowed Queen of Naples, the daughter of her husband Ferdinand's sister.
In The Other Tudors, Philippa Jones wrote: Isabella (of Spain) recommended Henry VII to consider marriage to Joan, the widowed Queen of Naples, the daughter of her husband Ferdinand's sister.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweden
Commoner
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2015
- Messages
- 38
Fun fact
Elizabeth of York is on the playing card as the queen of hearts.
Elizabeth of York is on the playing card as the queen of hearts.
Elizabeth on her wedding day, January 18th 1486, wore a gown of silk damask and crimson satin costing £11 5s 6d, with a kirtle of white cloth of gold damask and a mantle of the same suit, furred with ermine. Her hair was worn flowing, proclaiming her virginity and was threaded with jewels.
Her groom, Henry, was even more georgeously attired. He wore cloth of gold. The Queen's wedding ring was gold and weighed two thirds of an ounce (heavy by today's standards.
The Sarum Rite, the pre-Reformation service was then in use, and Elizabeth vowed to take Henry for her wedded husband, 'for fairer, for fouler, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to be blithe and bonair (amiable) and buxom (obliging) in bed and at board' until death.
Her groom, Henry, was even more georgeously attired. He wore cloth of gold. The Queen's wedding ring was gold and weighed two thirds of an ounce (heavy by today's standards.
The Sarum Rite, the pre-Reformation service was then in use, and Elizabeth vowed to take Henry for her wedded husband, 'for fairer, for fouler, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to be blithe and bonair (amiable) and buxom (obliging) in bed and at board' until death.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 44,093
- City
- An Iarmhí
- Country
- Ireland
Elizabeth of York: one of England’s most successful queens
Tudor monarchs: why Elizabeth of York was one of England’s best queens | History Extrast successful queens
Tudor monarchs: why Elizabeth of York was one of England’s best queens | History Extrast successful queens
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 44,093
- City
- An Iarmhí
- Country
- Ireland
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 44,093
- City
- An Iarmhí
- Country
- Ireland
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 44,093
- City
- An Iarmhí
- Country
- Ireland
The Funeral of Queen Elizabeth of York
The Funeral of Queen Elizabeth of York, the First Tudor Queen of England - Medievalists.net
The Funeral of Queen Elizabeth of York, the First Tudor Queen of England - Medievalists.net
CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,549
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
Elizabeth of York was the First Consort of a new dynasty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyKkMt9FOzc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyKkMt9FOzc
CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,549
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
How did Henry VII get to be called the Huckster King?
Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
Henry VII was known for being a shrewd business man who manipulated the overseas trade and had a lot of taxes. As a result he was called "the Accountant" and "Huckster."
CyrilVladisla
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 12,549
- City
- Conneaut
- Country
- United States
Roland de Velville was a son of King Henry VII by a French mistress. Roland was born around 1474. Another spelling of his surname was Vielleville, which indicated that Roland's mother belonged to the de Vielleville family. When Henry VII became King, Roland was knighted. He was Constable of Beaumaris Castle.
Countessmeout
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 13,100
- City
- alberta
- Country
- Canada
It is debated whether he was Henry's son of simply one of the young men who came within him from Brittany. Either way, he was a prominent figure.
His granddaughter Katherine Tudor is known as the mother of Wales. She was married 4 times and her extensive descendants is well known. Her eldest son was executed for his part in the babblington plot. Her other son by her first husband was well respected in literary circles and writer himself. He was good friends with Ben johnson and involved with Shakespeare. She had 2 daughters from her second marriage to a wealthy merchant who likely died of poison having been a spy for the queen. She had a son and daughter from a third marriage. Her final husband outlived her, only one she had no kids with.
By her first marriage, she belonged to the prominent Salisbury family, her son's above both well known members. Her descendants include Hester Thrace, a prominent eighteenth century diarist and great source of info on Samuel johnson. Explorer John Salisbury, one of the founders of Halifax is Aldo a descendent.
His granddaughter Katherine Tudor is known as the mother of Wales. She was married 4 times and her extensive descendants is well known. Her eldest son was executed for his part in the babblington plot. Her other son by her first husband was well respected in literary circles and writer himself. He was good friends with Ben johnson and involved with Shakespeare. She had 2 daughters from her second marriage to a wealthy merchant who likely died of poison having been a spy for the queen. She had a son and daughter from a third marriage. Her final husband outlived her, only one she had no kids with.
By her first marriage, she belonged to the prominent Salisbury family, her son's above both well known members. Her descendants include Hester Thrace, a prominent eighteenth century diarist and great source of info on Samuel johnson. Explorer John Salisbury, one of the founders of Halifax is Aldo a descendent.
Last edited:
LadyAlice
Commoner
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 38
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
I know that Henry had a child before he married Elizabeth but is there any evidence that he cheated on her at all during their marriage?
No, I don't think there is. Of course there was all that business of musing over whether to marry the widow of his son Arthur (Katherine of Aragon) because he was reluctant to return her dowry, but he didn't in the end, and he was a widower himself at the time, anyway.
In fact, Henry seems to have been remarkably chaste for a monarch of those times. He may have been rather on the cold side emotionally, very different to his son, who IMO resembled his maternal grandfather in many ways.
In fact, Henry seems to have been remarkably chaste for a monarch of those times. He may have been rather on the cold side emotionally, very different to his son, who IMO resembled his maternal grandfather in many ways.
Last edited:
Similar threads
