±«Óătv

History Hub  permalink

Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

• Message 1. 

  Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Wednesday, 14th December 2011

  It's probably a bit silly to start a new thread at this late stage, especially since I won't be around after Sunday, but I have a query, doubtless one that has been answered in the various Tudor threads already, but I don't follow those very thoroughly and rather hope Temperance is still around.
  
  I have almost finished reading CJ Sansom's Sovereign set during Henry VIII's Progress to the North in York in 1541 . His detective (no doubt reflecting his author's opinion) is rather scathing of Henry VIII and I wonder did he have ANY good points by this stage. His good looks, athleticism and health have gone, he seems to have set himself up as God himself and certainly doesn't discourage torture as a method of imposing his law and putting down opponents. Was he doing anything worthwhile by that stage.
  
  But the more important question I was going to ask revolves round Titulus Regius and the issues of legitimacy of Edward IV's children and Edward himself. The possibility of Cecily Neville having born Edward by an archer called Blaybourne forms the basis of this novel; Sansom at the end says he personally doesn't believe this because of difficulties of the dating but it could be true.
  
  But what interested me was the premise throughout this book that this revelation would be so damaging to Henry's claims of legitimate kingship. I just see Henry's claims as coming through his father, and though Henry VII didn't have great ancestral claims to the throne he came to it by the legitimate means of conquest. But this book is talking of how Henry's claim really comes through his mother, Elizabeth of York, and if her father (or she herself) was not legitimate then Henry VIII's claim to the throne is uncertain. Would that really be the case? And why not worry about it during Henry VII's reign if so? I don't know when all the copies (bar one) of Titulus Regius were destroyed.
  
  How were these matters viewed at the time?
  
  Cheers, Caro.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 14th December 2011

  Dear Caro,
  
  Please bear with me, these are the facts commonly held to be true at the moment even by Michael Hicks!
  Edward who later became Edward IV was born on April 28th 1442 in Rouen. When Titulus Regius was read for Richard III it was claimed that Edward IV was not the son of Richard duke of York. For 500 years this has been scorned. Yet at the time of Edward's birth and during his lifetime - it was one of the main accusations used to execute George duke of Clarence, Edward and Richard's brother who circulated it - there were rumours that Edward was indeed illegitimate and this is why.
  
  Edward IV was almost 6 feet four inches tall. It was said at the time that he bore little resemblance to his father, Richard was apparently a "dead-ringer"for his father Richard duke of York and both were around five feet four and dark. It has been argued that Edward had the genes of a true Plantagenet, tall and fair. However, he was a large baby, therefore presumably born at full term. If his birth was April 28th then he should have been conceived between August 1st and August 8th 1441.
  
  However, from July 1441, Richard duke of York, his father, was in France and on campaign at Pontoise, many miles from the Garrison at Rouen where his mother Cecily held court. Of course it is possible that Cecily visited him on campaign at Pontoise but it would have been unusual and there are no records of her moving there with her entourage. There were also rumours that the young and beautiful "Rose of Rabey", the duchess Cecily, had a breif fling with a tall archer at Rouen, Blaybourne. But to the facts.
  
  Dr Michael Jones(who has written a great deal about this period and the Beauforts) was carrying out work on the 100 years war at Rouen in 2005? (sorry to be vague) and was shocked to find records about Edward's Baptism. For the first son of a royal duke it was an extremely low key affair held in a side chapel of Rouen Cathedral upon the duke's return, yet when his second son Edmund was Baptised almost two years later at Rouen, Holy Relics were produced, a full chior and all the panoplay of a full celebration was held. Edmund was later killed with his father at the Battle of Blakemore Vale, he was only 17.
  
  Rumours of his possible illegitimacy plagued Edward (IV) to such an extent that he made official announcements about it. It was proclaimed that he "was conceived in wedlock", and he was, "of the Royal Blood". It was also put about that Edward had been conceived BEFORE his parents left for France and that he was OFFICIALLY conceived at Hatfield Chase in Yorkshire in June 1441. This would have meant that Cecily, Edward's mother, was pregnant for 11months and Edward's birth was 8 weeks overdue, apparently a medical impossability.
  The time line is so out of kilter that even Michael Hicks has said that it was "feasible" and even "plausable" that perhaps Edward IV was indeed the son of Blaybourne, the Archer of Rouen.
  
  The problem with all of this period seems to concern "legitimacy". For 500 years the concentration has been put upon Richard III's usurption of the throne from the Princes in the Tower. The reason being that they were illegitimate, Edward IV had never been truly married to Elizabeth Woodville having been pre-contracted to Lady Eleanor Butler. This has been seen as a myth although laid down by Parliament in Titulus Regius which was totally surpressed by Henry Tudor; it was even a crime to remember its contents! One remained in the Tower and it is from this that all "revisionist" thinking about Richard III evolved in the early c17th. However, there was no doubt that Richard WAS the son of the Planatgenet Richard duke of York and Cecily. It was often said how much he looked like his father, the short dark duke.
  
  When Henry Tudor surpressed Titulus Regius, it not only made his new wife Elizabeth of York legitimate again but also her brothers, the missing Princes in the Tower. Yet Titulus Regius also said that Edward IV was illegitimate. Some say this was Richard being exceptionally wicked and yet if we went back to c15th London there were rumours aplenty saying that Edward IV was not York's son but Blaybourne's. BUT we can't have this! Edward IV was tall and blonde and beautiful! A true king! No doubt he was loved by his subjects BUT ...IF Edward IV WAS illegitimate, as it seems he may have been and IF he married Elizabeth Woodville bygamously, then their children, INCLUDING Elizabeth of York, Henry Tudors royal connection, all is lost! Neither Henry VII NOR his "royal" Queen had any claim to the English Throne.
  
  I've been lambasted for being "posh" about claiming being really royal matters when claiming to be a monarch and yet it seems to me that when the royal line of descent is broken on BOTH sides, why does someone have the right to tell anyone else what to do?! Tudor won the right to rule by simple conquest, force of arms and the rest is simply window dressing. The bones of the Princes in the Tower are in Westminster Abbey. They could easily be DNAd. But Westminster is an "Old Peculiar" owned by the queen who is descended from Henry VII. We don't know where Richard III's bones lie, we do know that Edward IV's lie at Windsor. BUT we also know those bones in Westminster Abbey will never be subjected to DNA testing. It will rock the establishment too much. I'm accused of being elitist for wanting to know the truth. What do you think about the matter? I'd love to know and little time.
  Cheers, Minette.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 14th December 2011

  Caro
  
  Minette has repeated her case for the Divine Right of a blood line.. The counter case is that in England law was based upon the common law of a sovereign people- and that whoever the people decided to treat as a legitimate King was a legitimate King.
  
  It is based on this right that Parliament basis its right to pass laws that change the ancient laws of England on the basis that the High Courts of Parliament have been duly invested with the competence to do so.
  
  As for legitimacy in the eyes of the people- regal is as regal does, hence the important issues with some of the heavy handed actions of Richard III in an age of worrying despotism.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 15th December 2011

  Thanks, Minette and Cass. I think I find it hard to care that much about individual events and people like this and tend to accept what is, is. So from that point of view Henry VII took over the throne and his descendants after him, and you cannot do anything about that. Conquest is not a pleasant way to gain power, but once you have there is usually no real going back. I can think of William I, the South American conquests, the takeover of Maori in New Zealand, Aborigine in Australia, native Americans in the USA and Canada, varioius French colonies, Central Asian cultures. Some countries reclaim themselves, but generally only with difficulty and not unchanged (India, Samoa). Even when you try to go back (African countries in general, India) it is a very difficult transition.
  
  In Britain, I suppose it would be different in that you would only be changing one British monarch for another. But the constitutional effects of that would be impossible to work out, even suppose there was popular and political support. How could an ordinary Australian now take on the throne of England?
  
  Now long ago someone asked what historical event I would change and (after mentioning the volcano that destroyed New Zealand’s wonderful pink and white terraces) I said I would have Richard III dying after a long, glorious, peaceful reign, and succeeded by a child from his second marriage. (In other words, no Henry VII.) And when I was asked about whether I would support the Cavaliers or a Roundhead army with Scots in it, I didn’t hesitate to say the Cavaliers, despite my Scottish ancestry. So my inclinations are to the romantic losers.
  
  But I wouldn’t at all want to live under a divine right king. The Stuarts seem to me to be a difficult dynasty and so were the Plantagenets - and the Tudors. I am happy living under a constitutional monarchy where the general public is left alone, and no one gets their heads cut off or is tortured. Practically my favourite dynasty is really the Hanovers who allowed themselves to become gradually less relevant and important till we are where we are today.
  
  I don’t really see why the disinterment of the bones in the tower should cause a big stink. Either they will have Plantagenet DNA in which case it will be accepted that they were the young princes, but that still won’t tell us what happened to them. Or they won’t have, and people would surely just assume they were some other bodies, not that they were the princes descended from someone other than Richard of York.
  
  Cheers, Caro.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 15th December 2011

  And when I was asked about whether I would support the Cavaliers or a Roundhead army with Scots in it, I didn’t hesitate to say the Cavaliers, despite my Scottish ancestry. So my inclinations are to the romantic losers. 
  
  A typical example of Caledonian Antisyzygy Caro, no one loves a romantic loser more than the Scots, 'We wus robbed' should be embroidered on the Saltire.
  Here's a great bit of Tartan sentimentality
  
  Like you, I find the political machinations of the powerful don't interest me nearly as much as their effects on the lives of ordinary people, a bit like football, I've no interest in the sport but I find it fascinating but baffling as a social phenomena. Much the same applies to religion although I must admit that it has left us with most of the supreme art and architecture of the past.
  
  Off topic again, ah well.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 15th December 2011

  ferval
  
  I have Kenneth Clark's "Civilization" open on a page I have just used including "The Scottish character (and I am myself a Scot) shows an extraordinary combination of realism and reckless sentiment."
  
  There is a tendency these days to belittle "National Character" but my own view is that rugby, for example, is the poorer for the fact that there are not so many countries that inisist like the French that there is a "French way" of doing things- and the best thing is that old maxim that the English have generally lost "To thyself be true".
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 15th December 2011

  Hi Caro,
  
  Only got a minute. This is such an interesting topic, especially as - according to Mancini - Proud Cis (Dowager Duchess of York) actually confessed that Edward was illegitimate - an *extraordinary* claim from a woman in her position.
  
  Would you consider joining the Englistory site and posting your question again there? We could really get a discussion going after Christmas!
  
  Kind regards,
  
  SST.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 15th December 2011

  But I come back to female strengths--
  
  Now that we have unlocked the genetic code there is a great deal of evidence in the USA that US women quite correctly and appropriately marry men who will provide security for them as mothers, but they often then chose the father's of their families with a view to adventurous spirits who will be better equipped to deal with the unknown future- a different kind of male altogether..
  
  One may postulate that women have thus used their key role in the survival of the species in order to ensure its survival.. The Harvard Peabody research project into the "stone-age" Kurelu and Wittaia in 1961 did find that the women shared a secret from the men- that sexual intercourse led to pregnancy, in part because they had a "special place" where the women secretly terminated pregnancies.. With such knowledge it is no great leap to make sure that at times of fertility you have sex with someone who is "fit" as well as your husband.
  
  In the Indian Himalayas it was also common for the wife of the chief brother to sleep with all the others.. It was preferable to having to share the kitchen- or worse the whole farm plot with another woman: and younger brothers may well have been "fitter".
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 15th December 2011

  Hi Temperance,
  
  I am away till about the New Year, but will check out Englistory after that. Sounds a little high-brow for my knowledge perhaps. (Well, not perhaps, definitely, but I don't let a bit of ignorance stand in my way too often.)
  
  I did wonder why Cecily Neville would have ever admitted to such a thing, true or not. What was in it for her? Did she not like her eldest son? Had he offended her some way? Will ask these questions on Englistory if I can work my way through the site.
  
  Cheers, Caro.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Friday, 16th December 2011

  Dear Caro
  
  I hope you get this before you depart for Englistory, but I think all these rumours need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. The charge of illegitimacy was a political weapon in the middle ages that was thrown around on many occasions by political enemies. Edward II, John of Gaunt, Edward of Lancaster, Edward IV and Edward V were all tarred as illegitimate by their political opponents.
  
  Contrary to what Minette claims, there were no rumours about Edward IV's birth around the time, or at least none that we know of. The first time it was claimed Edward IV was illegitimate was in 1469-70 by the earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker, who, surprise surprise, had fallen out with Edward and was seeking to de-legitimise him.
  
  The idea that everyone, or indeed anyone, knew he was illegitimate before 1469 is ridiculous. Why would Richard, duke of York, (Edward's father) accept an illegitimate son of an archer as his heir when he had three healthy sons of his own? Sometimes one just has to employ common sense to see the truth of things. The low key baptism? Easily explainable if the boy was born prematurely, it would be necessary to have him batptised quickly in case he died. As to why it was more low key than Rutland's, the explanation is, again, rather simple if one understands medieval family politics. Edward, as the eldest and heir, was due to inherit his father's English lands; Edmund, as the second son, was due to inherit the French lands, thus the elaborate baptism was designed to impress the local nobility by showing off their future lord.
  
  Minette is incorrect about Titulus Regius stating that Edward IV was illegitimate. I'm surprised she doesnt know that given how much store she sets on the document. TR states only that Richard III was 'the undoubted son and heir' of Richard of York and that Richard was born in England (unlike Edward IV). These are allusions to the rumours spread about Edward IV birth but it is never explicitly stated in TR that Edward IV was illegitimate. There are two reasons for this: first, Cecily was apparently furious about the rumours being spread and second, no one believed them. Much better to fall back on Edward IV's marriage to de-legitimise Edward's children and allow Richard to seize the throne.
  
  What about Cecily's supposed claim that Edward was illegitimate. This is reported by Mancini, writing in 1483, discussing a statement supposedly said twenty years before when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville. Manicni was not in England at the time of Edward's marriage and therefore was picking up rumours and gossip twenty years later, rumours that we know were being spread by Richard's allies in 1483.
  
  Cecily's own thoughts on the matter were finally stated in her final will and testament, made when she was dying in 1495. She states categorically that Edward IV was indeed the true son of Richard, duke of York. Words from her own pen when she lay dying in fear of her immortal son. Perhaps we should believe those rather than rumours of a speech made by her twenty years previously to when the rumour was written down.
  
  All the best
  
  Andrew
  
  p.s. Looking forward to seeing everyone on Englistory, sounds like a good place. Will miss the old boards and all those who dont make it onto the new one!

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 16th December 2011

  Hi Andrew
  
  I hope the term went well.
  
  Of course- as in "This is my son in whom I am well-pleased"- there are plenty of precedents for people being acknowledged as "true sons" without necessarily being blood-related.. And that applies to other relationships.. When our daughter-in-law lost her father about 18 months ago I said that I had better try to be even more like a father to her.
  
  The whole issue reminds me of a "Medieval Fair" in the French Jura a few years ago in which one stall had old artefacts including the famous "chastity belts".. I wonder whether they were commonly used in Medieval England. I suppose apart from anything cultural there is also the fact that distances are much smaller so that absent husbands (unless they were away in France) could return unexpectedly. Like Mr Knightly in Pride and Prejudice.
  
  It remnds me of an eighteenth century anecdote about the famous roue Richelieu. As a man of "a certain age" a lady at court who he had been courting for some time suddenly ran up to him and said that her husband had gone away for five minutes and the opportunity was his. Milord drew himself up "Madame! Me prenez-vous pour un pistolet!"
  
  Merry Christmas and all the best for 2012.
  
  Cass
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 16th December 2011

  .. and therefore was picking up rumours and gossip... 
  
  He certainly was, Andrew.
  
  London was abuzz with rumours and gossip in1483 - and much was being spread by Richard's enemies.
  
  So what exactly should we believe of Mancini's "reporting"?
  
  But this is not the time nor - alas - the place.
  
  Do hope you and Minette lock horns again in the New Year!
  
  
  PS ...when she lay dying in fear of her immortal son.  
  
  What an interesting Freudian typo.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Saturday, 17th December 2011

  Dear Temperance
  
  Yes, interesting typo indeed! Personally, if we all make it to the new board then I hope not to discuss RIII with Minette too much, we each have our view & years of slogging away at each other hasn't changed much.
  
  As for Mancini, you are right that we need to be careful & work out which piece of gossip was coming from which party. Once we do that it makes his chronicle even more interesting ad we can get a snatch of the propaganda being used by both sides. Do we need to believe any or much of it? Well that's up to each individual reader but we need to have cogent reasons for accepting or rejecting individual nuggets of information gleaned from Mancini.
  
  All the best
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 17th December 2011

  Hi Andrew,
  I'm only going with the flow of some modern writers, in this case the great and good Alison Weir who is so favoured by so many, and she emphatically insists that Edward IV's illegitimacy was the only matter discussed in Tit Reg and most certainly by Shaa at St Paul's Cross...From reading the the angry exchanges between Clarence and Edward before he was charged with treason and killed there is much to be "interpreted" and it could even be construed that Edward is furious that not only has Clarence made people doubt is own legeitimacy but also that of the children through his Woodville marriage.Incidentally WHY is not more made of the Good Edward IV killing his own brother? It shocked me as a child that Somerset killed his brother Thomas Seymour.
  
  To me, the actual wording of T.R. is extraordinary in the way in which it is so emotional for a Parliamentary document. It brings up so many matters pertaining to Edward, his life-style, paternity and obviously his marriage and the pre-contract with much about witchcraft taboot! I'll be ridiculed for saying this but it is a strongly worded document, from someone who seems to be extremely angry and hurt! The hero-worshipping younger brother, who's been in exile twice, been at the forefront of many miliatary campaigns for a much loved brother who in many ways used him and also lied by omission to him; (as had Hastings) he was only 11 when the Woodville marriage took place. Those days in April to July 1483 could make a stunning documentary.
  
  However, it must be asked WHY Edward went to such lengths to announce his right to be accepted as Richard of York's son? You have said that in the case of Lambert Simnell and Perkin Warbeck, as well as the missing Princes, (everyone knew that Richard had killed them!) that Henry Tudor said nothing because it did not have to be said! Let sleeping dogs lie. Why didn't Edward IV do the same if these rumours of his illegitimacy were so ridiculous? AND you miss one important point, that is perhaps Richard actually loved Cecily! Not to accept Edward as his son would have thrown her into total disgrace and utter darkness.. BUT of course we shall never know for sure....
  
  To Caro and Cass, I really, really do NOT believe in the Divine Right of Kings or Queens come to that! AND I never have! My point has always been that if someone has his or her bum on the Throne, can kill and shout and tell we mere commoners what to do, then they should have some good reason to be able to! As simple as that!
  
  If we throw in our lot with the concept of Monarchy then let's obey the "rules"! If any old codger can drum up an army and beat the present incumbant to a pulp and then proclaim, "look how royal I am!!!!" Then let's ALL have a go IF violence on this scale floats your boat!
  The only exception to the rule can possibly be IF the alternative is worse for THE PEOPLE at large. The only time we in Britain have been ruled by a Miliatary Junta who wished to make this country a Theocracy was under Cromwell and I've become totally convinced (as was the royal council at the time) that if the Woodvilles' reigned useing Edward V as a puppet king, yet another bloody civil war would have ensued.
  
  Royal Pageantry is nice to look at, it also prevents others from weilding power but absolute power DOES corrupt absolutely. At the moment we are being governed by a government no one voted for! They have policies which were never in any Manifesto and Liberal Democrats, when offered a ministerial car or office suddenly realized that everything they had hitherto believed in was "mistaken"!
  I was told that as I got older I would become more Conservative...I'm now verging towards Nihilist Anarchisim and thought the summer riots were great! As the rich/ poor divide grows, caused predominantly by the uber stupid and rich Bankers, what's wrong with getting a pair of trainers for free? They are only following the political elite by example. I am not not ever have been a believer in the Divine Right of Kings!
  
  And another thing! Lol well this site is closing and due to my very own weird personal hater, the Catigern person (a personal shopper would have been nicer, as if!) I feel free to say that David Cameron witters on about Church of England values (re-Portillo ±«Óătv "Any Questions"), St Colmbus may have brought Christianity to England but the established Welsh Bishops thought him rude and presumptuos! St. David, a REAL person and a learned Welsh prince had set up a stream of monasteries including Glastonbury, long before this pompous Itialian was born! Bishop Rowan could eat Cameron/Clegg for breakfast but he's too polite and good. And yet...As a Nihilistic Anarchistic Christian, I can't predict what he will do next. We can only live in hope!

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 17th December 2011

  Minette
  
  A King of England was no King because HE said so but because he was acclaimed as such by the people.. In the case of the Coronation of William "The Conqueror"- who some might think fitted your description- the loud acclamation by the congregation in Westminster Abbey so allarmed his men at arms that they started attacking the English fearing for William's life.
  
  But the general thrust of what you say is- as you yourself put it in this post- consistent with these times of crisis when no-one is prepared to acclaim someone their lord that they will follow to the death if necessary.
  
  But perhaps the most important theme of my Modern Lessons from Medieval History as that during the anarchy of the Dark Ages when it may well have been "every man for himself" people came to recognise that their were some people worthy of trust because of those qualities which we associate with the words regal, noble and pious. Those qualities became the foundation of the institutions of monarchy, nobility and the church, the basic infrastructure of Medieval Civilization.
  
  By the end of the Middle Ages the institutions were in crisis because they had become divorced from the qualities on which they were based. But Civilization had brought wealth and legitimacy, which could form a very effective parnership- and often enough legitimacy could come down to wealth- as Thomas More was very aware.
  
  There were great figures of the Renaissance and Reformation who tried to use the new knowledge to try to create a re-birth a reconection with the Medieval virtues. But the Modern Era has seen a steady decline in those qualities that earned people respect, not least because they gave "common people" the idea that they too were part of some great and worthy enterprise that served something more than mere mundane human need and greed.
  
  Christine Lagarde is right to be worried about the State of the global economy, because Historians have given up their duty to try to present a view of human history as something worth working to further so that we may all feel that we leave posterity with a better inheritance than we had. Our French neighbour lent me a magazine a couple of years ago about the generation of current pensioners who have stolen the future of those to come after them.
  
  Almost at the end I lift a quote from Coulton.
  
  "And in 1938 G.G. Coulton could still open the Introduction to his “Medieval Panorama” with a quote from W. Stubbs, of the “Oxford School” of historians:
  
  “The true field of Historic Study is the history of those nations and institutions in which the real growth of humanity is to be traced: in which we can follow the developments, the retardations and perturbations, the ebb and flow of human progress, the education of the world, the leading on by the divine light from the simplicity of early forms and ideas where good and evil are distinctly marked, to the complications of modern life, in which light and darkness are mingled so intimately, and truth and falsehood are so hard to distinguish , but in which we believe and trust that the victory of light and truth is drawing nearer every day.”
  ( From “Lectures on Medieval and Modern History”(1886) quoted G.G. Coulton “Medieval Panorama” page 1)
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 17th December 2011

  Dear SST,
  
  Indeed what are we to make of Mancini, the spy who had no English but after his account was discovered in the Munipal Library of Lisles by Prof. Armstrong who immediately altered its title the Latin for "Reign" to "Usurption" there are indeed many "whats" to be answered!
  
  But enough of this tomfoolery! I rather think that Andrew Spencer would prefer to stick pins in his eyes than to "slog" Richard III out with me! AND I always get it wrong! Doh! I'm such a twit.
  
  Personally, having no idea of where this place/forum you speak of is, this may well be the last of my loosing friends and not influencing people here. Such is life. BUT I have managed to make people aware of Richard III which can't be bad. So hurrah for that! And off to the great blue yonder we dance!
  Good Luck Temperance.
  (I'll probably pop up again before the final winter soltace!)
  
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 17th December 2011

  I got in a slight panic last night when my keyboard refused to go and I hadn't thanked you for your reply, Andrew. However new batteries bought this morning have solved the problem. (Other people have problems with my keyboard as I seem to type in a way that removes the lettering from some of the keys, so people can't read the 'a' and 's' and 'n' and 'm' on my keys.)
  
  I suppose I was very naive in thinking I could raise this question without it becoming a discussion of Richard III. However your answer does make more sense than thinking that Cecily Neville would disinherit her own eldest son (even if she had reason to).
  
  I presume CJ Sansom knew these problems with it. Though he does say at the end, "The Blaybounre stofy, remarkable as it may seem, is founded on fact. There is evidence that Cecily Neville...claimed that Edward IV was not fathered by the Duke of York, and rumours at the French court identified the father as an English archer named Blaybourne." His book begins with a murdered man in York saying the word Blaybourne as he is dying.
  
  I still don't see why, near the end of Henry's reign and with only one heir obvious and no real other contenders (descendants of Clarence having been executed apart from a young girl, I gather), this would have been a particular concern to people. Henry VII and VII had ruled for long enough that Sansom was able to write (I suppose so he could have someone to explain things to) of people not knowing any of this War of the Roses (called the Striving of the Roses) history to speak of. It's hard to see that any uprising would have got very far or had anyone to focus its attentions on. Who were they planning at this stage to put in a Tudor place?
  
  Cheers, Caro. (Off tomorrow morning till NY's Eve.)

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 17th December 2011

  Caro,
  
  I know this is not addressed to me. But possibly a Plantagenet? Such as the Earl of Lincoln and Earl of Warwick before they were killed by ther Tudors. Lincoln, Richard and Edward's nephew, at the Battle of Stoke in 1487 or the ever imprisoned Earl of Warwick, killed in 1499 , trying to escape with Perkin Warbeck. A Joke.
  Plantagenets had been on the the English throne since 1154 and reigned longer than any other Englsih dynasty. 331 years. The Tudors for example only reigned for 118 years. The Tudors as I've attempted to say were new kids on the block and extremely aware of their lack of royal credentials, perhaps more importantly, so were the European established monarchies these new boys wanted to marry. All had been related to the Plantagenets.
  For example when Richard III's wife died, Anne Neville, plans were in place for him to marry Joanna the Blessed of Portugal, a grandaughter of the Lancastrian John of Gaunt, so uniting the Houses of York and Lancaster.
  
  That Vatican archives are full of this andcannot be disissed. And yet have been by Traditional Historians. Thisis why Richard III stamped on the rumour that he wished to marry Elizabeth of York, his illegitimate neice. Portugal was important and later Charles II would marry Catherine of Braganza whogave the Brtiish the Rock of Gibraler - the Gateway to the Meditteranean and Tanzier. When Richard was killed at Bosworth a Portuguese Envoy was in London to arrange events.
  
  As for the other Plantagenets....There were many who had far better claims to the English throne than the Tudors. Time is running out but I'd like to explain more if you have the time. 12 o' clock is here!
  Cheers, Minette. Andrew will no doubt follow.....
  
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  Apologies, Caro - if you do join Englistory and transfer this question over there I for one will try to keep off Richard III.
  
  Clarence's genes lived on - in the sons of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. Henry had tried to win over this family, especially the man he feared above all others, Reginald Pole, the Countess's intellectually brilliant second son. Henry paid for RP's education and even offered to make him Archbishop of York, but Pole left England and went into exile in Rome, Padua and Paris. In 1536 he sent a treatise "Defense of the Unity of the Church" to Henry - a denunciation of his royal cousin and his policies - and Henry went ballistic.
  
  Revenge followed swiftly. Cromwell investigated the entire family (and many of their friends), and Montagu, Margaret Pole's eldest son was executed in 1539. His little boy disappeared. Clarence's daughter, the old Countess, was butchered - in her late sixties - in 1541.
  
  Reginald Pole's younger brother, Geoffrey, was a tragic figure. God knows what Cromwell threatened him with in the Tower, but he dished the dirt on the whole family, was pardoned, but nearly went mad with grief and guilt. He fled to Rome where his brother got the Pope himself to grant poor Geoffrey absolution for what he had done. Geoffrey, however, did manage to father a huge family (I think ten or eleven children) - Clarence's genes live on! They all kept their heads down though - and on!
  
  Pole returned to England after Mary Tudor became Queen. He was the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury and, interestingly, he died on the same day as Mary, our last Catholic monarch.
  
  Pole was undoubtedly a brilliant man, but he was clever rather than wise - useless at Realpolitik - he and Mary made a right hash of things. He was very nearly made Pope, by the way!
  
  In great haste,
  
  SST.
  
  PS Henry really did try to get Pole assassinated - that wasn't a crazy plotline in "The Tudors".
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 19.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  As Temperance has brought up madness (even if only in terms of grief), one has to wonder whether the recurrent madness which began to feature within the Plantagenet line may have affected attitudes to getting "new blood" into the royal line. Surely by this time people had been breeding themselves and livestock for Millennia and must have been to some extent aware of the consequences of too close an interbreeding.. Some of the Biblical details of Jacob's excellence as a stockman seem to suggest some "selective breeding".
  
  Was enough known about Ancient Egypt through, for example, Herodotus, to know what happened when it became common for Pharoah's to marry their sisters? Though the Moses story suggests that in that royal family consanginuity may have been haphazard at times, but perhaps for a reason. A beautiful and healthy boy- new blood- may have been valued.
  
  Cass
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 19.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  I am screaming. I have just lost a great long post all about the Exeter conspiracy - Henry Courtenay was also executed with Reginald Pole's brother, Montagu. The official Cromwell line was that there was a plot for Henry Courtenay to seize the throne aided and abetted by the Poles. All were supposed to have been helping the rebels in the Pilgrimage of Grace. Haven't the heart to write more now, but Caro if you see this in the New Year hope you'll come to Englistory and there could perhaps be more discussion.
  
  Very briefly and relevant to your OP - Henry Courtenay was the grandson of Edward IV. His mother was Catherine of York. *If* Edward IV and his children were legitimate, Henry Courtenay's claim was pretty weak - Catherine of York was one of Elizabeth of York's kid sisters and she was well down the list - Edward IV's and Elizabeth Woodville's *ninth* child. Clearly Elizabeth of York's son, Henry VIII, had the superior claim. But those pesky Poles were a different matter - if Edward and/or his children were illegitimate, the Poles had an excellent claim. Once Montagu and his son had been eliminated Reginald Pole was next in line. Henry was appalled - a King of England called *Reginald* - no chance!
  
  By the way, I was wrong to say all the children of Geoffrey Pole kept their heads down. Geoffrey's eldest son, and Clarence's great grandson, Sir Arthur Pole, was involved in a conspiracy in 1563 - Elizabeth had him convicted of treason and put in the Tower. He died there sometime around 1570.
  
  Henry Courtenay's son, Edward Courtenay, Edward IV's great grandson nearly cost Elizabeth Tudor her life. Edward C. was put in the Tower by Henry VIII and kept there until the accession of Mary Tudor. She typically and unwisely released him. He promptly got himself involved in the Wyatt rebellion of 1554 - the alleged plot was to marry him to Elizabeth, depose Mary Tudor and make him and Elizabeth King and Queen. Elizabeth denied all knowledge of this, but she was very nearly convicted and executed. Only her intelligence and wit saved her - her brutal interrogators in the Tower could pin nothing on her.
  
  Gosh, it's all fascinating - you could write a book about it!
  
  SST.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message21

• Message 22

  , in reply to message 21.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  Minette, do join
  
  Lots of us there - Tas has joined today!
  
  PS And Andrew. We'll start a thread about Edward I - "Edward I was the Best King *Ever* - Handsome, Brave and So Wonderfully *English* - just for you, Andrew.
  
  PPS Cass - it's very confusing - someone is posting over there as Casseroleon, but it's not you??? You could join and pretend not to be you. VERY SHORT POSTS (hint) will fool everyone.
  
  I don't like to see you left out - it's Beastly-Horrid as Cattigern would say.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message22

• Message 23

  , in reply to message 22.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  Minette, get over there at once - they are abusing Richard!
  
  Only joking - but there is an interesting thread about him.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message23

• Message 24

  , in reply to message 22.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  Temperance
  
  An actual Casseroleon.. How interesting.. Is it a case of imitation being the sincerest form of flattery? Or perhaps (if I allow free rein to my paranoia) an astute blocking move: installing a "puppet" imposter who will be more to their liking, taste and bidding?
  
  
  Cass
  
  

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message24

• Message 25

  , in reply to message 24.

  Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  Oh Cass, what can I say? Perhaps change is a good idea. Anyway, I sincerely wish you all the best.
  
  I really came here just to add that Henry VII was totally paranoid - with good reason - about the Plantagenets. He executed poor Warwick, of course, in 1499, and locked up Edmund de la Pole (so confusing, the Poles and the de la Poles - two quite separate families), the brother of John de la Pole whom Richard III had named as his heir. The de la Pole brothers were the nephews of Richard and Edward IV - their mother, confusingly *another* Elizabeth of York (she was Richard's and Edward's sister), married the Duke of Suffolk. Edmund de la Pole was executed by Henry VIII in 1513. The youngest de la Pole, Richard, known as the White Rose, was a constant worry. He wandered around Europe causing no end of trouble, and in the end died fighting for Francis I at the Battle of Pavia in 1525.
  
  I've often wondered what would have happened if Princess Mary had been allowed by her father to marry Reginald Pole. This was something that both Catherine of Aragon and Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury (the women were close friends), had hoped for. A second mingling of Tudor and Plantagenet blood. But it was not to be. I somehow think - and this is pure speculation - that Reginald Pole was not the marrying kind.

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message25

• Message 26

  , in reply to message 25.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 18th December 2011

  Temperance
  
  Your post made me turn to H.F.M. Prescott's "Mary Tudor".. I think the fact that Prescott was a Catholic Historian is underlined by the fact that my copy seems to have come from the Church of the Sacred Heart in Bournemouth.. It is a long time since I read it, but use of the index confirmed what I seemed to remember as being Prescott's take on Reginald Pole- essentially something like a Roman Catholic Puritan. Early references condemn gluttony and the wantoness of the court of Henry VIII- just too many vices. He was better off pursuing his religious career in Italy trying to bring about Reformation.
  
  I seem to remember that it was Pole who was appointed to write the refutation of Cranmer's paper about Henry's marriage question, and he was a good enough theologian to recognise that Cranmer was the foremost theological brain in England- therefore not to be disputed with once Mary was on the throne and England was being returned to Rome.
  
  But I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of his Roman Catholic faith- or that of Catherine of Aragon..
  
  But re the marriage designs of the two mothers:
  (a) Pole may well have been just too English to feel confident about marrying into Spanish Catholicism- surely almost uniquely passionate.
  and
  (b) Mother's who manage to bring up their sons very much in the image of what they hope and expect often only succeed in creating a mother-son bond that makes it difficult or impossible for the young man to contemplate the idea of the naked woman and the sexual side of marriage. This seems to have been the case with John Ruskin and Thomas Carlyle.
  
  Cass (the original)

  Link to this forum: Did Edward IV's legitimacy affect Henry VIII's claims to the throne?

  Report message26

Back to top