The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 02-17-2009, 04:33 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Arthur, Prince of Wales, brother of Henry VIII (1486-1502)

I was doing a search on google and came across a reference to the discovery of the tomb of Prince Arthur, elder brother of Henry VIII. The archaeologists were planning to study the remains and hoping to discover the cause of the death of the young prince.

Do any of you RFers know the results, if any?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-18-2009, 05:51 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Arthur died of possible consumption, diabetes or the mysterious sweating sickness and some modern theorists believe it was hantavirus.

An archeologist found it odd that when Prince Arthur was ill, he was sent to the cold ludlow castle. Historians say "He wasn't a strong character, unlike his younger brother. Could it be that his father was strong enough to see that the best interests of the Tudors were to be served by Henry Duke of York, rather than Arthur?"

People also suggest that Prince Arthur died of a genetic disease. Which could have been passed down to his nephews.

Source = Wikipedia.

Using ground-probing radar, they have pinpointed the final resting place of the first Tudor Prince of Wales below the limestone floor of Worcester Cathedral.
The researchers believe the discovery could help identify the "sweating sickness" that killed the heir to the Tudor dynasty 500 years ago.
The researchers hope to use an endoscope to examine Prince Arthur's grave without disturbing the remains.
Radar located a likely tomb under the floor several feet from the prince's tomb chest, which was built 20 years after his death. The radar revealed that the soil had been infilled, but not whether there were any remains inside.
Details of the grave will be presented this week at Cheltenham Science Festival, sponsored by The Daily Telegraph.

Source = The Daily Telegraph.

x
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-18-2009, 01:09 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
An archeologist found it odd that when Prince Arthur was ill, he was sent to the cold ludlow castle. Historians say "He wasn't a strong character, unlike his younger brother. Could it be that his father was strong enough to see that the best interests of the Tudors were to be served by Henry Duke of York, rather than Arthur?"

This theory is unconvincing. First, I doubt that Henry VII was so cruel. Furthermore, having as much sons as possible (regardless of their health) was better than having only one son. Also, if Henry VII wanted to eliminate his older son, he wouldn't have spent so much time contracting marriage between Arthur and Catherine. Arthur's death brought Henry problems over Catherine's dowry and pension - she would've moved back to Castile along with her dowry and he would still need to send her pension until she remarries, and we all know that Henry VII was not a generous person. Arthur's death couldn't have brought any benefit to Henry VII.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-30-2009, 07:24 PM
Lady Laura's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: St. John's, Canada
Posts: 25
Henry vii was very close to Arthur, moreso than to Henry, I do believe he wanted the plate of Catherine to be used though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-30-2009, 10:21 PM
Grace Angel's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa, United States
Posts: 462
Yes, Henry VII was always cheap. His cheapness towards Catharine after Arthur's death was so bad. But Arthur's death was natural and tragic, although it's a shame that he didn't live. England would have been different, that's for sure. Arthur and Catharine would remained married too, I don't think he would have divorced her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-02-2009, 04:52 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
The material you gave me, lumutqueen, was what I found by google. I was just wondering if a more definitive answer had been discovered.

And I doubt that Henry VII would have hastened Arthur's death. Arthur's life was just too integral to the survival of the Tudor dynasty, and H7 wouldn't have put the dynasty at risk (even having only 2 sons was a pretty perilous situation).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-02-2009, 07:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,324
Hes an Intriging (sp)figure wonder what kind of King Hed have been would have a Regnal Number??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-02-2009, 07:10 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Well, if he had reigned as Arthur, probably just Arthur. Or would the mythical? Arthur have been considered I and this Arthur would have been II?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2009, 09:28 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,425
Legendary or mythical kings don't count. Arthur Tudor would have become King Arthur.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-03-2009, 09:59 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
The regnal numbers start with the Norman Conquest; Edward the Confessor preceded Edward I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-03-2009, 07:28 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
I didn't think legendary figures would count, Warren. And good point, Elspeth!

And it would be foolish for a king/queen whose name had not been used to refer to themselves as "Stephen I", "Elizabeth I," etc., wouldn't it? How would they know their names ever might be re-used?
"Laura I"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-27-2009, 06:27 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Iowabelle,

I've tried to find updated news on the tomb but failed. However, I did stumble onto some wonderful photographs of Worcester Cathedral and Arthur's tomb and chantry chapel. I doubt very much Henry VII believed Arthur was expendable because Henry VII was notoriously cheap, yet the tomb and chapel are exquisite and they serve as a lasting monument to Henry VII's shattered dreams and hopes for the return of Arthur to the throne of England
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-29-2009, 07:22 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is online now
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
Arthur died of possible consumption, diabetes or the mysterious sweating sickness and some modern theorists believe it was hantavirus.

An archeologist found it odd that when Prince Arthur was ill, he was sent to the cold ludlow castle. Historians say "He wasn't a strong character, unlike his younger brother. Could it be that his father was strong enough to see that the best interests of the Tudors were to be served by Henry Duke of York, rather than Arthur?"

People also suggest that Prince Arthur died of a genetic disease. Which could have been passed down to his nephews.

Source = Wikipedia.

Using ground-probing radar, they have pinpointed the final resting place of the first Tudor Prince of Wales below the limestone floor of Worcester Cathedral.
The researchers believe the discovery could help identify the "sweating sickness" that killed the heir to the Tudor dynasty 500 years ago.
The researchers hope to use an endoscope to examine Prince Arthur's grave without disturbing the remains.
Radar located a likely tomb under the floor several feet from the prince's tomb chest, which was built 20 years after his death. The radar revealed that the soil had been infilled, but not whether there were any remains inside.
Details of the grave will be presented this week at Cheltenham Science Festival, sponsored by The Daily Telegraph.

Source = The Daily Telegraph.

x
As an archaeologist, this is very interesting to me.
But I wonder what they think that they can find. Most diseases don't leave marks on the bones, which (if you are lucky) is the only thing that still remains of the body.
Depending on the type of consumption it will leave traces on the spine.
I don't exactly know what the hantavirus does, but if it is very agressive, it will not leave marks on the bones. Best chance is to actually find the virus itself (since virusses can't die), but I don't think that they can gather samples if they plan to use an endoscope because they do not want to disturb the remains.

If anyone sees any information about the proceedings, I am very curious to read them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-21-2011, 09:03 AM
Daphoenyx's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rosario, Argentina
Posts: 148
I had a question about Arthur's titles. In Wikipedia it's written that:
"He was made a Knight of the Bath at his christening."
But they don't specify when did the christening take place.

Also, about him becoming Prince of Wales, it's written:
"In 1489, just after Arthur had turned three, his father decided it was time for Arthur to be created Prince of Wales. Arthur was brought to Westminster in November 1489; it was hoped that the ceremony would coincide with the birth of the next royal child. His mother Elizabeth of York went into labour during his creation as a Knight of the Bath on the 29th and Elizabeth gave birth to Margaret Tudor on St Andrew's Day. The following day he was formally created Prince of Wales in the Parliament Chamber[3]."
Here it states that he was created a Knight of the Bath on November 29, 1489, so not during his christening?
Also, how can Elizabeth of York have started labour on the 29th, if Margaret was born the day before?

Well, in the end, when was he made a Knight of the Bath, and when did he became Prince of Wales?

Thanks for reading this
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-21-2011, 06:05 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daphoenyx View Post
Also, how can Elizabeth of York have started labour on the 29th, if Margaret was born the day before?
The answer to this question is simple: St. Andrew's Day is November 30, so the Queen's labor began on November 29 and ended on November 30 with the birth of the Princess Margaret.

As for your other questions, it does appear the internet sites set forth confusing information. I think you will need to find a biography of Arthur (if one exists) or look at contemporary chronicles to determine when he was created a Knight of the Bath. It does appear Arthur was created Prince of Wales when he was three years of age.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-21-2011, 08:17 PM
Daphoenyx's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rosario, Argentina
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
Also, how can Elizabeth of York have started labour on the 29th, if Margaret was born the day before? The answer to this question is simple: St. Andrew's Day is November 30, so the Queen's labor began on November 29 and ended on November 30 with the birth of the Princess Margaret.
That is another inconsistence in the Wikipedia's article. Lady Margaret Tudor was born on November 28th, it is stated that everywhere I found information about her. St. Andrew's Day was the day of the baptism.
So it's kind of a mess in Wikipedia about this...

Thanks anyway for answering me!!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-22-2011, 01:48 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daphoenyx View Post
That is another inconsistence in the Wikipedia's article. Lady Margaret Tudor was born on November 28th, it is stated that everywhere I found information about her. St. Andrew's Day was the day of the baptism.
So it's kind of a mess in Wikipedia about this...

Thanks anyway for answering me!!

You are very welcome. I enjoy using Wikipedia but it is not always the most reliable informative site, nor does it hold itself out to be one. Everything one reads there should be taken with a grain of salt. I hope you learn the answers to your questions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-23-2011, 02:40 PM
Daphoenyx's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rosario, Argentina
Posts: 148
Yes, I know there is not always reliable information (even though I'm a huge user and fan). That's why I also came here, to find more info, since I'm compiling a genealogy and wanted to know facts.
Thanks again!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-23-2011, 05:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,603
Statistically wikipedia is a reliable as Britannica - I know I didn't believe it either but a friend of mine had a couple of friend of his who did his PhD in statistics on exactly that fact. He had some friends who had interests in different areas actually check out the accuracy of the information in both Encyclopdiae and wikipedia come up accurate about 98% of the time whereas Britannica only came up accurate about 97% of the time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-23-2011, 06:06 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
I did not know that, thanks for the information. It always comes out on top when one googles a question; nice to know that it is very accurate. I wonder if they have various academics reviewing the topics in order to remove clear mistakes or outrageous additions.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Henry VIII and Wives (1491-1547) Jo of Palatine British Royal History 696 07-04-2014 06:18 AM
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900-1974) and Princess Alice (1901-2004) Catharine British Royals 142 03-17-2014 05:18 PM
Prince Henry Duke of Gloucester and Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott - 1935 Marengo Historical Royal Weddings 17 07-07-2012 02:59 AM
"Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII" by David Starkey (2003) ysbel Royal Library 12 11-19-2011 03:44 PM
Princess Beatrice (daughter of Queen Victoria) and Prince Henry Battenberg, 1885 elenaris Historical Royal Weddings 29 01-24-2011 07:06 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]