The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   Arthur, Prince of Wales, brother of Henry VIII (1486-1502) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/arthur-prince-of-wales-brother-of-henry-viii-1486-1502-a-19999.html)

iowabelle 02-17-2009 04:33 PM

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?

Lumutqueen 02-18-2009 05:51 AM

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

Kotroman 02-18-2009 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumutqueen (Post 895350)
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.

Lady Laura 03-30-2009 07:24 PM

Henry vii was very close to Arthur, moreso than to Henry, I do believe he wanted the plate of Catherine to be used though.

Grace Angel 03-30-2009 10:21 PM

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.

iowabelle 04-02-2009 04:52 PM

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).

Royal Fan 05-02-2009 07:05 PM

Hes an Intriging (sp)figure wonder what kind of King Hed have been would have a Regnal Number??

iowabelle 05-02-2009 07:10 PM

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?

Warren 05-03-2009 09:28 AM

Legendary or mythical kings don't count. Arthur Tudor would have become King Arthur.

Elspeth 05-03-2009 09:59 AM

The regnal numbers start with the Norman Conquest; Edward the Confessor preceded Edward I.

iowabelle 05-03-2009 07:28 PM

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":lol:

Vasillisos Markos 12-27-2009 06:27 PM

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

SLV 12-29-2009 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumutqueen (Post 895350)
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.

Daphoenyx 01-21-2011 09:03 AM

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? :bang:

Thanks for reading this :flowers:

Vasillisos Markos 01-21-2011 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daphoenyx (Post 1195557)
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.

Daphoenyx 01-21-2011 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos (Post 1195780)
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. :bang:
So it's kind of a mess in Wikipedia about this...

Thanks anyway for answering me!! :flowers::smile:

Vasillisos Markos 01-22-2011 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daphoenyx (Post 1195829)
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. :bang:
So it's kind of a mess in Wikipedia about this...

Thanks anyway for answering me!! :flowers::smile:


You are very welcome.:flowers: 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.

Daphoenyx 01-23-2011 02:40 PM

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. :smile:
Thanks again!

Iluvbertie 01-23-2011 05:54 PM

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.

Vasillisos Markos 01-23-2011 06:06 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises