The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   Henry VII (1457-1509) and Elizabeth of York (1466-1503) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/henry-vii-1457-1509-and-elizabeth-of-york-1466-1503-a-25536.html)

Zonk 11-01-2009 12:30 AM

Henry VII (1457-1509) and Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)
 
I was quite surprised that there isn't a thread on Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, as both had quite an interesting life and played an important role in British Royal history.

While in the bookstore today, I noticed a new book (The Tudor Rose) one those of fictional books (think Anne Boleyn's Sister), and it tells the story of Princess Elizabeth of York (daughter of Edward IV, sister of the Princes of the Tower, mother of Henry VIII and grandmother of Elizabeth I, Mary I and Edward V).

Has anyone read it?

Vasillisos Markos 11-02-2009 07:19 AM

I have not read the book but it would be fascinating to learn more about Elizabeth. As I recall, the chroniclers of her time did not write at length about Elizabeth and what she thought remains a mystery. By this, I mean what she felt about the deaths of her brothers, who may have been responsible (i.e., her uncle or her husband), etc. By all accounts, she and Henry had a loving marriage. If she was a political pawn, perhaps Elizabeth accepted her fate and went along in order to survive.

Iluvbertie 11-02-2009 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos (Post 1013613)
I have not read the book but it would be fascinating to learn more about Elizabeth. As I recall, the chroniclers of her time did not write at length about Elizabeth and what she thought remains a mystery. By this, I mean what she felt about the deaths of her brothers, who may have been responsible (i.e., her uncle or her husband), etc. By all accounts, she and Henry had a loving marriage. If she was a political pawn, perhaps Elizabeth accepted her fate and went along in order to survive.


I do think she was most definitely a political pawn but then in her time most royal woman were e.g. her daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon and her own daughters - their marriages weren't for love but for alliances and political advantage of their fathers/brothers etc. Sometimes love came but other times it didn't.

Lumutqueen 11-02-2009 05:16 PM

Henry VII 928 January 1457 21 April 1509) was the King of England and Lord of Ireland from his seizing the crown on 22 August 1485 until his death on 21 April 1509, as the first monarch of the Tudor dynasty.

Her married Elizabeth Of York daughter and heir of King Edward IV. They were third cousins, as both were great-great-grandchildren of John of Gaunt. The marriage took place on 18 January 1486 at Westminster. The marriage unified the warring houses and gave his children a stronger claim to the throne. The unification of the houses of York and Lancaster by Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York is represented in the heraldic symbol of the Tudor rose, a combination of the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster.

They had 7 children
  1. Arthur, Prince of Wales (20 September 1486 2 April 1502).
  2. Margaret, Queen consort of Scotland (28 November 1489 18 October 1541).
  3. Henry, Duke of York, later Henry VIII (28 June 1491 28 January 1547).
  4. Elizabeth Tudor (2 July 1492 14 September 1495).
  5. Mary, Queen consort of France (18 March 1496 25 June 1533).
  6. Edmund, Duke of Somerset (21 February 1499 19 June 1500).
  7. Katherine Tudor (born/died 2 February 1503).
Elizabeth Of York (11 February 1466 11 February 1503) was the daughter, sister, niece, mother, grandmother and wife of Kings of England. She was Queen of England as spouse of King Henry VII, whom she married in 1486.

She was born at Westminster, the eldest child of King Edward IV and his Queen consort, the former Elizabeth Woodville, Lady Grey. Elizabeth's younger siblings included Mary of York, Cecily of York, Edward V of England, Margaret Plantagenet (Princess of York), Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, Anne of York, George Plantagenet, Duke of Bedford, Catherine of York and Bridget of York.

Vasillisos Markos 11-02-2009 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1013819)
I do think she was most definitely a political pawn but then in her time most royal woman were e.g. her daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon and her own daughters - their marriages weren't for love but for alliances and political advantage of their fathers/brothers etc. Sometimes love came but other times it didn't.

True, Iluvbertie, royal women were used as pawns for strategic purposes. Then Elizabeth of York was fortunate because it appears from the accounts that love blossomed from her relationship with Henry VII. From everything I've read, he was stingy but spared no expense for her burial. Actions often speak louder than words.

pacomartin 11-04-2009 03:44 AM

Unfortunately many of us remember these monarchs via the way Shakespeare presented them. They have the opposite problem of Richard III. They are presented as one dimensional noble people, and hence totally forgettable.

Vasillisos Markos 11-04-2009 11:24 PM

True, villains or cruel people are more colorful and tend to be remembered more, but isn't there plenty of information on Henry VII? Look at how he obtained the throne by conquest and then solidified his position through an advantageous marriage. In a separate thread there was a discussion on whether Henry or Richard was the murderer of the young King and Prince in the tower. What say you, Pacomartin?

HM Queen Catherine 11-13-2009 01:20 PM

I find it very interesting to note that if Henry VII had not won the throne by right of conquest, then the next senior claimant from the Beaufort line would have been James III of Scotland.

The last of the male Beauforts died out in 1471, with the death of the 3rd Duke of Somerset.

Of the children of John Beaufort and Margaret de Holland, the next in line would have been the descendants of Joan Beaufort, their eldest daughter, who was Queen Consort of Scotland as the wife of James I.

Their grandson, James III, could have claimed England for himself and erased the Tudor dynasty from history altogether.

So regardless of the fact that the Beauforts were "barred" from the succession, it's ironic that Joan Beaufort's 4th great grandson wound up ruling England anyway..

But what do you think? Did James III have a greater claim to England's throne than Henry VII?

Lady Ann 11-13-2009 03:12 PM

This is very appealing to people with minds like ours Queen Cathrine .... good question. I will have to read up on it more before answering. Although I think it would have been sad to have such a Queen as Elizabeth I erased from history.

Lady Ann 11-13-2009 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1013819)
I do think she was most definitely a political pawn but then in her time most royal woman were e.g. her daughter-in-law Catherine of Aragon and her own daughters - their marriages weren't for love but for alliances and political advantage of their fathers/brothers etc. Sometimes love came but other times it didn't.

I read that she was as you say a political pawn to keep her fathers blood line to the throne or to keep the peace betweetn the two families their mothers are said to have a BIG hand in the match making In the end I read they had a loving marrage and she was a proud and good women who was distroied by the early deaths of 3 of her 7 children. :sad:

HM Queen Catherine 11-13-2009 03:43 PM

I do find the question worth examining, Lady Ann.

James III of Scotland, however, was an unpopular and ineffective ruler of his own country.. so there is no telling what he would have done to England.

In the early years of his adult reign, he did pursue alliances with England, and even discussed betrothing his heir (James IV) with Cecily of York. The marriage was agreed by both parties in 1474, but the two countries were at war by 1480 so the marriage never happened.

On the other hand, Henry VII did restore political stability and brought the War of the Roses to an end when his army killed Richard III at Bosworth. His marriage to Elizabeth of York unified the warring houses, and he later restored the financial fortunes of England by being prudent with his spending.

There is no question that Henry VII was a better choice than James III.. but I have to wonder what the outcome would have been if James had sat on the throne instead of Henry.

Lady Ann 11-13-2009 04:00 PM

[QUOTE=HM Queen Catherine;1018524]I find it very interesting to note that if Henry VII had not won the throne by right of conquest, then the next senior claimant from the Beaufort line would have been James III of Scotland.

The last of the male Beauforts died out in 1471, with the death of the 3rd Duke of Somerset.

Of the children of John Beaufort and Margaret de Holland, the next in line would have been the descendants of Joan Beaufort, their eldest daughter, who was Queen Consort of Scotland as the wife of James I.

Was Lady Margaret Beaufort form the same family you are speaking??? This was Henry VII mother correct???

HM Queen Catherine 11-13-2009 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 1018565)
I read that she was as you say a political pawn to keep her fathers blood line to the throne after he lost the battle( war) what every you want to call it. In the end I read they had a loving marrage and she was a proud and good women who was distroied by the early deaths of 3 of her 7 children. :sad:

Elizabeth of York may have been a political pawn.. but not in the most traditional sense.

Her marriage was the result of the political alliance between Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII's mother, and her own mother, Elizabeth Woodville.

Margaret and Elizabeth agreed that the Woodvilles would support Henry Tudor in his bid for the throne and Henry would marry Elizabeth of York to unify the houses.

Henry was the closest claimant the Lancastrians had, and Elizabeth Woodville would probably have done anything to avenge the deaths of her sons and topple Richard from the throne.

What a triumph for these two women that their plan succeeded. Margaret got a kingdom for her son.. and Elizabeth made her daughter a Queen. Together they helped destroy Richard III and bring peace back to England.

As for Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, from everything I've read, they had a happy and loving relationship.

Elizabeth did not exercise much political power, which was mostly held by her mother-in-law, Margaret Beaufort. But she was well-loved by her people and was known to have been kind and generous.

Perhaps she could have had more power if she wanted, but after all the political intrigue, murder, war and rebellion of her younger years, I think she probably left the politics to those with a stomach for it. And she probably didn't regret not having that power in the least.

HM Queen Catherine 11-13-2009 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 1018576)
Was Lady Margaret Beaufort form the same family you are speaking??? This was Henry VII mother correct???

Here is a brief tree:

John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset (son of John of Gaunt)
married Margaret de Holland
1) Henry Beaufort, Earl of Somerset (died age 16, no issue)
2) John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset
married Margaret Beauchamp
.......a) Margaret Beaufort(mother of Henry VII Tudor)
3) Thomas Beaufort, Count of Perche (died age 26, no issue)
4) Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset
married Eleanor Beauchamp
.......*9 children. The male line of Beauforts ended with the death of their son Edmund, 2nd Duke of Somerset, in 1471.*
5) Joan Beaufort, Queen Consort of Scotland
married James I Stewart of Scotland
.......a) James II of Scotland (father of James III Stewart)
6) Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon
married Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon
.......*8 children. The male line of Courtenays of Devon ended with the death of their son John, 15th Earl of Devon, in 1471.*

Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset and John Courtenay, 15th Earl of Devon, died at the Battle of Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire - 4 May 1471. Edmund Beaufort's younger brother, John Beaufort, Earl of Dorset, also died in this battle (and they are buried together).

James II of Scotland and Margaret Beaufort were first cousins. James was deceased well before 22 August 1485 (he died in 1460), which was the beginning of Henry VII's reign. James III of Scotland would have inherited his father's claim to the English throne.

Henry's claim came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, while James III's claim came through his grandmother, Joan Beaufort. Both being descendants of John of Gaunt in the female line, I would think the stronger claim would have been through Joan Beaufort, an anointed queen and a generation closer to John of Gaunt, but I could be wrong.. hence my question. :)

Addendum: It's also worth noting that Elizabeth of York was the great granddaughter of Joanna Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland. Joanna was the only daughter of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. Her brother was John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset.

Vasillisos Markos 11-14-2009 11:54 AM

But wouldn't Henry's claim be stronger because his mother was the daughter of a son whereas James III was the grandson of a younger sister. Hence, the claim would follow the male lines of descent from the common ancestor before passing down through the female lines. Thus, Joan Beaufort, being a Queen Consort, would not give James III precedence because she was a younger sister to John Beaufort.

HM Queen Catherine 11-14-2009 03:19 PM

Actually, through a little more research I've found the answer to my question.

James III of Scotland would not have been in the line of succession at all, because by Act of Parliament of 1331, foreign title holders not born in England were not part of the line of succession.

This is also the reason that Afonso V of Portugal was excluded from the line of succession of Henry IV, although he was second in line to inherit the crown of England according to the rules of primogeniture.

This Act of 1331 was still in effect at the time of Henry VII's conquest.

The Beaufort prohibition to the succession was removed in 1470. This means that Lady Margaret Beaufort (mother of Henry VII) was 2nd in line of succession on the death of Henry IV. She was also 4th in line of succession after the death of her own son.. but she only survived him by about 2 months.

Incidentally, Henry VII's daughter Margaret, Queen of Scotland, was 2nd in line to the throne upon his death after her brother Henry. She was born in England and though she held a foreign title, it was not a regnal title since she was the consort of a king.

So it appears the Act did not forbid foreign titleholders from the succession, per se, but did forbid those not born on English soil.

Vasillisos Markos 11-14-2009 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine (Post 1019019)

Incidentally, Henry VII's daughter Margaret, Queen of Scotland, was 2nd in line to the throne upon his death after her brother Henry. She was born in England and though she held a foreign title, it was not a regnal title since she was the consort of a king.

So it appears the Act did not forbid foreign titleholders from the succession, per se, but did forbid those not born on English soil.

Queen Catherine:

Thank you for all of this information. The last lines of your comment remind me of the prohibition against people not born on United States soil running for President.

Lady Ann 11-15-2009 12:36 AM

Wow, thanks for all your time and info..

AmyTudor 02-22-2010 09:07 PM

Tudor surname
 
Does anyone know when the Tudor surname began to be used? I don't know much about my ancestry, but I remember my grandmother telling me that we were entitled to use the Tudor coat of arms/crest/shield??? but it had to have a sinister bar??? across it which designated illegitimacy.

norenxaq 02-23-2010 12:43 AM

at least during the 1400s with owen tudor, who was welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises