Henry VII (1457-1509) and Elizabeth of York (1466-1503)

[Biri]

I wonder why Henry VII didn't remarry after his wife's death?
He was still relatively young (46 only) and had only one living heir (who was then still a bachelor and childless); could't he find a princess 20 years younger who could give him a few healthy sons?
What could have happened if something bad happened to the heir? (for example if he had fallen from the horse and broken a backbone).
A supposition how many people would save their heads, how much bloodshed would have been spared comes to mind by itself.

 

[Curryong]

Henry and Elizabeth of York seem to have had a very happy and contented marriage. Maybe Henry just couldn't bring himself to replace her with another? There were moves in the direction of him marrying his son Arthur's widow Katherine of Aragon but the Spanish Court weren't keen and so Henry didn't pursue it.

Apparently there were rumours that he was attracted to the beautiful widow of Perkin Warbeck, the Pretender. She was restrained after her husband's death but treated with honour and spent a lot of time at Court. She wasn't his mistress but they did play cards together and she helped to nurse him in his final illness.

Henry was absolutely crushed after his wife's death and was unusual in that he had been faithful to her. So, in the end, perhaps he felt he would be better off alone, in spite of the risks of a sole male heir. His son was a big and strong lad and his father probably had the feeling that he was healthy and would live to maturity.

Henry VIII wasn't particularly tyrannical as a young King. He was athletic, well educated, good looking and much admired. He and Katherine were quite happy in the early years of their marriage. Things changed later, of course.

 

[Denville]

I thought that he considered Juana of Spain "La Loca" as a wife even though she had metnal problems. WHy he didn't find some wife.. is unusual...

 

[An Ard Ri]

Louis XII of France began marriage negotiations between Henry VII and the recently widowed Louise of Savoy (mother of the future Francois I).Louise was reported to have been horrified at the match and it soon fell apart ,Louis XII was probably hoping to ship his strong willed and meddlesome cousin off to England.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

While Henry VII and Elizabeth of York surely experienced the ups and downs of any marriage, the historical evidence suggests that a true love grew between them.
http://henrytudorsociety.com/2015/08/16/the-romance-of-henry-tudor-and-elizabeth-of-york

 

[Curryong]

Yes I believe that. The fact that Elizabeth was a modest woman, content to take a back seat certainly helped of course. Henry's dynasty was so new it was a good job she was not ambitious for herself! She was a devoted wife and mother and a very kindly person, I believe.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It's unfortunate that modern interpretations want to instill drama where there are no reports of any. Not every woman in history wants to rock the boat and be an Anne Boleyn or Margaret Beaufort or Elizabeth Woodeville; some women are happy with a quiet life and what if that was all Elizabeth of York wanted.

 

[Curryong]

Elizabeth of York and her Kings.
An examination of the marital relationship between Elizabth and Henry VII.

Elizabeth of York and her Kings – Henry VII – Nerdalicious

 

[Countessmeout]

I thought that he considered Juana of Spain "La Loca" as a wife even though she had metnal problems. WHy he didn't find some wife.. is unusual...

Yes there was talk of a marriage with a Joanna, but not Joana/Juana the mad. But Juana's cousin Joanna of Naples. Joanna's mother was born Joanna of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand I and sister of Ferdinand II. The young Joanna had been married to her nephew Ferdinand II of Naples, but was a widow. An ambassador was sent to Naples to meet Joanna and bring back a report to Henry of Joanna as no painting was available. Nothing came of it. Joanna never remarried.

 

[Erin9]

It's unfortunate that modern interpretations want to instill drama where there are no reports of any. Not every woman in history wants to rock the boat and be an Anne Boleyn or Margaret Beaufort or Elizabeth Woodeville; some women are happy with a quiet life and what if that was all Elizabeth of York wanted.

She’d certainly had enough drama and upheaval prior to the marriage to last the rest of her life. If she wanted peace and quiet, I can hardly blame her.

I read a good book about her by Alison Weir. I wish we knew more about her. But I do think it’s notable that Henry VII was apparently devoted to her. As miserly as he was, as poorly as he treated Katherine of Aragon, he seemed to be a good husband. Especially given the times in which he lived.

 

[Gawin]

Yes there was talk of a marriage with a Joanna, but not Joana/Juana the mad. But Juana's cousin Joanna of Naples. Joanna's mother was born Joanna of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand I and sister of Ferdinand II. The young Joanna had been married to her nephew Ferdinand II of Naples, but was a widow. An ambassador was sent to Naples to meet Joanna and bring back a report to Henry of Joanna as no painting was available. Nothing came of it. Joanna never remarried.

Henry VII also considered a marriage with Juana the Mad. He met her briefly - and was smitten by her beauty - when she and her husband Philip were shipwrecked off the English coast while on their way to Spain in January 1506.

See David Starkey, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII (HarperCollins, 2003), pp. 91-93 & 100-101

See also Calendar of State Papers, Spain, March 1507, entry 502:
Spain: March 1507 | British History Online

also April 1507, entry 511:
Spain: April 1507 | British History Online

and January 1508, entry 577:
Spain: January 1508 | British History Online

 

[eya]

Maybe have found the exact part of Pemboke Castle where Henry VII was born

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...-specific-Pembroke-Castle-Henry-VII-born.html

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Henry VII delivered the Book of Indenture to John Islip, Abbot of Westminster in 1498.
http://www.alamy.com/king-henry-vii...ustration-from-circa-1860-image178874596.html

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I do not condone what Henry VII did to the Earl of Warwick by any means, but I will say at least he didn't kill him when he was a child which I think helps in the case for him not being the prince's killer.
The bodies found in the wall, doesn't that help with the timeline that they died in 1483 because of the ages? Or can they just tell they belonged to adolescent boys?

 

[Ista]

They can tell they belonged to adolescent boys, of roughly the correct age span. It's all suggestive, but no way to tell if it was Richard or Henry who ordered the deed. There are interesting arguments either way.

 

[LauraS3514]

I do not condone what Henry VII did to the Earl of Warwick by any means, but I will say at least he didn't kill him when he was a child which I think helps in the case for him not being the prince's killer.
The bodies found in the wall, doesn't that help with the timeline that they died in 1483 because of the ages? Or can they just tell they belonged to adolescent boys?

The bones that were found in 1674 and now resting in the urn in Westminster Abbey were reported at the time to be found ten feet under a stone staircase built in the 1200s that connected the White Tower with a now demolished building. It took a team of workmen several days to demolish that staircase and dig down to the bones and they thought so little of them that they threw them on a trash heap. Several weeks later bones were gathered out of that trash heap and declared those of Edward IV's sons. When the urn was opened in the 1930s animal bones were mixed in with human ones and the doctors examining them worked backwards on the premise that they were the royal sons - the "scientific" report even called them "Edward" and "Richard." However, it is nearly impossible even today to determine the sex of prepubescent children's bones visually and there are other problems with the identification and no carbon dating (or DNA) has ever been done. Add in the fact that there is an extensive Roman cemetery on the site of what is now the Tower of London and bones, including those of children, are found on a regular basis on the site and the probability that the urn in the Abbey contains the remains of two unknown Roman children is much higher than that of them being the sons of Edward IV.

 

[Curryong]

Romans didn't wear velvet. There were reportedly velvet scraps of clothing found with the bones when they were found in Charles IIs reign. And Richard III and his creature, the Marshal of the Tower, had weeks to order men to dig a very deep pit. Who was going to stop them?

The 1930s experts appointed to look at the bones didn't have the benefit of 21st century technology, but they weren't working with Dark Ages tools either. The report they submitted is extremely interesting.

 

[LauraS3514]

I do not condone what Henry VII did to the Earl of Warwick by any means, but I will say at least he didn't kill him when he was a child which I think helps in the case for him not being the prince's killer.

No, he didn't kill Edward Earl of Warwick as a child: he just placed an eight-year-old orphaned boy in solitary confinement in the Tower. He was fed and clothed but not much else: not educated, no mental stimulation, with little exercise and few visitors - not even his sister. Then, when Henry needed to dispose of an inconvenient Plantagenet male (or two?) before Ferdinand and Isabella would send their daughter Catalina to marry Prince Arthur, Edward was suddenly allowed to meet with and talk to "Perkin Warbeck" about life outside. Not surprisingly, the 22-year-old Warwick was then found guilty of "treason" and executed along with his new acquaintance. According to a statement by the chronicler Edward Hall that Warwick had been kept imprisoned for so long "out of all company of men, and sight of beasts, in so much that he could not discern a goose from a capon" it was unlikely that Edward had any idea of why he was on trial let alone what he did "wrong." It was judicial murder, plain and simple: Edward's days were numbered the moment he entered the Tower even if it took Henry VII fourteen years to do the deed. One of Mary I's ladies-in-waiting wrote that Katherine of Aragon believed that her troubles were punishment for Warwick's death. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick footnote #7)

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Whatever life he had in the Tower the point is that he HAD A LIFE! Something Richard and Edward probably didn't have, I'm sure they would have preferred Warwick's fate to their own. As I stated in my last post, I don't condone Henry killing Warwick, imprisoning him I understand. Thank you for the info on the scientific activities related to those bones.

 

[LauraS3514]

Romans didn't wear velvet. There were reportedly velvet scraps of clothing found with the bones when they were found in Charles IIs reign. And Richard III and his creature, the Marshal of the Tower, had weeks to order men to dig a very deep pit. Who was going to stop them?

The 1930s experts appointed to look at the bones didn't have the benefit of 21st century technology, but they weren't working with Dark Ages tools either. The report they submitted is extremely interesting.

Remember, those bones were in the garbage pile for several weeks before being gathered up again - and animal bones and other debris wound up in the urn too. Lots of stuff in a garbage pile. The bones currently in the urn had to have been buried BEFORE that staircase was built - some two hundred years before Edward IV's sons were born. They were found ten feet under the foundations - many feet below the surface and under that large stone structure.



I actually wrote this as part of an online class I took: "How could anyone have dug under it (the staircase) in 1483 and buried the bodies of two children without someone noticing? Several hundred people were in and out of the Tower every day, and more than 100 lived there full-time. Someone would have said something, trying to gain points with the new King after Bosworth: 'Oi, there was a bloody great 'ole dug right there guv - they tore apart that stair over there - took 'em days - and then put it right back. Strange thing that, eh?' That didn't happen." An excavation that big would have drawn attention and been remembered. And yet no outcry was made after Bosworth, Henry VII didn't order the staircase investigated, Elizabeth Woodville didn't scream of Richard's cruelty etc. etc. etc. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. To (mis)quote Conan Doyle (via Holmes) "the dog did not bark in the night" because there was nothing to bark at.

We will most likely never know exactly what happened to the sons of Edward IV, but I'm 100% sure they're not in that urn.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

After the demise of his wife Queen Elizabeth, King Henry VII suggested that he might marry Margaret of Austria, the sister of Philip the Handsome, who was the son of the Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The betrothment was privately negotiated between Elizabeth of York and Henry of Richmond by their mothers. In case of the demise of Elizabeth of York before her contract was fulfilled, her next sister Cicely was to take her place.

 

[An Ard Ri]

An engraving and article on the death of Henry VII in April 1509.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/l...574556/king-henry-vii-death-spanish-princess/​

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Henry VII's Exchequer, or treasury department, created new standards of measurements for merchants in the late 1400s.
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/90741495

 

[SLV]

Interesting. How were these different from the old ones, and did they stay in use?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Henry VII's mother was Margaret Beaufort. The Beauforts were excluded from the succession. So how strong was Henry VII's claim to the throne?

 

[Curryong]

It was through the female line and quite weak. However, other medieval monarchs had won the throne through the power of arms in battle and Henry VII was just the last of these. He remained acutely aware for the rest of his life, however, that keeping the Tudor dynasty on the throne was his most vital task.

 

[Prinsara]

King Henry VII's mother was Margaret Beaufort. The Beauforts were excluded from the succession. So how strong was Henry VII's claim to the throne?

It wasn't. However, he was basically the last/strongest focal point for the Lancastrians and any other Yorkist opposition. And "right by conquest" is a thing, or was at the time. The man grew up in a state of paranoia and remained there his whole life, and it's hard to blame him.

Elizabeth's claim was much stronger, and Henry married her.

 

[Alison H]

You can tie yourself in knots over this. Some people said that Henry was king by right of conquest. However, he dated his reign from the day before Bosworth Field ... although that was just so he could pass Acts of Attainder against anyone who'd fought for Richard, and confiscate their lands and money. Others said it was by right of marriage, but I doubt they dared to say that to Henry. Others said that the Beaufort claim counted as the Beauforts had been legitimised. The whole thing's got a bit mad by this point - people'd said that the Yorkist claim didn't count because it was through the female line, or that Elizabeth and her siblings were illegitimate because of the claim that Edward IV had been married to Eleanor Butler, and there was even the ridiculous idea that Edward IV wasn't actually the son of Richard, Duke of York.


Henry IV overthrew Richard II just more or less because he felt like it, and I think that destabilised the whole idea of the succession for a long time to come. Even in Tudor times, Henry VIII and Edward VI wanted to bypass relatives who had a higher claim by right of primogeniture. Then people wanted to exclude James II on the grounds of religion. In some ways, it didn't settle down again until the 1701 Act of Succession!

 

[An Ard Ri]

King Henry VII's mother was Margaret Beaufort. The Beauforts were excluded from the succession. So how strong was Henry VII's claim to the throne?

Lady Margaret was the only surviving child of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset who himself was the grandson of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster by his then mistress , Katherine Swynford.
John of Gaunt and Katherine later married in 1396 and their children were declared legitimate.