Forever_Amber 
|
|
Rank:Diamond Member
Score:572
Posts:572
From: USA 
|
RE:A Tudory November
(Date Posted:11/01/2009 11:34 PM)
Henry VII is such a notorious cheeseparer ROFL.....fistful of cash & sure, you Frenchies can have your throne, I don't care as long as you don't aid & abet anyone who wants mine.
And note how long he made EoY wait for her crown?
usertype:1 tt= 0
|
terrilee
|
|
Rank:Silver Member
Score:70
Posts:70
From: USA
|
RE:A Tudory November
(Date Posted:11/02/2009 2:22 PM)
Maybe not cheeseparing, but certainly careful..consider the timeline:
August 22 1485 Henry takes the crown by right of conquest after Bosworth
October 30 1485 Henry is crowned
January 18 1486 (after Papal dispensation is received) Henry marries Elizabeth of York
September 20 1486 Arthur is born (everyone at court counts the months!  )
Nobemner 25, 1487, Elizabeth is crowned
Hmm, wonder if sometime in that year between the birth of Arthur & Elizabeth's coronation, the POT were dealt with....
usertype:6 tt= 0
|
Forever_Amber
|
|
Rank:Diamond Member
Score:572
Posts:572
From: USA
|
RE:A Tudory November
(Date Posted:11/03/2009 9:56 PM)
I can't remember when Henry repealed Titilus Regius <off to Google>....OMG the 1st hit is AMTs Who Killed the Princes in the Tower? thread ROFL....Well, I'll be dipped, it's got plenty on when RIII passed it but nothing on when Henry repealed it, but I do think it was right before he married Elizabeth, plausibly to honor his new queen & add the Plantagenet cachet to his own usurpation; after all, she was still one of Edward IVs offspring even if she was a mere girl. But it could also have been done because the PITT were still breathing. I mean, Henry was not the most impulsive of men; maybe he waited until his own succession was assured with the birth of Arthur & then had them done away with, as you suggested. EoY as I recall never was permitted to come face to face with Perkin Warbeck & I know I've remarked before how striking a resemblance he bore to Edward. He was a Plantagenet by blood if not by birth, I'd hazard, one of the bastards of the Yorkist brothers, if he wasn't RoY.
I love how the PITT creep into other threads ROFL
Though Henry did gallop off to Plymouth to get a gander at Catherine, but knowing him, he'd had it in his Day Planner for years ROFL Poor old CoA, in England less than a fortnight, wedded & bedded in a huge public extravaganza. That was one occasion when Henry didn't hoard his groats.
usertype:1 tt= 0
|
terrilee
|
|
Rank:Silver Member
Score:70
Posts:70
From: USA
|
RE:A Tudory November
(Date Posted:11/04/2009 11:52 AM)
When I looked up the dates for my last post, the source did say that he had Titulus Regis repealed at his first Parliament - well before marrying E of Y, certainly before the birth of Arthur and E of Y's coronation ceremony. 'Tis interesting to ponder when/if he found the POT were still alive, if it was after he had gone & made them legitimate again!!! Notice he was also so very careful to wait for the Papal blessing before taking the girl to the altar? He was bound & determined to claim the throne by right on conquest & though his mother's blood and NOT by claiming some of his wife's right. But that seems to be how most saw it.
usertype:6 tt= 0
|
Forever_Amber
|
|
Rank:Diamond Member
Score:572
Posts:572
From: USA
|
RE:A Tudory November
(Date Posted:11/10/2009 6:51 AM)
He was a usurper, plain & simple, with a tenuous claim at best, & screwed out of it by his own Lancastrian kinfolk. When Richard II recognized the Gaunt/Swynford offspring as legitimate, he recognized them as entirely legitimate with all that entailed. It was Henry IV who changed that to exclude the Beauforts from the throne in hopes of preventing just what Henry Tudor did. If Richard II had reigned until his death than the Beaufort line would've been strong contenders with the dearth of Lancastrian heirs. Weird that all Henry Vs legit brothers died childless, while the Beauforts bred like rabbits only to be deciminated in the WOTR. Edward IV could've claimed Lancastrian descent thru his mother as well, but never bothered because of the bar sinister Henry IV attached to them after the fact. The children of Richard of York & Cicely Neville had the strongest claim to kingship in the kingdom (all their rellies were descended from Edward III on both sides, Dad thru Lionel of Antwerp & Edmund of Cambridge, Mum thru John of Gaunt), & that includes Richard III.
(Message edited by Forever_Amber On 11/10/2009 6:53 AM)
usertype:1 tt= 0
|
Forever_Amber
|
|
Rank:Diamond Member
Score:572
Posts:572
From: USA
|
RE:A Tudory November
(Date Posted:11/19/2009 12:54 PM)
Yes, if not for Richard of Bordeaux, Gaunt would've been the one invested as Prince of Wales after the Black Prince's death. Generally succession only went through the female line if there was a dearth of direct male heirs, so I highly doubt E3 would've tapped Philippa Mortimer to be queen even though Lionel was the 2nd son & Gaunt was the 3rd. Plus I bet E3 still had Mortimer issues despite letting his granddaughter wed one. For some reason the English were highly paranoid about the possibility of Gaunt usurping Richard's claim, when in actuality Gaunt did all he could to keep Richard's arse on the throne throughout his many screwups & keep peace in the kingdom. If Gaunt hadn't been busily engaged in dying when Bolingbroke was banished, he may have been able to talk sense into them both. Maybe he died thinking he had, as it's said Richard visited him at Leicester when it became apparent he was on his way out. And actually, by primogeniture, Bolingbroke should've been Richard's heir, not the Mortimers. Richard wasn't all that old & Isabella was going to grow up & consummate the marriage; Bolingbroke obviously didn't care to wait & see if Richard could sire an heir of the body. Gaunt would've had a cow had he lived to see his son banished for life & the huge Lancastrian ducal estates yanked from his own heirs into the royal coffers. Richard overplayed his hand there.
This thread had become A Plantagenety November, too ROFL And now it's about to be a Stuarty one as Charles Is BD is today  & I bet MQOS was tickled pink over Knox's demise. I mean, the Scots lords were no saints, but Knox was such a troublemaker & he instigated them at times.
Back to Tudory....interesting that the 1st installment of CoAs dowry arrived on the anniversary of Warwick's execution. It's said Isabella, following the Perkin Warbeck nonsense, told Henry VII to get rid of all those pesky Yorkist claimants before she'd consider sending her daughter to marry his son. (Message edited by Forever_Amber On 11/19/2009 1:14 PM)
usertype:1 tt= 0
|
|
|
