Talk:Henry VII of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dreadfully stilted and obscure style

"However, the capriciousness and lack of due process that indebted many would tarnish his legacy and were soon ended upon Henry VII's death, after a commission revealed widespread abuses" - what on earth does this even mean????!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Early Life - The only male Lancastrian claimant- unclear

"Nonetheless, by 1483 Henry was the senior male Lancastrian claimant remaining, after the deaths in battle or by murder or execution of Henry VI, his son Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales and the other Beaufort line of descent through Lady Margaret's uncle, the 2nd Duke of Somerset." This sentence is extremely confusing. Was it that Henry VI was murdered, or executed, or was it that he ordered murders or executions? It says on Henry VI's page that he was possibly murdered. But Edward of Westminster died in battle, so that does not explain why this sentence seems to mention that one of them was executed. But it is also not clear why either would kill Lancasters as they both were. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about this subject clarify what is being said here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.139.198 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Upon his early death he handed his throne to edward jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.252.78 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The biography should be re-opened to document the time in exile of the Tudors in Brittany under the protection of the then Duke of Brittany, their oaths in Rennes cathedral, and the eventual transfer of the Richmond Honors (and possibly title) to them permitted by the breton Dukes (and leaving them only nominally Earls and Countessess of <<Richemont>>). It is the most modern and last joining of Welsh and Breton interests after the possibly mythological time of Arthur, Hi King of the Bretons. It also sets the stage for the later Tudor and non-Tudor kings to eventually cede all of the English land holdings on the continent and their spheres of influence over independent Brittany to the French kings, who would perfect this through Queen Claude de France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.11 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1491

How can his mother be proclaiming him as an alternative to Richard in 1491 when he defeated Richard in 1485? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.10.79 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

His death

I added in that Henry VII had died of leprosy and epilepsy and gave the crown to his son (which is true, according to the book "The Story of the Renaissance," by Suzanne Strauss Art), but what I had said was erased. That is a very important thing to know, and I was wronged for telling the truth.

• You've been on a vandalization streak for quite some time. Cite a source if you are adding real info. Check out your anonymous Usertalk page for info about your impending block.

Vandalization streak? What? What is my anonymous? How do I cite a source, and I have not been vandalizing for quite some time.

I think the sufferer of leprosy was Henry VII of GERMANY. See Wikipedia page on him.

Thomas Penn's book Winter King - Henry VII and The Dawn of Tudor England
and numerous other sources cited by others state that Henry VII had tuberculosis,
and this was the cause of his death in 1509.  V Schauf (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also it says his successor was henry viii. even though edward was never coronated he is still recognised as king and it is believed he played an active role in ruling even thiugh he waas a minor "I ONLY HAVE CHILDREN BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CONDOMS THEN!!" Er sorry? Edward (VI was the son of Henry VIII)

That's right, 79.64.92.117. The previous anon left out a king.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Richmond

As Henry Tudor's father was attainted in 1455 or 1456, the title reverted to the Crown. The only person entitled to call himself Earl of Richmond at Bosworth was Richard III. Avalon 04:30 30 July 2005 (UTC)

How about "From his father, he inherited a claim to the title Earl of Richmond", plus your info?

That's fine by me. Avalon 11:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Recall that the Breton Dukes retained their titulary Earl of Richmond or <<Richemont>> and that it would take the Tudor exile in Brittany to secure their future rights to its wealth. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.11 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Rise to the Throne

In the Rise to the throne section, while what is said about pretenders is strictly true, it gives the impression that a pretender is pretending in the sense of feigning. A pretender is a claimant, more or less legitimate. It is not a question of pretence in the sense of make believe. The medieval courtly language was French. In this context, the french meaning has entered into English. Prétendre means to claim, maintain, assert, say. Collins Robert Dictionary. (RJP 5 July 2005 21:49 (UTC))

Also described as "pretenders to the throne" are a few people who try, falsely, to pass themselves off as a claimant. For instance, there were a number of people who tried to claim that they were one or the other of the Princes in the Tower — who were essentially deposed by Richard III. Such claims were only possible because said princes were only assumed to have been killed: there was pretty good reason to believe that they had been, but nobody had found their bodies. Usually, these "claimants" — the most notable example being Perkin Warbeck (I think, but I don't think I spelled that right) — were sorted out and announced to be frauds.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC); edited for spelling, 15:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be argued that the only meaningful pretenders were that of lambert simnel and Warbeck who both at some staged claimed to be Edward (prince in the tower) thus they were fiegning being a claimant

Lambert Simnel was put forward as Edward, Earl of Warwick (son of George Duke of Clarence and nephew of Edward IV and Richard III) and Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, and the younger of the Princes in the Tower. There was never a serious pretender claiming to be Edward V, which leads to a belief that Edward was known to be dead whereas the fate of hos brother was uncertain. One possibility is that Edward V was sufficiently mature and well-known when he was last seen to be difficult to find a lookalike, whereas Edward of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury were less well-known and in the case of the latter would have changed sufficiently when growing to maturity for a pretender to look convincing. RGCorris (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Insidious"

Isn't that a bit biased for an encyclopedia entry?

How about “.... the Tudor dynasty and has a reputation as one of England's most insidious kings."? To say otherwise would be biased in his favour. To say nothing on the subject would be uninformative. The only other way out would be to attempt to find synonyms for 'insidious', which would by clumsy. (RJP 09:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

I second changing 'generally acknowledged as' to 'has a reputation as'; there manifestly is not a consensus here. Js229 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reporting on someone's reputation is not biased. Henry VII has the reputation of being insidious. To ignore it is to mis-represent him. Avalon 19:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RJP and Js229 because it shows that people are in his favor and could create a controversy. Bubbles 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry?

Shouldn't there be more of his ancestry? His parentage should at least be mentioned, and something about how he is descended from the Welsh nobility. Wasn't there a mediaeval Welsh family called Tewdwr? Yes, here Rhys ap Tewdwr, could they by any chance be related? I always think of Henry VII as Welsh (Hari Tudur in Welsh [1]), but I went to a Welsh school, so there may have been some exageration there, should it be mentioned?Alun 12:15, 21 September 2005 (==UTC)

Surnames were not used in Wales in medieval times - each person was the son (ap) of his father, eg Llewellyn ap Gruffydd ap Llewellyn. Tudor (however you spell it) was a given (Christian) name so there is no more reason for someone called ap Tewdr to be related to Henry VII than someone called ap Edmund or Edmundson. RGCorris (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To get really technical, Henry's name in Welsh would have been Harri ap Edmund ap Owain, and thereafter Tewdr. Henry's grandfather Owen adopted it as a surname to ingratiate himself into English society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowkittie5460 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Military Intentions?

Although I'm not goign to pretend to eb an expert on HVII, I attended a history conference on his reign in London, where a credited historian mentioned that in a peace treaty or trade agreement Henry laid claim to French territory or stated some inclination for England to try and sieze Boulogne towards the end of his reign, I can't remember the details but this goes against what is stated on the page about Henry's intentions.

And your source would be absolutely right.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry VII's Siblings

Where does it say anything about Henry VII's siblings? I think I'll research that and add it.

Don't knock yourself out, Anonymous. Henry VII was an only child. His father (Edmund Tudor) died before he was born, and though his mother (Margaret Beaufort) remarried, she did not have any more children. I think Alison Weir's Wars of the Roses had something about this, as did another book I read more recently (can't remember which one).  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Repetitive information

I have taken the above out as apart from the arms, which is not particularly Tudor, it repeats information already and more appropriately given in the info box. (RJP 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Re: Vandalism

The article was in a vandalised state when I stumbled across it, yet the current revision is said to be the reverted one of SteveO. However it is the vandalised revision that is showing. I am too ignorant of wikipedia to understand why this is the case. 86.138.137.123 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some vandalism. Random stuff about Runescape. 24.218.131.28 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I helped to fix some more recent vandalism. Apparently, people have too much time on their hands. Virgosky 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange vandalism I can't seem to fix. Maybe it's my cache but no luck. I am show the words "i smell like poop" in the early life section, right after the pro-Yorkist. I looked on the edit page and it isn't there? Can someone fix this? Wildwose (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sir Roland de Velville

This site states "The possibility this was Henry's illegitimate son is baseless.[67]," but the Roland entry states Henry is his presumed father. Something should be done to unify the two sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know of anymore sources that discuss this illegimate child of Henry VII. It was mentioned in a previous discussion and one of the editors added it in. I have found a few sources but does anyone know of any more? Thanks. RosePlantagenet 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The close knit royal circle surrounding Roland de Velville (Vieilleville) believed that he was the son of Henry Tudur, and no one appears ever to have questioned that. Roland spent twenty five years at Court, much of it as a member of the the household of Henry VII (note: he certainly was not a royal servant, and held no official post in the household. He mixed on equal terms with the members of the royal family). He was never publically acknowledged to be Henry's son, but there are quite obvious reasons why this was so and he certainly was treated with respect as such. His coat of arms provides the clues, and he possibly was not a 'bastard'.

Sir Roland de Velville was Constable of Beaumaris Castle from 1509 until his death in 1535. Beaumaris in this period was his home and the place where he died, in the heartland of the Tudur family homelands. North Wales is the place where he is best remembered, and where letters and documents have survived. I give below several references, but there are many more.

Kalendars of Gwynedd, ed. Edward Breese (1873), 122. Materials for the reign of Henry VII, ed. W. Campbell (Rolls Ser., 1877), II, 394. Letters and Papers, Richard III and Henry VII, ed. J. Gairdner (Rolls Ser., 1861), I, 395, 397-400. C.P.R., 11 Henry VII, part I, 47 (28 May 1496). C.C.R., 12 Henry VII (20 April 1497). L.& P., Foreign & Domestic, Henry Vlll, I, part I (1920), 158 (9), 707. 1524 (7) (23 March 1512). Calendar of Wynn (of Gwydir) Papers, 1515-1690 (1926), p. 259. 18. V. generally. E. A. Lewis. The Mediaeval Boroughs of Snowdonia (1912), pp. 111, 215, 217, and L. & P. Henry VIII. II, part 2, 3741 (ii); III, part I, 1000, 1025; IV, 3087. 'Sir Roland late deceased'. Cf. 'Extracts from Old Wills relating to Wales', in Arch. Camb., IX, 4th ser. (1878), 149.

National Library of Wales (NLW), Lleweni Papers 124, calendared in W. J. Smith (ed.), Calendar of Salusbury Correspondence 1559 – circa 1700 (Cardiff, 1954), no. l86. John Salusbury (d. l685) was the son of Roger Salusbury (d. l623) of Bachegraig (ibid., Table III), whose brother, John Salusbury (d. 1566), married Katheryn of Berain (ibid., Table I, Sheet B). For Katheryn of Berain, the daughter of Velville's daughter, Jane, and Thomas ap Robert of Berain, see The Dictionary of Welsh Biography down to l940 (London, 1959), p. 531. An illegitimate son of Sir John Salusbury (d. 16l2) of Lleweni, a son of Katheryn of Berain by her first marriage, was named Velivel Salusbury (Smith, Calendar of Salusbury Correspondence, Table I, Sheet B). Public Record Office (PRO), SC6/Henry VIII/5418, fees section.

Letters and Papers, Richard III and Henry VII (Rolls Series, 1861), vol. I, pp. 395, 397-400. The Account Books of John Heron, Treasurer of the Chamber', Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 43 (l960), p. 36. The Great Tournament Roll of Westminster (Oxford, l968), p. 36, n. l; A. H. Thomas and I. D. Thornley (eds.), The Great Chronicle of London (London, l938), pp. 314-15. J. Leland, Collectanea (London, l774), vol. iv, p. 263. G. Kipling, 'The Queen of May's Joust at Kennington and the Justes of the Moneths of May and June', Notes and Queries, CCXXIX (June, 1984), 158-62 (I am indebted to Professor Sydney Anglo for this reference); A. Young, Tudor and Jacobean Tournaments (London, l987), p. 145. A. R. Wagner, Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages (2nd. ed., Oxford, 1960), pp. 79-80. Buckingham was on sufficiently familiar terms with Velville to borrow money from him; in 1520 he owed Veleville £l00. Letters and Papers, Henry VIII, vol. III, pt. I, no. 1285 (5, 27, 31). PRO, E404/85/I/35, annuity granted l2 March, E404185/2/24; Cal. Patent Rolls, Henry VII, vol II, p. 47, PRO, C82/148. The annuity of 1493 was to be paid by the Exchequer, that of 1496 by the sheriff of Wiltshire. British Library (BL), Stowe 440, f. 79, PRO, E36/285, f. 44. The earliest reference to Velville appears to be that recording a grant to 'Roland de Vielle' in Michaelmas term 1488: W. Campbell (ed.), Materials for the Reign of Henry VII (2 vols., Rolls Series, 1873-77), vol. II, p. 394. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII (22 vols., 1862-l932) (hereafter L. & P. Henry VIII), vol. I, pt. i, no. 20. PRO, SC6/Henry VIII/54I8, fees section, which records the texts of the letters patent and of the warrants of 29 October and 6 December 1509. L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. I, pt. 1, no. 158 (9). Payment was to be at the Exchequer at Easter and Michaelmas by equal portions (PRO, C83/338). L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. III, pt. 1, no. 1000, records payment of annuity in 1520. L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. I, pt, ii no. 2480 (30); PRO, E101/56/25, f. 43v. Velville's signature, 'Rolant', appears against the sum of 105s. paid to him as conduct money. BL, Additional MS. 45,131, f. 174. PRO, C82/586. PRO, E36/l30, f. 201v. PRO, SC 6/Henry VIII/5422, fees and respites sections. The text of the letters patent is recorded in the chamberlain's account for the year ending Michaelmas 1516: PRO, SC6/Henry VIII/5424, fees section. The chamberlain's account for the year ending Michaelmas 1516 records the payment to Veleville of £14 10s. 0d., this being the portion of Veleville's fee of forty marks due in respect of the period from the date of his letters patent of 6 March 1515 until the following Michaelmas, i.e. a half-year and sixteen days. The sum of £12 2s. 8½d., the balance (less 7½d) of the fee due in respect of the period from Michaelmas 1515 to 5 March 1516, was recorded in the account as being 'in respite', but an entry in the 'respites' section of the account for the following year records that this payment was to be excused (PRO, SC6/Henry VIII/5426). Payments made by the chamberlain of north Wales. Chamberlain's accounts in PRO, SC6/Henry VIII. Total fees and wages for the year ending Michaelmas 1509, £l75 3s. 4d. (No. 5418); for the following year no account survives and for the year ending Michaelmas 1511 the surviving account (No. 5419) gives no details of fees, but for each year the (total is assumed to be £350 5s. 0d., as in the years ending Michaelmas 1512 (No. 5420) and the two following years (PRO, LRI2/21/662); total for the year ending Michaelmas 1515, £350 5s. 0d. (No. 5422), including the sum of £175 2s. 6d. for the latter half of the year authorised in the following year; total for the year ending Michaelmas 1516, £200 (No. 5424, ignoring a possible underpayment of 7½d. for his fee); totals for the following eighteen years, 1517 to 1534 inclusive, £200 (Nos. 5426-30, 5433-36, 544l, 5444, 5447, 5450, 5453, 5455, 5457, 5460); total for the half-year ending Easter 1535, £100 (No. 5461). Angharad Llwyd stated that Henry VII bestowed upon Velville a moiety of the Penmynydd estate, consisting of 486 acres (op. cit, p. 333); for other references to Henry VIII granting Veleville lands forming part of the Tudor estate of Penmynydd, see J. Williams, 'Penmynydd and the Tudors', Archaeologia Cambrensis, 3rd. series, XV (1869), 402; J. Ballinger, 'Katheryn of Berain', Y Cymmrodor, XL (1929), 2; and R. A. Griffiths and R. S. Thomas, op. cit., p. 192.. Velville's grant of denization, see L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. I, pt. 1, no. 1524 (7). The terms of the grants by which constables of the royal castles in the principality of north Wales in the last year of Henry VII's reign held their offices are summarised in the account of the chamberlain for the year ending Michaelmas 1508, PRO, SC6/Henry VII/160l, fees section In a letter of 26 June 1535, Sir Richard Bulkeley stated that Veleville had murdered a man in the Lord Cardinal's (i.e. Wolsey's) time and had forfeited all his goods, but no indication of the date of the alleged murder is cited: L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. VII, no. 889; Historical Manuscripts Commission, no. 58: Report on the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Bath, vol. IV, Seymour Papers, 1532-l686 (HMSO, 1968), p. 97. In the early years of Henry VIII's reign, Velville is mentioned as holding musters at Beaumaris, and there are references to gunpowder being delivered to him for Beaumaris (PRO, Star Chamber 217, f. 26v; L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. I, pt. ii, nos. 2834, 3222). P. C. Bartrum, Welsh Genealogies, A.D. 1400-1500 (Aberystwyth, 1983), vol. VIII, p. 1265; Lewys Dwnn, Heraldic Visitations of Wales, ed. S. R. Meyrick (2 vols., Llandovery, 1846), vol. II, p. 131, n. 4; J. E. Griffith, Pedigrees of Anglesey and Caernarvonshire (Horncastle, 1914), pp. 26, 223. For the family of Griffith of Penrhyn, see Dictionary of Welsh Biography, pp. 1123-26 PRO, Star Chamber 2/7, f. 28; Star Chamber 2/4, f. 5. The Plea Rolls of Anglesey (1518-1516) (Anglesey Antiquarian Society and Field Club, 1927), p. 54, no. 134. NLW, Lleweni collection, No. 222. In deeds dated 20 June and 31 July 1526. Veleville and Agnes Griffith (not referred to as his wife) granted and quitclaimed two shops in Beaumaris that were stated to be in the tenure and occupation of Agnes and one Peter Barbour (University College of North Wales, Bangor. Baron Hill Collection, Nos. 552-53). The settlement made by Veleville before the marriage of his daughter Jane was dated 5 June 1531 (NLW, Lleweni Collection, No. 370 Velville's annuity of forty marks, granted in 1496, was still being paid in 1520 (L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. III, pt. 1. no. 1000). The total of £1,2l6 13s. 4d. is based on the assumption that this annuity, and that of £20, originally granted in 1493, continued to be paid until his death, his payments from both annuities totalling £46 13s. 4d. in the twenty-six years, 1509-1534, and £23 6s. 6d. in 1535. In a letter date 26 June written in 1535 by Sir Richard Bulkeley to Henry Norris (executed l7 May 1536), Velville's successor as constable of Beaumaris castle, Bulkeley claimed that on taking possession of the castle from Velville's widow and her son-in-law, William ap Robert, he never saw a house so ill kept, as there was scarcely a chamber in which a man might lie dry (L. & P. Henry VIII, vol. VII, no. 889). NLW, Lleweni collection, Nos. 230, 209, 22l, 257(i), 222 (grant by Agnes Griffith University College of North Wales, Bangor, Baron Hill Collection Nos. 552-53, for which see above, p. 364, n. 61. NLW, Lleweni Collection, no. 370. Will dated 6 June 1535, proved on l3 June 1535 at Llanallgo, Anglesey (NLW, Kinmel Deeds, No. 53). In the will (Latin) Sir Rowland Velville describes himself as a knight for the king's body and constable of the castle of Beaumaris; it is dated 'in my place of habitation in the aforesaid castle' In his will, Sir Roland directed that he should be buried in the monastery of the Friars Minor of Llanfaes, the Franciscan house about a mile to the north of Beaumaris. Llanfaes was the burial place of Goronwy ap Tudor (d. 1382), one of the ancestors of the Tudors. Sir Rowland died at Beaumaris in 1535. Dame Agnes, his widow, made her will on 16 December 1542, and directed that she be buried in the chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Beaumaris where her husband was buried, and she bequeathed £4 for the repair and building of the chapel and a further £4 for a priest to sing for a whole year for the health of her husband's soul and her own "...gwr o lin brenhinoedd ag o waed ieirll i gyd oedd," “A man of kingly line and of earl’s blood.” Extract from an elegy to Sir Roland de Velville by Dafydd Alaw composed shortly after his death in 1535. The earl’s blood referred to Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond (died 1456) BrynLlywelyn 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting and detailed, yet seems to be original research, so should not be used to inform the article. As far as I'm aware, I have every book published on Henry VII, but cannot find a reference for a historian believing this to be the case, I can only find it in a book of royal scandals, which isn't referenced and is full of errors. Unless it has been suggested in academic works, I don't think it should be in the article. What do others think? Can anyone back the siggestion up without original research?Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Reference to the above: I believe that the article of Sir Roland Velevielle should be available in the main article, because by it not being recognized, it is as true to say that i and a lot of my family do not exist - as we have a strong family tree leading back to Henry VII through Roland de Velevielle, and before that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.57.212 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Reference to the above: I wish to add on to the above info; somethings have just clicked! It does make sense that there are descendants of Henry VII today through Roland de Velevielle[RdV], as RdV lived in Beaumaris, and the family tree that i've got that dates back to Henry VII through RdV tells us that everyone [nearly!] still lives in the North West of Wales. [Llyn and Eryri area mostly]. Could this maybe tell us that RdV could speak Welsh, because no one at that time could speak English [or any other language in Wales] at the time?

P.S. - i am sorry for writing my information in these boxes [3 times!], i didn't know where else to put it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.57.212 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Murder of the Princes: Do We Really Need This?

Does the little blurb about Henry VII possibly being involved in the murders really belong here? It's practically pointless and out of place. I also think it was added simply as a subtle form of vandalism by modern-day Richard III supporters.

Not only is it pointless it is bollocks- Henry was in France in exile when they were murdered (for which there is a 99% consensus that Richard did it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.231.41 (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have definite information on when, or even if, the Princes were murdered, please share it. Likewise any confirmation of your claim for 99% consensus. Serious historians admit that there is no proof of their fate and in the absence of same avoid dogmatic statements blaming anyone for their presumed deaths. RGCorris (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. Read Thomas Costain (The Last Plantagenets). Read Josephine Tey. The evidence for Richard doing it is contrived and made up by the sainted Thomas More, who was completely a Tudor-supporter. Old Henry VII was a nasty, nasty man, may he rot. Yes, I'm a Richard supporter (no! you didn't figure that out?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggins (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well until we have better suggestions from eminent historian I suggest it is maintained that Richard did it!86.166.96.54 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

--Juggins, I find your remarks to be both libelous against Henry VII, one of the greatest kings England has been blessed with, and preposterous. Richard III was a despicable man. How can history judge otherwise after what he did to his own juvenile nephews? He deposed them on the flimsiest of pretexts and then cruelly confined them to the Tower. He did this to kids! His own blood! This would stand even if he hadn’t gotten around to murdering them before his own fall.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. (A) You csnnot libel the dead! (B) As for "confining them to The Tower", The Tower was, in Richard's time the royal residence in London, not a prison. (C) As Protector, Richard was already de-facto ruler of England until Edward came of age; he did not need to depose anyone. It was, in fact, Parliament who declared the boys (and the other children of Edward IV by Elizabeth Woodville) illegitimate by reason of Edward IV's prior contract of marriage to Eleanor Butler and Richard was declared King (again by Parliamant) under the Act of Titulus Regius. (D) There is no evidence whatever that Richard was involved in the murder of his nephews and there WAS NO CONTEMPORARY ACCUSATION of him doing so. None. On his "accession" Henry VII spouted all the usual hyperbole about Richard's "tyranical" reign but there was no mention whatever of his having murdered his nephews, which he most assuredly would have done had it been true; Henry was not a popular replacement for the Plantagenets and he needed all the reasons he could lay hands on for deposing Richard. That he did not produce this trump card is inconceivable unless the boys were, in fact, still alive at the time of Henry's victory at Bosworth. (E) Richard instituted the Court of Requests, the right to bail and the College of Arms; he banned restrictions on the printing and sale of books and had all written laws and statutes translated into English so the could be understood by anybody (who was literate). This is not the legacy of a tyrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.237.95 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"It was, in fact, Parliament who declared the boys (and the other children of Edward IV by Elizabeth Woodville) illegitimate by reason of Edward IV's prior contract of marriage to Eleanor Butler and Richard was declared King (again by Parliamant) under the Act of Titulus Regius" - oh, so Parliament "forced" the unwilling Protector to take the throne? What rubbish. Richard III's ONLY Parliament was called in 1484 - he was crowned King in 6th July 1483, more than 6 months earlier, and therefore long before Parliament passed Titulus Regius! Make no mistake, Richard III deposed his nephew (he had previously issued documents in his name), and then got Parliament to subsequentally validate his actions! Given that, it's a bit "rich" for you to accuse the previous commentator of "you don't know what you're talking about"! As for "confining" the Princes in the Tower - royal residence or not, they were certainly confined in it. To the best of our knowledge neither Prince ever left the Tower alive, that's being "confined" by any reasonable definition. Also whilst it was a royal residence, it was also used as a prison, even in Richard's time. Do you think Henry VI wasn't held prisoner? As for Henry VII murdering the Princes. Yes, he would have had similar motivation to Richard (surely an admission that Richard had cause to have them disposed of), but they'd not been seen for 2 years before the Battle of Bosworth Field, and Henry VII wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispose of them prior to that. If you want to blame someone other than Richard, the Duke of Buckingham is the only possible alternative, but his motive is unclear. --158.89.1.33 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry VII was a superb monarch. He was as merciful as the times and circumstances allowed him to be. Look at his reprieving Simnel! He ruled wisely, outlawing the private armies of the feudal potentates and thus ending the constant dynastic wars that so ravaged the realm and prevented it from emerging into modern times from the benighted age of feudalism. He kept England out of foreign entanglements and wars and refurbished the nation’s sorely depleted treasury. As to his personal life, he was a loving and faithful husband, remarkable for the times and even more remarkable as his was the most political of marriages. The worst anyone can assault his character with was that he tended to be parsimonious. Even that relatively minor criticism must be taken in light of the fact that that was exactly what England needed in its sovereign after the nation’s economy had been left in shambles by the dynastic wars.

For you to even attempt to exculpate the dastardly Richard and defame the virtuous Henry leads me to believe that you’re not really serious. You’re perhaps just one of those folks who likes argument for its own sake and finds it interesting to attempt to defend an indefensible position, like a modern day criminal defense attorney.

In regard to the princes, the most one might put forward in Richard’s favor is that the equally monstrous Buckingham acted on his volition. I don’t even buy that, however. Richard murdered Edward V’s half-brother Richard Grey and his maternal uncle Earl Rivers, a noted scholar, over the boy’s protests. Richard then deprived the nation of the potential rule of a boy who had given every indication that he would have grown into a superb monarch, far exceeding his father in both intellectual ability and character. The monster you claim to defend had but one lonely virtue: physical courage. In regard to the murder of the princes, all the evidence points in but one direction.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for suggesting improvements to the article not the glorification of Henry VII. This is an encyclopedia, not a Henry Tudor fan site.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

--I am merely attempting to point out, for reasons of historical accuracy and for the accuracy of this article, the notion of “the big lie” becoming enshrined into a revisionist history. I consider myself a strictly objective historian; and no, I am not in the least influenced by the Immortal Bard’s propagandistic jewel of theater designed to court favor with the then reigning Tudors.

As a Catholic, I despise that pig of a son Henry Tudor had the misfortune to have sired. However, I cannot blame the father for the misdeeds of his son long after the former expired. Indeed, if I could rewrite history, I would expunge Richard III altogether and allow Edward V to have survived and have had a long and prosperous reign. By all accounts, the boy was a model of virtue and was intellectually astute, perhaps the one virtuous male example of that benighted house known as York. (In fairness, I know virtually nothing about Edward’s younger brother.)

Alas, it seems all too true that only the good die young. Although I would hardly characterize Edward IV as monstrous, neither was he a paragon of virtue. However, in his defense, he realized his own shortcomings and saw to it that his eldest son and heir was raised and tutored in a more refined and benign environment than he had been himself.

I shudder to think how these naïve kids must have felt when they found themselves shut off from the world in the Tower and finally realized the unmitigated evil of the hands they had fallen into. Royalty or not, kids are kids!199.191.108.18 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC) HistoryBuff14 (I apparently forgot to sign on.)

History is written by the winners, and it is tempting to leave it that way - it's simple and soothing and there's a reason for everything all spelled out. Life, unfortunately, bears little resemblance to the history it becomes. You can't assume the honesty of tales told by people who really, REALLY didn't want to tick off someone who could cut their heads off. You need to acknowledge all the possibilities, particularly since there is no way of obtaining a definitive answer at this late date. To ignore a possibility is to prefer ignorance.Gem4249372 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Gem4249372

First language

I am led to believe that because of both his nationality and the spelling of his surname in previous generations, Henry VII may have spoken Welsh as his first language and English was always a second language to him. It is difficult to tell for such figures in the pre-modern era, but for figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte (born Napoleone di Buonaparte) it is comparably easier. Any ideas on the contrary or otherwise? RJL (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that Henry was born after his father's death, had an English mother, and spent much of his youth in France, it is unlikely that he spoke Welsh as a first language. Do you have any proof that he spoke it at all ? RGCorris (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

--Reference to the above: Yes, it is believed to be a true fact that Henry spoke Welsh as a first language. All of his father's family were Welsh, and so it is believed that his uncle 'Owen Tudur' spoke the language with him, and that would make him his first language. At those times in Wales, no one could hardly speak English, so that statement is believable. Connected to the Roland de Velevielle article, most of his descendants now are first language Welsh speakers, and live in the area of North West Wales, where the Tudur family originated from. Henry's real birthname was actually 'Harri Tudur'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.57.212 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

His father was in point of fact half-Welsh and half-French being the son of Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois. He in his turn married an English woman, therefore Henry VII was only one-quarter Welsh. I agree with RGCorris that it's highly unlikely he spoke Welsh as a first language.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He was certainly first in a long and noble line of Welshmen who left Wales, Anglecised their names, and moved to England... Basket _Feudalist 12:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I can clear this up. Henry Tudor likely spoke English, we can be sure of that else trying to talk to his own wife would have been a chore, not to mention he wrote letters to Mum in this language. He also was almost surely proficient in Latin, since we have written letters to the Vatican in his handwriting. We also know he spoke French fluently, since this would have been a prestige tongue at the time. As for Welsh, according to some sources he did because of a nursemaid who taught him as a boy, but it is more likely he knew a bit because of his Uncle Jasper. (We know Owen spoke it and it would be rather odd if Grandpa Owen just sat around with a bag on his head while Edmund and Jasper were growing up, and off the island in exile it wouldn't have exactly been a tongue anybody at Francis's court would understand-very useful for private conversation in place wheret he walls have ears.) Shadowkittie5460 (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird

Henry VII was the older brother of Richard, Duke of York. Richard was smuggled and tooken to Flanders, under the name Perkin Warbeck. Warbeck had a rebellion which made him get executed by his older brother. Weird, isn't it? 78.149.73.48 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.80.89 (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink to that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Last Lancastrian claimant left

Even if Henry Tudor was the last senior male Lancastrian remaining, it doesn't justify his blatant usurpation of the throne to which he had no legitimate right as the Beauforts from whom he derived his claim were expressly debarred from the English succession when Richard II legitimised them, which he did as a favour to Katherine Swynford. Henry VII was not a legitimate claimant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, and his predecessor, Richard III, so righteously assumed the throne when he became King a few years earlier ! V Schauf (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have already stated Richard II legitimised the Beauforts, whether or not suppor Swynford is neither here nor there. Since Richard II "de-barring" (?) him from succession no other King had illegitimised them again. Therefore its fair enough that he was a Lancastrian CLAIMANT 86.166.96.54 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How could he rightfully have been a claimant to something to which he was specifically debarred?! There were doubtless many illegitimate descendants about who could also have claimed the Crown. He was a usurper, same as William the Conqueror. No amount of adroit Tudor window-dressing can erase this fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He won the throne through battle. Did he not delay his marriage to Elizabeth of York until to emphasise he was King in his own right not through his wife (or his mother)? Bevo74 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He never fought at Bosworth; he spent the duration of the battle watching it behind the protection of his household knights. Richard nearly got to him. Had King Richard challenged Henry to single combat, we know who would have been the victor that day! None of the Tudor monarchs greatly cared for war, which is to their credit; however, we cannot say that Henry VII won the crown in battle. His mercenaries and the troops of the traitor Stanley won it for him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

His coming to the throne was as legitimate as Richard III's was and as legitimate as Edward IV's was and as legitimate as Henry IV's was. He didn't cheat more than they did. Don't you think so? Surtsicna (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

His line was specifically debarred from the throne. I think Henry IV started the whole nasty business by usurping the throne from Richard II after deposing him. The Mortimers came before Henry as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that nasty business was started way earlier. John Lackland usurped the throne from his nephew, Arthur I, Duke of Brittany, who had been designated heir by Richard I and who had been the rightful heir according to primogeniture. He also imprisoned his niece, Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany, who was thus deprived of both the throne of Brittany and the throne of England (being heiress to both according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture). Not to mention Henry I and Stephen or William I for that matter! Succession in the past was more often unfair than fair. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, his band of mercanaries managed to kill Richard. Bevo74 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Had Stanley not switched sides at the final moment, the mercenaries would have never defeated Richard. Richard was relying on Stanley's troops to save the day. Surtsicna, we can go back even farther than William as Harold was also a usurper! It was Henry IV's usurpation which brought about the Wars of the Roses. A pity Richard II didn't have an heir as the populace would never have permitted the son of the hated John of Gaunt to take the crown away from a grandchild of the beloved Black Prince!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Could argue that Stanley was pretty much a :::::::::::, selling his services to the highest bidder. Bevo74 (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Bevo! LOL! Remember it was this same William Stanley who had taken Margaret of Anjou captive after the Battle of Tewkesbury. Rather a nasty piece of work IMO. I don't understand why Richard wasn't suspicious when somebody left that warning note on the Duke of Norfolk's tent the morning of the battle: "Jockey of Norfolk, be not too bold, for Dickon, thy master is bought and sold". It patently refers to a traitor in his midst.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A few misconceptions. Firstly the Beauforts were NOT illegitimate. They were "legitimised" by Act of Parliament during Richard II's reign (the same Parliament he "protected" with his 4000 archers!). The legitimisation did NOT specifically bar them from the Succession. That was a later insertion by the usurping Henry IV, and was not an original condition of legitimacy. Secondly, the exclusion from the succession to the throne is of somewhat doubtful legality anyway. They were otherwise eligible for all other claims of the Lancastrian inheritance, so it was quite different from Attainder. Perhaps Henry IV was simply paranoid that others would do to him as he did to Richard II. Now, if the Beauforts are legitimate, as sons of John of Gaunt via Katherine Swynford, they come before the female descendents of his first two wives. The Beauforts were also amongst the leaders of the Lancastrian Party. With the deaths of the more senior Beauforts during the Wars of the Roses, that leaves Henry Tudor as senior Lancastrian Claimant, based upon the idea that he is the next in line to the “legitimate” Henry VI – Edward IV being “illegitimate” in the eyes of the Lancastrians. His “offer” to marry Elizabeth of York was to win support from the supporters of Edward IV, who supported the rights of Edward V and opposed Richard III’s assumption of the throne. Richard’s problem was that his claim wasn’t universally recognised, the “illegitimacy” claims weren’t accepted by many of the Yorkist party, and the leading nobles expected “rewards” in return for supporting his bid for the throne. Many of these claims were conflicting, both Buckingham and Stanley had conflicting ambitions in the Wales border areas (indeed Stanley probably stayed loyal to Richard in the October 1483 uprising precisely because Buckingham, his rival, joined it). --158.89.1.33 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Henry VII transformed the nation from a debtor nation to one with better trade and more (if only slightly.....peace). Again, the concerns raised by Ms. Boleyn are absolutely incorrect to the point of speculation. V Schauf (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Welsh ancestry paragraph

The paragraph needs changing for the following reasons

The lineage given isn't a claim to the throne. The throne has its own candidates for succession. The quotes are not referenced and replace the wikipedia narative with personal opinion. Final sentence is too general to be proved. The general impression is of persuasion using a dismissive tone rather than referenced facts. The citation, opinion request has been under this paragraph for a while.

I will try to improve the paragraph. I think Meredith as a rebel against a Lancastrian King is of greater concern than of him being a butler. But thats subjective so Id give details of both. The family is minor but if I give details then the reader can decide.--Fodbynnag (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Long-lasting dynasty ?

A dynasty that ends with the founder's grandchildren can hardly be called "long-lasting".Eregli bob (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you define "long-lasting"? The Tudor dynasty ruled from 1485-1603 (118 years), the Stuarts from 1603-1714 (111 years, even if you count the Cromwellian years), the Hanoverians from 1714-1837 (123 years), the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas from 1837-1917 (80 years), and the Windsors from 1917-present (95 years and counting). By that count, only the Hanoverians ruled longer than the Tudors, and they came to the throne under even shadier conditions. Besides which, all of these rulers since 1603 are descended from Henry VII through his daughter Margaret.

A point of contention can be whether to include Queen Victoria in the House of Hanover. Many lists do not since she did not inherit the Electorate of Hanover. Even so, the House of Tudor would still be ranked as the 2nd longest dynasty to occupy the throne since 1399. 69.42.34.188 (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

A point of contention would also be whether your lunacy ever leads you to actually understand history; viz, your disingenous reference to ' since 1399'. So-called Houses of York, Lancaster etc were Plantagenets, so ruled from 1154-1485. Gosh-!!! Even LONGER!!! Basket _Feudalist 13:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, why would we be confining ourselves to British examples? The Houses of Valois and Bourbon in France both lasted for over 200 years; the Habsburgs reigned in Austria for over 600. The Spanish Bourbons have reigned for over 300 years, on and off, and the Spanish Habsburgs preceding them reigned for almost 200. The Danish House of Oldenburg has reigned for 565 years. The Swedish Bernadottes and Belgian Saxe-Coburgs have both reigned for almost 200 years. The Romanovs ruled for over 300 years. By any reasonable standards, 118 years is not a particularly long-lasting dynasty. john k (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Long-lasting as in "never overthrown." The term strikes me as unnecessary. I would say merely that he was succeeded peacefully by his son after a reign of 24 years. But every English monarch since the 16th century (Stuart, Hanover, Windsor) has been a descendant of Henry VII.Flyte35 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Lambert Simnel's Good Fortune

One wonders if anyone else has observed how exceedingly fortunate the boy had been to have had “his side” defeated at Stoke Field! Had the Yorkist forces prevailed, does anyone believe that John de la Pole would have actually allowed Simnel to have ruled in his own right upon coming of age? Even if de la Pole had gone through with the charade of having the boy actually crowned King of England, how long would it have been before the youth would have been deposed on some pretense or another (and then likely to permanently disappear within the Tower of London), or succumbed to an “accident” leaving de la Pole as the legitimate heir to the throne? One wonders if Simnel realized this himself later in life. Henry VII was England’s great good fortune and certainly Simnel’s.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There were other Yorkists still alive to challenge Simnel besides de la Pole.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lambert Simnel was also being proclaimed as Edward, Earl of Warwick, nephew of Edward IV and Richard III, who was in the Tower. If the rebellion had succeeded, Lambert would have been replaced with the real Earl of Warwick and presumably the Earl of Lincoln would have been Protector. What would have happened after that is anyone's guess, but I doubt it would have been good for Lambert Simnel. 69.42.34.188 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Anglican Church

Wouldn't be important to mention that Henry VIII began the Anglican Church (Church of England) after the Roman Catholic Pope did not allow him to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon? It seems a significant point that is greatly overlooked in the article. Litichev (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's also mentioned over in Henry VIII's article. Not a big part of Henry VII's life though! Jmlk17 03:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Misleading

The article is misleading as Henry never engaged Richard III in battle at Bosworth, his paid mercenaries did. Henry was shielded throughout the fight. It was when Richard was heading toward Henry's direction that he was surrounded and subsequently killed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi Protection

After looking at the recent IP edits to this page I've semi protected it due to excessive vandalism. Apologies to those IP editors who have done good work here including the vandal fighters. But stuff was beginning to stick. ϢereSpielChequers 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

his eyes

his eyes in the main picture of him are bent as hell. i'm surprised the painter didnt get beheaded for that lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.180.14 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll second this, what an AWFUL portrait. It should be notable as such. --Nutthida (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth of York descended from Edmund of York, not John of Gaunt?

I'm confused about the statement in this entry that Henry VII and Elizabeth of York "were third cousins, as both were great-great-grandchildren of John of Gaunt." I thought Elizabeth was a great-great-granchild of Edmund of York, John of Gaunt's brother. See, for example, this family tree: http://www.britroyals.com/plantagenet.htm. NickInBigD ^(Hey!) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Both men were her great-great-grandfathers. See ancestry of Elizabeth of York.Flyte35 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Elizabeth of York also had Beaufort lineage, through her paternal grandmother, Cecily Neville. But it was the lineage from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, which gave the Yorkists the elder claim to the throne; Lionel of Clarence was the 3rd son of Edward III, while John of Gaunt was the 4th son and Edmund of York was the 5th son. Lionel's descendant married with Edmund's descendant and this is how York got "ahead" of Lancaster in the heredity stakes. So Elizabeth of York was also Lionel's ggggreat-granddaughter.69.42.34.188 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Richard and Henry

Henry's good luck in ascending the throne began with Richard III. After Richards only legitimate son died there must have been considerable concern that there might be a resumption of the Wars of the Roses with several challenging to be Richards successor.

Richard must have sensed that his power base was then lessening so he started moving his own loyal men (northeners) into all possible levels of administration. This must have antagonised a lot of people, who rather than support Richard, simply sat on the fence and waited to see what would happen. "Better the Welshman than the Geordies".

Henry Tudor was 28th in line for the throne and so obscure that he was the almost completely nuetral throne challenge that suited nearly everybody. So after Bosworth, Henry then taking the throne didn't greatly bother anybody. Unlike his son, Henry VII seems to have been the master of the triple cross, making him an almost ideal king.AT Kunene (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, it didn't help Richard III that somehow, some way....Edward V and his brother, the Duke of York, mysteriously died during Richard III's reign.V Schauf (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that statement ? RGCorris (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

​ I expect they mean "mysteriously disappeared"  :) then the sentence would adhere to a degree of historical accuracy.... —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

Please add following information when listing the progeny of Henry VII: Margaret was married 3 times, lastly to Henry Stewart, 1st Lord Methven, m. 1528; dec. 1552

Euclasetorchy (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding photographs

I've attempted to Resize, rearrange, etc. the photos of young Henry VII and the groat in order to prevent them from blocking the text, but it has come to no avail. Could someone better suited do that for me? Thanks for readingLeftAire (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Peace>> IMO, your result improves over how-you-found-it; (>the proportions betw text, revsd images and 'mas' images are better); thanks for your edits.--Jbeans (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent book on Henry VII

Thomas Penn's book Winter King - Henry VII and The Dawn of Tudor England has done an excellent historical work covering Henry VII's life and reign. While I agree with much of this article's praise of Henry VII (especially restoring stability to England), Penn's book does a very thorough job of detailing the onerous, arbitrary financial burden Henry VII and his underlings put upon many of the English. V Schauf (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Genealogical muddle

In the section, Reign, it says "It also ended future discussion as to whether the descendants of the fourth son of Edward III, Edmund, Duke of York, through marriage to Phillipa, heiress of the second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence, had a superior or inferior claim to those of the third son John of Gaunt, who had held the throne for three generations."

This is worded confusingly. Edmund of Langley never married his niece. As I understand it, Lionel's daughter, Philippa, married Edmund Mortimer, the then Earl of March. It was their granddaughter, Anne de Mortimer who married Edmund of Langley's son, Richard of Conisburgh (her first cousin, twice removed), tying the lines of the second and fourth sons together. Analog Kid (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well one of the DESCENDANTS of the fourth son of Edward III, Edmund, Duke of York married one of the DESCENDANTS of Phillipa, heiress of the second son, Lionel, Duke of Clarence. It's a confusing sentence though. Recommend just deleting.

Ireland

How come there is no mention of Henry VII's policy towards Ireland? (92.7.8.104 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

upon dieing at 10 he gave his throne to Edward Jones as long as he pretended to be him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.60.252.78 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Henry Tudor

Shouldn't his name "Henry Tudor" appear somewhere in the article rather than forcing everybody to impute it? one place to put it, if not in the lede, is where it says "Henry was born", could be "Henry was born Henry Tudor" 68.174.97.122 (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I second the motion. If you search Wikipedia on just the term Henry Tudor you get the disambiguation page showing Richard VII but not identified as Henry Tudor. (I'll update that). But if you follow the hyperlink found in the third paragraph in Richard III of England, the hyperlink is titled as Henry Tudor which leads to this (Richard VII) page.Bcwilmot (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard VII???? What are you referring to? Is that a momentary abberation intended for Henry VII? Henry Tudor is, as you say, a disambiguation page, but I've no idea what you mean by "showing Richard VII but not identified as Henry Tudor". Disambiguation pages include all possible articles that might be searched for under a particular phrase. The hyperlink in the Richard III page refers specifically to this Henry Tudor, so has a "hidden" link within it to this page, which looks like this in wiki-markup: [[Henry VII of England|Henry Tudor]] Paul B (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that either Henry VII or his children used the surname Tudor or were referred to by that name in their lifetimes ? I note the "Issue" section gives most of the children the "Tudor" surname, but was this contemporary usage or later revisionism ? RGCorris (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Beaufort

When Margaret gave birth to Henry she was still 13 years old, NOT 14. Her article states: leaving a 13-year-old widow who was seven months pregnant with their child. At Pembroke Castle on 28 January 1457, the Countess gave birth to her only child, Henry Tudor. Since the page is locked can someone please change this?? -- Lady Meg (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The year of her birth is actually a matter of dispute. Her article also states she may have been born in 1441, which would make her 15 at the time of the birth.Flyte35 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Where does the dispute come from? Several sources state 1443 including sites like Westminster Abbey's Official site. From Douglas Richardson -- there is a source which states there is a note contained in a breviary of the reign of Henry VI that states her birth as 31 May 1443. It also states that during her life, her anniversary was celebrated at Westminster on this date. If you're going by the date of 31 May 1443, she was only 13. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Also -- Jones and Underwood note that the 1443 date is the one given in the Beaufort Book of Hours and that Margaret's father was anticipating the birth of a child in 1443. -- Lady Meg (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

William Dugdale, the 17th century antiquary, suggested earlier. This is based on evidence of inquisitions taken at the death of her father the Duke of Somerset, in 1444. 1443 is, of course, the more likely year of her birth. You could just call her a "teenage widow."Flyte35 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

This is a minor request, but I find the phrase "He founded a long-lasting dynasty" (in the first paragraph)to be rather mis-leading. His dynasty lasted only three generations - a drop in the bucket compared to the Plantagenets or the Hanovers, and not even as many as the Stuarts. Even if you're counting years over generations, the Tudors are still way behind the Plantagenets and Hanovers, and barely ahead of the Stuarts. I think the term 'long-lasting' not only conveys a bias in what should be an impartial article, but it is also inaccurate.

Honestly, I'm also not wild about the two references to the fact that "he" defeated Richard III (his soldiers defeated Richard - Henry was being protected by 6 or 8 of his gentlemam at arms). But the term can technically be taken either way and given all the mentions of Bosworth Field after the discovery of Richard III's body this winter, I doubt anyone who would read this article thinks Henry actually struck any of the blows. Gem4249372 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done These are both good suggestions. -- Dianna (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Last to win throne

The header includes this line:

"He was the last king of England to win his throne on the field of battle."

Is that really true given what occurred in the revolution of 1688-1690? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but there was no battle in 1688, only a series of skirmishes which convinced James resistance would be futile given the strength of popular antipathy to him. The "decisive" battle was the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, when William was already king. Henry was the last person to take the throne as a result of a decisive battle. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs, particularly given that the line is so prominent near the beginning of the summary. The reader is left with an impression that for the remainder of English history the throne passed peaceably. Would William had become king if he had shown up with only his valet? Or was it the 15,000 soldiers? This line needs to go, or at minimum be more specific so as not to mislead, or perhaps just move it to the body of the article. Djilk (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)User:djilk 01:55, 13 Mar 2014 (UTC)

legitimacy

There is one aspect of Henry's story that puzzles me and that is his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Richard III had been able to "bastardise" the two sons of of Edward IV and render them inelligible for the throne as these two were the result of a bigamous marriage.

Shouldn't some sort of similar stigma also apply to Elizabeth as a daughter of the same bigamous marriage? Surely she would have also been inellible as queen for the same reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See the article Titulus Regius. RGCorris (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Amateur?

Oops!! I accidentally reverted the previous edit so I reverted myself. Be that as it may, Bertram Fields and Sir Clements Markham are/were authors, the same as Alison Weir. Are we going to call her an "amateur" too? Are we to tag each reliable source as "amateur" and "professional"? Rather than "amateur", perhaps we can say, "non-fiction authors", which is how Weir describes herself. Thoughts anyone? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Requiring a tenured professorship to avoid being derided as an "amateur" seems a little too exclusive. It certainly relegates Herodotus, Gibbon and Carlyle to the status of mere dilettantes. HLGallon (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well no, dilettante is pejorative. Amateur is not.Flyte35 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. "A dilettante is a person who enjoys the arts or someone who engages in a field as an amateur out of casual interest rather than as a profession", nothing disparaging about that, and "amateur" itself can also carry connotations of unskilled slap-dash work. HLGallon (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Depends a bit on what the supporting citation said originally (the para is cited to Weir, as far as I can see). Markham's ODNB entry describes him as a geographer, rather than as any sort of historian. I suppose the key is to ensure that we're not giving the involvement in "murders in the the tower" theory undue weight, if its not supported by mainstream, current historical opinion. I'm not strong on Henry VII, so I can't really give an opinion on that, but I'd rather that - if modern opinion does run counter to the theory - we were straight about saying so. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Weir has written quite a few mainstream history books. Fields is a lawyer given to fringe theories in history (He's written a Shakespeare-didn't-write-Shakespeare book to). Markham is no historian. I'm not too bothered about the exact wording, but I think we should have some phrase that points out that these authors are not experts on an equal par with other experts, giving the very fringy idea that Henry killed the princes more plausibility than it merits. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Careful! I can think of two users who will be on your back for anything that looks like synthesis! :-) Deb (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

After reading Cchc2009's comment, perhaps it would be best to remove the entire sentence (and maybe even the rest of the paragraph).

I'm not sure whether there is or is not a consensus, but if we are to leave the word "amateur" in the article, can we at least get a citation from a RS saying that he (Fields) is an "amateur"? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Fields is an attorney. He's an entertainment lawyer who writes about history. Does this really need more sourcing? Flyte35 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How does that differentiate him from Alison Weir? In her own words:

As a non-fiction author, I write 'popular' history. The term has sometimes been used in a derogatory sense by a few people who should know better, because all historians use much the same sources. History is not the sole preserve of academics, although I have the utmost respect for those historians who undertake new research and contribute something new to our knowledge. History belongs to us all, and it can be accessed by us all. And if writing it in a way that is accessible and entertaining, as well as conscientiously researched, can be described as popular, then, yes, I am a popular historian, and am proud and happy to be one.

Sounds like an amateur to me, but do we really need to say anything other than both of them (Weir & Fields) are RSs (not to be confused with ROUSs)? But if Fields is an amateur, then so is Weir since she clearly differentiates between non-fiction authors (her work) and professional historians (academics). Thus, to label one as an amateur and not the other is POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Both Fields and Weir are amateur historians, but Weir is more notable and doesn't need an identifier. It's not wrong to label her an amateur historian, but it's unnecessary since she's well known as a writer. Flyte35 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition by WellsSouth

This addition, "To achieve this restoration of the economy of the kingdom, Henry VII had at least two strengths. First, he was not afraid to rely on the assistance of other persons, who were more knowlegeable about economic that himself. Two of the financial advisors that Henry VII employed in the office of Lored High Treasurer of England were Lord Dinham and Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey.<refS. B. Chrimes, Henry VII, p. 121.ref> The second strength that Henry VII had was patience. He kept Dinham and Thomas Howard in office for the whole of his reign.<refS. B. Chrimes, Henry VII, p. 121.ref> This continuity in office provided a great deal of stability to the economy of ehgland during Henry's reign. ly, he was patient enough to let his" -- referenced to Henry VII, page 121, by S.B. Chrimes.

I do not see anything on page 121 that mentions Henry VII's strengths;"was not afraid to rely on the assistance of other persons, who were more knowlegeable about economic that himself" & "was patience". Granted both Dinham and Howard were employed the entire reign, but the book states nothing else. If I have missed this somewhere, please point it out to me. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Link

From John of Gaunt's second wife Constance of Castile the Link refers to the wrong person. The link should be Constance of Castile, Duchess of Lancaster, not to the french queen. Regards StephenMS (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Guardianship of Will Herbert

How could Will Herbert get the guardianship of mother and son 1461 when the mother was married to Sir Henry Stafford for 3 years then? Was it possible to get the guardianship of a married women? StephenMS (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

typo, very poor construction.

sorry, can't edit the page, but under 'economics' there's the sentence 'Unlike his predecessors, Henry VII came to the throne without personal experience in estate management and/or experience in financial adminsitration.' Could someone please correct the spelling of 'administration' and also change 'and/or' to simply 'or' (that one's just personal preference though). Thanks, 122.61.157.138 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the sharp eye. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dating of reign and treason

Henry's second action was to declare himself king retroactively from 21 August 1485, the day before Bosworth Field. This meant that anyone who had fought for Richard against him would be guilty of treason - referencing the 1495 Treason Act. This last seems illogical. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

please change Almost immediately afterwards, he issued an edict that any gentleman who swore fealty to him would, notwithstanding any previous attainder to Almost immediately afterwards, he issued an edict that any gentleman who swore fealty to him would, not withstanding any previous attainder 80.6.58.75 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: The correct spelling is notwithstanding. It is one word. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Henry VII's "Tudor Plan"

...,which I came here to get more information about, doesn't seem to be here, or anywhere else in WP. It was allegedly his plan to create national economic power, similar to a plan advocated later in the U.S. by Alexander Hamilton under the Washington administration, and to other economically nationalistic plans throughout history. -lifeform (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite over 30 years of reading Tudor history, this is a new term for me. I did some checking and the only reference I could find for this term is an article from last year by talk radio personality and author Thom Hartmann; his article was republished on several news sites. Even Hartmann puts the term in quotes, right before discussing the economic policies of Henry VII which put England back on a firm financial footing after the War of the Roses and made the country a larger player on the international stage. It looks like Hartmann coined the term himself.

So the information you are looking for would be under Economics, Foreign Policy, and Trade Agreements in this article. History Lunatic (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

contemporary of King Louis XI

This is a minor quibble, but Henry was not a contemporary of King Louis XI: "Historians have always compared Henry VII with his continental contemporaries, especially Louis XI of France and Ferdinand II of Aragon. " Louis XI died in 1483, two years before Henry became king. Henry, although older, was a contemporary of Charles VIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

principle vs. principal

principle advisers should be changed to principal advisers155.68.193.9 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)David Kramer

Done. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Change Henry VIIs picture to something of higher quality

I request that the main portrait imagine be changed to the following picture as it's a much better quality picture of the King than the one already uploaded:

Better quality picture

The painting above is painted by Hans Holbein himself and I believe it should replace the current uploaded painting on the Wiki page.

Thanks.

But it was painted long after Henry's death - Holbein never saw him. The one we use is a far better picture, and better at small size, though a better file would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mansion House Antiques and Fine Art would kindly suggest in reply that our portrait of King Henry VII is in fact 16th Century, based on our depiction showing the King looking young. This indicates it was most likely painted whilst he was alive. Portraits of him after his death always show him as an elderly King with grey hair, however, Christie's Auction House made a serious error cataloguing incorrectly stately early 17th C. The picture had been relined, which they failed to notice. The front canvas is earlier than the identify material verso. Our investigations re dateline line continue.

Cut down image of Henry suitable for the wiki page

We submit a photo for the page which shows the King looking very young more so then any other images out there, our portrait has been over painted throughout, all the background and only the fleshy areas, hands and face, remain original. The lips have had slight recolouring. Our portrait wants completely cleaning back, however, x-ray and paint analysis will be required before any substantial restoration can be commenced. This costly procedure is very time consuming and the right specialist needs to be found to avoid errors and damage being caused.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:3083:7000:9062:E966:291B:FE09 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the person that originally brought the suggested photo change up, the image of a painting of Henry VII, confirmed to be painted by the old master, Hans Holbein, is clearly a better painted, superior image/painting/representation of the King, and the image should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:40D6:400:E569:C2C9:6C5D:121F (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

& I repeat that this is a later copy of a Holbein that was anyway painted decades after he'd died, copied from some lost original. Henry died aged 52 in 1509, when Holbein was about 12 & in Germany - he didn't come to England until 1526. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also clear from the section you opened at the Teahouse here, that a) you are the same person who raised the issue in 2016, and b) that you have a WP:COI in terms of the other painting. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod that the IP editor proposing the change has an obvious conflict of interest. Any representations made by an admitted COI editor are of no value in making this decision. We need published analysis by an independent expert in European art of that era.

Here are factors that lead me to believe that the current painting is preferable: Most important, the current painting was created when Henry VII was alive, and the king almost certainly sat for the portrait. The painting proposed as a replacement was probably painted long after the death of the king who died in 1509. So, the likeness of the painting now in the article is probably superior. Also, the current painting focuses tightly on the king's face, while the other painting shows 3/4 of his body. Portrait style photos or paintings emphasizing the face are best as lead images for biographies, in my opinion. Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

The colour balance of the lead image is really quite bad. It simply doesn't look like the original: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw03078. I think it should be replaced with File:Henry Seven England.jpg, which although of lower resolution is a much better match in colour.

Further, the description at commons says he is clutching the red rose of Lancaster not a Tudor rose, and the National Portrait Gallery does not specify what he is holding. This part of the caption, if retained, needs a citation. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"He ruled the Principality of Wales until 29 November 1489"

It's ridiculous to imply that he didn't rule Wales after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.107.43.141 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

Please remove the bit of uncertain trivia in § Economics about Foxe inventing Morton’s fork, and instead add it to Morton's fork. I would do it like so:

… a catch-22 method of ensuring that nobles paid increased taxes: Those nobles who … 96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Moved it to Morton's Fork. Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of sources appalling

As stated in the title of this section, this article suffers from an appalling lack of sources. I will give a short amount of time for those comments to be sourced. However, in due time I will remove content that is unsourced. The bottom line in encyclopedia writing is if you cannot source it, do not write it. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This is, unsurprisingly, a very long-standing article, & no doubt most of it goes back to the days before inline citations were expected. No, you won't just remove the important para explaining Henry's claim to the throne (or lack of it), which is both completely unsourced and completely correct. The first thing you need to do is cn tag the bits that concern you - always assuming you don't want to do anything actually useful like adding sources yourself! Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Economics

The first paragraph in the economics section seems entirely based on the judgement of a 19th century historian. While I have no issue with the views of older historians being cited I also think that the statements/judgements expressed need to be backed up or counterbalanced by a either a primary source quotation or some other historian a bit more contemporary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:19AF:51C:63CD:347F (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)