Talk:Henry VII of England

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

English Royalty
House of Tudor
Royal Coat of Arms
Henry VII
Arthur, Prince of Wales
Margaret, Queen of Scots
Henry VIII
Mary, Queen of France

el:πρότυπο:Οίκος των Τυδόρ 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

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.

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.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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-fathers. See ancestry of Elizabeth of York.Flyte35 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)