#the house of beaufort: the bastard line that captured the crown

[richmond-rex]

St Edward’s Crown, resplendent in all its golden glory, was held above the brown-haired head of a slender twenty-eight-year-old who had, until two months earlier, been a stranger to the country he was now invited to rule. The small blue eyes of this new king of England were focused, his mind resolute that this very day was the will of God. Many in the kingdom, not just the man now occupying the throne, interpreted the victory of his disparate army on a bloody battlefield under the Leicestershire sun as divine judgement. In his left hand he held a golden sceptre topped with a cross, while in his right hand he clutched another sceptre, mounted with a dove. The former represented his new temporal power while the latter symbolised a monarch’s spiritual authority, both of which were now vested in the royal person of Henry Tudor.

— Nathen Amin, The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown

[feuillesmortes]

The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown

[minervacasterly]

Henry VII's Coronation: The Red Dragon and the Beauforts' Triumph

On the 30th of October 1485, two months after he won the battle of Bosworth, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond was crowned King of England, becoming the Seventh of that name by the grace of God and all his saints. The best description of Henry VII’s coronation and unlikely rise can be found in House of Beaufort by Nathen Amin, head of The Henry Tudor Society. Nathen Amin has done a good job reinvigorating interest in Henry VII’s reign by starting off the book with his coronation and from there moving on to the Beauforts. Henry’s maternal family, who were at the heart of every major conflict of the fifteenth century, including the wars of the roses.

“St. Edward’s Crown, resplendent in all its golden glory, was being held above the brown-haired head of a slender twenty-eight-year-old who had, until two months earlier, been a stranger to the country he was no invited to rule. The small blue eyes of this new king of England were focused, his mind resolute that this very day was the will of God. Many in the kingdom, not just the man now occupying the throne, interpreted the victory of his disparate army on a bloody battlefield under the Leicestershire sun as divine judgment. In his left hand he held a golden scepter topped with a cross, while in his right hand he clutched another scepter, mounted with a dove. The former represented his new temporal power while the latter symbolized a monarch’s spiritual authority, both of which were now vested in the royal person of Henry Tudor. 

The venerated, if aged hands that held the crown belonged to Cardinal Thomas Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury and a clergyman who had witnessed the turmoil and tragedy of the previous forty years at close quarters. Due to the cardinal’s growing infirmity, he was ably assisted during the ceremony by Peter Courtenay and John Morton, bishops of Exeter and Ely respectively, and men who had spent considerable time with Henry in exile, establishing close relations with the man they now sought to serve. As the elderly archbishop lowered the crown onto Henry’s head, he was symbolically bestowing kingship upon no fewer than his third English sovereign; Bourchier had crowned Edward IV in 1461 and Richard III in 1483, as well as crowning Edward’s wife Elizabeth Wydeville as queen in 1465. The name of Henry Tudor was now added to that prestigious list.

As would become the standard for Tudor public ceremony over the next century, no expense was spared on the opulent occasion. There was good reason for this; Henry VII had been an unknown stranger to his new subjects before the Battle of Bosworth, and he was keen to ensure he converted any doubters with lavish festivities to mark his accession. From day one, the Tudors readily acknowledged the need to put on majestic displays to conceal any flaws in their claim to the throne. It is unsurprising to later read the king’s court historian Bernard Andre describe the occasion as a ‘most excellent coronation’. The Tudors had arrived. Throughout the day, the king appeared glorious in the new garments procured for the ancient rituals. Significant sums of money had been spent on items such as a velvet jacket with black and ermine furs, while during the day he proudly bore a surcoat crafted from fine blue cloth. Henry augmented his regal costume with a long gown of crimson cloth of gold and also had robes fashioned from crimson velvet and satin. A luxurious doublet of cloth of gold, as well as another doublet of black satin, had also been tailored for the king, who cut a glittering figure in front of his curious subjects. London’s goldsmiths, embroiderers and cloth merchants had clearly done brisk business in the weeks preceding the coronation. Apart from the king, the coronation of Henry VII represented the triumph of several other individuals among his affinity. Many had recently been granted estates and titles from an appreciative Henry, and the ceremony was as much their celebration as it was the king’s. Henry’s devoted and resilient uncle Jasper Tudor was one such figure, having been rewarded for rescuing his brother’s son from the Yorkists at the age of fourteen and fleeing to Brittany, then France, where the pair remained until only three weeks before Bosworth. It was Jasper who was given the fitting honour of bearing his nephew’s crown through the abbey, while others given prominent roles included Thomas Stanley, recently created earl of Derby and stepfather of the king, and John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, a skilled commander who had been integral in securing victory at Bosworth. Derby entrusted with bearing the Sword of State during the procession while Oxford was granted the honour of bearing the king’s train. Throughout the ceremony, the loud lamentations of an anguished woman threatened to disrupt the solemn proceedings. The tearful lady in question was the king’s beloved mother Lady Margaret Beaufort, Stanley’s wife and widow of Henry’s father Edmund Tudor, earl of Richmond. It was apparent the countess had become stricken with fear for her only child, perhaps anticipating a series of threats to his person once settled upon the throne. During the funeral sermon given by Bishop John Fisher after Margaret’s death in 1509, her behavior during the coronation was recalled, with Fisher noting how she would ‘dredde the adversyte’ and that when ‘the Kynge her Son was Crowned, in all that grete tryumphe and glory, she wept mervaylously’. Margaret;s reaction seems extraordinary when one considers the monetous occasion, particularly as her son’s accession would bring her unparalleled influence, wealth and political sway as the king’s mother. What had prompted such a tearful outpouring of dread? For Margaret, her only child’s coronation represented not only the unlikely triumph of the Welsh-born Tudors, but also that of her own ancestors, the Beauforts. The family traced their origin to 1372 and the birth of Margaret’s grandfather John Beaufort, an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, the exceptionally wealthy duke of Lancaster and the third son of Edward III. The Beauforts were, therefore, royally descended, and after their retrospective legitimization in 1397 became loyal adherents to the first three Lancastrian monarchs, amassing considerable influence in the process. By 1471, however, it was Margaret alone who survived as the last living male-line member of her family, a status she wore with brazen pride, a sentiment similarly borne by her only son. It was, after all, Beaufort blood that gave Henry his slender claim to the throne. On the day of Henry’s coronation, several royal and dynastic emblems were liberally displayed on banners and tapestries throughout London, including generic insignia such as the English coat of arms and the badges of Saints Edmund the Martyr and Edward the Confessor. The new king had been particularly keen to draw attention to three of his own adopted emblems. The first was the red rose, which the king embraced to signify his kinship to the House of Lancaster and his uncle Henry VI, his father’s half-brother. The second was a red dragon, an ancient symbol purportedly borne by the seventh-century Welsh king Cadwaladr, from whom the Tudors claimed descent. The third symbol freely employed by the new king was that of a porticullis. In an era when heraldry was as recognizable as big brands are in the present day, those assembled in the abbey were acutely aware to whom the king was alluding, for the portcullis was an established Beaufort emblem synonymous with the family’s earlier members, including Henry’s grandfather and great-grandfather, both named John. The king would later use the motto altera securitas with the portcullis badge, stressing that his Beaufort ancestry only served to bolster his claim to a throne he had boldly claimed by right of conquest. If anyone at the coronation celebrations remained in doubt as to the king’s pride in his maternal lineage, the substantial figure of 50 pounds was spent commissioning 105 silver and gilt portcullises for distribution during the day. The purpose of this costly exercise was clear: to advertise the throne now belonged to the Beauforts, if not in name, then certainly in spirit. The improbable rise of Henry Tudor from penniless Welsh exile to king of England is one of the most remarkable episodes in British history, but the role played by his maternal Beaufort relations in the rise is often overlooked. The Beauforts had been born as bastards to a royal duke and his foreign-born mistress to become earls, dukes and cardinals, securing untold wealth and influence throughout the first half of the fifteenth century before losing everything in a series of catastrophic battles between 1455 and 1471. It was the gradual collapse of this mighty family during the Wars of the Roses that paved the way for Henry Tudor to take up the Beaufort cause in lieu of his mother. The Tudor triumph represented the resurgence of the Beauforts. And yet, in the momentous setting of Westminster Abbey and amidst the unbridled merriment of those present, Margaret Beaufort ‘ryghte tenderly’ wept. Though her beloved son, who ‘from a grave and serious child, had become a gallant and victorious Prince’, now occupied the throne, the tribulations of her family had preconditioned the countess to presume that soaring highs were inevitably followed by crushing lows. As Bishop Fisher summarized at her funeral, ‘whereyn she had full grete joy, she let not to saye that some dversyte wolde followe’. When one considers the Beauforts’ tumultuous existence throughout the fifteenth century, Margaret’s attitude is perhaps easily understood. Geoffrey Chaucer, a kinsman of the earlier Beauforts through marriage, captured such anxiety perfectly in ‘The Monk’s Tale’ when he wrote, ‘And thus does Fortune’s wheel turn treacherously, and out of happiness bring men to sorrow.’ 

From happiness to sorrow; it could almost have been a Beaufort family motto.” ~Nathen Amin, House of Beaufort

It’s deeply evocative. It reads more like a novel than a history book. This is what narrative history is all about. It reignites interest in these historical figures and encourages those who are new to the Tudor Dynasty, to find out more about it.

Additionally, there is something appealing about the Tudors that surpasses interest in any other dynasty. And that is thanks in part to the Tudor wit. The Tudors, more than any other monarch, learned that true power of the pen, proving once again that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Appearance were everything for them. Henry Tudor crafted an alternative tale of the events that led to the wars of the roses with the 'Tudor rose'. White over red, or red over white, it showed the union of two houses which had previously been at war with each other. This dynastic warfare had torn the country apart and it came at an end with Henry's reign and his marriage to Elizabeth of York. But as Dr. Lucy Worsley pointed out in the first episode of her documentary series Britain's Biggest Fibs, the truth was far more complicated than that.

“Henry VII’s marriage to Elizabeth would stir attention away from this …” Dr. Lucy Worsley explains, pointing to the the roll that describes the lineage of Lancastrian and Yorkist Kings, and their ancestors, the Plantagenets as well as the Anglo-Saxon kings and queens before them. The scroll belonged to the de la Pole family who had Yorkist blood via one of Edward IV’s sisters. For obvious reasons they didn’t like Henry and were in cohort with Margaret of York, Duchess Dowager of Burgundy and others, to depose Henry VII. Henry VII did descend from a “servant grandfather” as Dr. Worsley put it, but he did have Lancastrian blood via his mother, Margaret Beaufort. The Beauforts got their last name after one of the castles that belonged to their forefather, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Because the Beauforts had been conceived and born before John of Gaunt married their mother, they were considered illegitimate. But they were legitimized by Richard II. After Richard II was deposed however, their half-brother, Henry IV (the first Lancaster monarch) added another clause that excluded them from the line of succession. Henry VII's union did not end the wars of the roses nor did it lend credibility to his claim. Dan Jones also points this out in his book "Wars of the Roses: The Fall of Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors" (Hollow Crown in the UK). The war would go on well into the reign of Henry VIII, and the paranoia over those with (arguably) better claim than the Tudors, would lead to one of the most horrific executions in English history. Nevertheless, the rise of the Tudors is nothing short of astounding. The fact that ALL of them managed to defeat all of their rivals, and remain on the throne is worthy of recognition.

In his book Rise of the Tudors (Bosworth in the UK), Chris Skidmore points out how unlikely Henry's rise was, and how it often gets overlooked by modern audiences:

“The reality of Henry Tudor’s ascent to the throne –his narrow escapes from death, his failures and anxieties, complete with constant uncertainty of his situation, and the compromises that he had been forced to make, including the support from France and hiss former Yorkist enemies in gaining the crown- was a far less welcome tale. It remains nonetheless nonetheless just as remarkable; against all the odds, at Bosworth Henry achieved victory that he should have not on” One of the reasons that Henry VII doesn't get a lot of recognition is because the pendulum has swung to the other side, juxtaposing him in the role that was once cast for Richard. It has become fashionable to see Richard as the hero and Henry as the villain. And while it is great that many novelists and historians have taken a deep interest in the last Plantagenet king, they don't quite get that by painting both of these figures with a broad brush, they are doing the exact same thing that they accuse dozens of chroniclers and the celebrated playwright William Shakespeare of doing. They say that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Clearly, Henry did learn from history because he continued with many of the policies that worked during the Yorkist regime, primarily those of his late father-in-law, Edward IV, and did away with those that didn't, making him one of the best administrator and successful monarchs of the fifteenth century to the beginning of the sixteenth century. At the time that Henry was crowned King of England, there was a lot of uncertainty. The country had lived through many uprisings. Margaret Beaufort herself shared their sentiment when she cried, according to her confessor John Fisher, tears of fear and joy upon seeing her son crowned. She, more than everyone, knew how fickle power was and if her son didn't reign properly, then he would meet the same fate as his predecessor. Time however, proved everyone wrong. Henry died on the 21st of April 1509, after ruling England for nearly twenty four years. He left the crown richer than it had ever been. He was outlived by his mother for a few months who, despite her ill-health and melancholy, refused to die until her grandson was of age and jointly crowned king of England with Katharine of Aragon as his queen. Henry was buried at Westminster Abbey, in the lady chapel, next to his wife, Elizabeth of York.

His story has been the source of inspiration for fantasy writer George R. R. Martin, who based one of his characters on him. If this wasn't evident before, it has become evident now with the last two seasons of the show which have gone beyond the books. Daenerys Targaryen's banner is a three-headed red dragon who is regarded as a foreigner by many of her would-be-subjects. She lands on the place of her birth, a place that is regarded as mysterious as it is dreary. This is awfully familiar to Henry's return from exile when he landed on the place of his birth, Wales, on Milford Haven, on August 1485. And like Henry VII, she had the odds stacked against her. Unlike her however, he got to sit on the English throne and reigned for nearly twenty-four years, restoring stability to the kingdom and establishing a dynasty whose members were never deposed or dethroned and died in their beds.

Unsurprisingly, Martin has also been inspired by his maternal family story. For those of you who have read the books, you probably know where I am going with this but those of you who don't, let me explain. In his recent book, "The World of Ice and Fire", co-written with Antonson and Garcia, there is a separate branch of the Targaryens known as the "Blackfyres". Their last name is taken from the legendary sword of their founder, Aegon Targaryen, better known as "the Conqueror". They are a bastard line that was nearly legitimized by Aegon IV. After they launched an open rebellion against their legitimate cousins, they were wiped out with only the female members of their line surviving. And while they are not prominent on the show, they play a major role on the books.

Once again, history is the best source of inspiration, but like JRM in The Tudors said, to get to heart of the story, you have to go back to the beginning and the story of Henry's rise doesn't begin with his birth, but with his maternal family, the Beauforts.

[glorianas]

That the Beauforts ever held hopes of inheriting the throne seems highly improbable  when one considers the four Lancastrian princes ahead them in line of succession, not to mention any children their nephews subsequently had. If anything, the codicil to the Act seems to be nothing more more than an increasingly ill kill tying up loose ends. If it wasn't for the events in 1485, and the accession of a Beaufort heir in Henry Tudor, then the exemption would have long been disregarded by historians as of minor importance. Whatever prompted the interlineation, it's questionable whether the curious addition was, in fact, legally acceptable. The original petition had been ratified by Parliament in 1397 and was therefore a legally binding document. Any alterations to the Act could only be made if parliament repealed the previous bill or endorsed those changes. Although Tudor later claimed the throne by emphasizing his Beaufort descent from Edward III, hostile commentators have often pointed out his maternal ancestors were barred from the throne. The truth was the exception was never sanctioned by parliament and was therefore, merely, the will of the king rather than law. If one king could add such an amendment, then another could simply remove it. The original Act of 1397, which categorically stipulated, with parliamentary assent, that the Beauforts could be raised or promoted to all and any office in the land, remained enshrined in law until the day Henry Tudor became king.

House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line That Captured That Captured The Crown, Nathen Amin

[jezabelofthenorth]

Book Recommendation 2017 round up

You would think with how popular the Tudor era is that new 2017 releases would be easy to find, but this list has taken me ages to get and I’ve listed a few of these before, but here are nine new Tudor Era books released in 2017 (many of these however are based on U.K dates and probably won’t be released in the North America until next year)

The King’s Pearl: Henry VIII and his daughter Mary by Melita Thomas (September 15th)

The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown Nathen Amin (August 15th/Novembver 1st)

Elizabeth's Rival: The Tumultuous Life of the Countess of Leicester: The Romance and Conspiracy that Threatened Queen Elizabeth's Court by Nicola Tallis (November 2nd)

Sisters to the King: TheRemarkable True Story of Henry VIII’s Sisters by Maria Perry (November 2nd)

Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots: The Life of Henry VIII’s Sister by Maria Perry (December 7th)

Anne Boleyn: Femme Fatale by Amy Licence (November 15th)

Owen Tudor Found Father of the Tudor Dynasty by Terry Breverton (October 1st)

House of Power: The Places that Shaped the Tudor World by Simon Thurley (April 20th)

This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World by Jerry Brotton (March 2nd)

[christinaepilzauthor-blog]

The Beaufort Dynasty?

Margaret Beaufort Coat of Arms

When Henry Tudor won the crown of England in 1485, he likely did not think he was beginning a new dynasty the way we cleanly divide the Plantagenets from the Tudors. In fact, one might wonder if he or his formidable mother might have named it a Beaufort dynasty were they to give it any label besides Lancastrian. While Henry had inherited his Welsh surname from his father, Edmund Tudor, his claim to the English throne came through his mother, Margaret Beaufort. She was the great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt through his children with Katherine Swynford who had been given the name Beaufort. During John of Gaunt's lifetime, his Beaufort children were raised up and even legitimized after he married their mother. In 1396-7, he obtained papal consent to the legitimization and convinced the king, his nephew Richard II, to recognize them by law. The Beaufort children were officially 'sprung from royal stock' and recognized as able to 'receive, hold, enjoy, and exercise, as fully, freely, and lawfully as if you were born in lawful wedlock' any 'honours, dignities, pre-eminencies, status, ranks, and offices, public and private, perpetual and temporal, feudal and noble.' By the time Henry Tudor landed at Milford Haven, his mother was the sole remaining Beaufort heir, the male branches of the family having been rather thoroughly pruned during the Wars of the Roses. Henry claimed the crown through conquest, but his right to challenge the previous king was based upon the royal blood he inherited from his Beaufort mother. The Beauforts had always been close to the crown - too close indeed for the York challengers to the Lancastrian throne (who incidentally also had some Beaufort blood through family matriarch Cecily Neville). After their legitimization, John of Gaunt saw his oldest Beaufort son created Earl of Somerset. However, Henry IV, though he was close to and depended heavily upon his Beaufort half-siblings, perceived that it was in his interest to limit their ability to rise. A clause was inserted into the original statute: 'excepta dignitate regali.' The Beauforts could receive, hold, and inherit titles, but not The Title. Was this amendment a legal addition to the law? At the time, it did not seem to matter. The Beaufort's loyally served their royal half-brother and his son after him, making no claim to the throne of their own though they did collect plenty of other titles and honors. Then Henry VI was crowned as an infant after the death of his legendary father, Henry V. Then Henry VI lost everything his father had gained in France and eventually proved unable to rule a country desperately in need of a ruler. In a turn of events Henry IV could not have imagined when he stole the throne from his inept cousin, Henry VI's cousins sought to do the same. By 1485, with royal and noble bloodlines decimated by war, Henry Tudor's Beaufort blood suddenly made his family tree one of the most prominent in the land. If you believe rumors of Edmund Beaufort being the true father of Edmund Tudor, the argument for the Beaufort dynasty increases exponentially. When Katherine Valois became a young widow upon the death of her husband, Henry V, the infant king's council was quick to realize that anyone who married her would gain astounding power. Therefore, a fledgling romance with Edmund Beaufort was halted by sending Edmund to serve in France. Katherine soon married Owen Tudor instead, but rumors persist to this day that Edmund, not Owen, was the father of Edmund Tudor, Katherine's eldest son after King Henry. While this makes a great case for renaming the Tudors as Beauforts, it takes more than a little hope and imagination to believe that Edmund Tudor was recognized by all of the highest ranking men of the land as a Tudor and never believed to be a Beaufort if he really was one (unlike Henry VI's son who some did claim to be a Beaufort bastard rather than royal prince). Surely, someone - for example Margaret Beaufort's acquisitive mother - would have pointed out that Edmund was of Beaufort stock if there was any reason to think that he was. Henry's mother was justifiably proud of her Beaufort heritage and her son's relationship to King Henry VI through her Tudor husband, who was his half-brother. Margaret was a staunch Lancastrian, striving for years to see Henry receive his birthright from York kings who left him in exile, so she likely would have considered his reign a return to the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenet royal family. It did not take long, however, for the name Tudor to go down in history. Additional Reading: Margaret Beaufort: Mother of the Tudor Dynasty by Elizabeth Norton The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown by Nathen Amin

Source: Samantha Wilcoxson

[richmond-rex]

In the momentous setting of Westminster Abbey and amidst the unbridled merriment of those present, Margaret Beaufort ‘ryghte tenderly’ wept. Though her beloved son, who ‘from a grave and serious child, had become a gallant and victorious Prince’, now occupied the throne, the tribulations of her family had preconditioned the countess to presume that soaring highs were inevitably followed by crushing lows. As Bishop Fisher summarised at her funeral, ‘whereyn she had full grete joy, she let not to saye that some adversyte wolde followe’.

Nathen Amin, The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown

[richmond-rex]

Henry VII’s Coronation: A Beaufort Victory?

For Margaret Beaufort, her only child’s coronation represented not only the unlikely triumph of the Welsh-born Tudors, but also that of her own ancestors, the Beauforts. The family traced their origin to 1372 and the birth of Margaret’s grandfather John Beaufort, an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt, the exceptionally wealthy duke of Lancaster and the third son of Edward III. The Beauforts were, therefore, royally descended, and after their retrospective legitimisation in 1397 became loyal adherents to the first three Lancastrian monarchs, amassing considerable influence in the process. By 1471, however, it was Margaret alone who survived as the last living male-line member of her family, a status she wore with brazen pride, a sentiment similarly borne by her only son. It was, after all, Beaufort blood that gave Henry his slender claim to the throne.

In an era when heraldry was as recognisable as big brands are in the present day, those assembled in the abbey were acutely aware to whom the king was alluding, for the portcullis was an established Beaufort emblem synonymous with the family’s earlier members, including Henry’s grandfather and great-grandfather, both named John. The king would later use the motto altera securitas with the portcullis badge, stressing that his Beaufort ancestry only served to bolster his claim to a throne he had boldly claimed by right of conquest. If anyone at the coronation celebrations remained in doubt as to the king’s pride in his maternal lineage, the substantial figure of £50 was spent commissioning 105 silver and gilt portcullises for distribution during the day. The purpose of this costly exercise was clear: to advertise the throne now belonged to the Beauforts, if not in name, then certainly in spirit.

— Nathen Amin, The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown

[feuillesmortes]

“From bastards to princes, the Beauforts are medieval England’s most captivating family” hell yes, i’m buying this book 🌹

[richmond-rex]

I love your analysis posts so much; do you recommend any non fiction books on h7 and eoy, separately or together?

Hello! Thank you very much for letting me know! I’m glad you like my posts 🤍❤️ Some book recommendations under the cut:

Henry VII:

Henry VII by Stanley Bertram Chrimes (a classic), Nathen Amin’s recently released book Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders, Henry VII’s New Men and The Making of Tudor England by Steven Gunn, Henry VII: The Maligned Tudor King by Terry Breverton — the title also is controversial, I know but it’s worth a read. Gladys Temperley wrote a classic biography about Henry VII (which you can read online) but keep in mind that some of her claims are outdated nowadays. I also recommend the book: Westminster Abbey, The Lady Chapel of Henry VII and Chris Skidmore’s Bosworth: The Birth of the Tudors.

Books that I haven’t had the chance to read yet: The Son of Prophecy: Henry Tudor’s Road to Bosworth by David Rees, Bosworth 1485: Psychology of a Battle by Michael Jones, and the biographies of Henry VII by Sean Cunningham.

Elizabeth of York:

I recommend Elizabeth of York: Queenship and Power by Arlene Okerlund and Elizabeth of York and Her Six Daughters-in-law: Fashioning Tudor Queenship 1485-1547 by Retha Warnicke. I’m adding Joanna Laynesmith’s The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503 even though it doesn’t only talk about Elizabeth of York. Not many good books about our girl (sadly), but I can say I definitely don’t recommend Alison Weir’s biography of Elizabeth or Lisa Hilton’s Queens Consort.

Amy Licence has also written a biography of Elizabeth of York but I have read just a little of it but I do recommend her In Bed with the Tudors: the Sex Lives of a Dynasty from Elizabeth of York to Elizabeth I which is more about childbirth than anything, really. I do plan to read her entire biography of Elizabeth of York at some point.

Some books related to the family:

The House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured the Crown by Nathen Amin, Uncrowned Queen: The Fateful Life of Margaret Beaufort, Tudor Matriarch by Nicola Tallis, Jasper: Godfather of the Tudor Dynasty by Debra Bayani and Jasper: The Tudor Kingmaker by Sara Elin Roberts. I would also recommend Arlene Okerlund’s Elizabeth Wydeville: The Slandered Queen, though I’m still on the lookout for a better biography about Elizabeth Woodville.

Other books I’ve been reading that are not Tudor-related but that I’ve used in my personal research:

Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages by P. H Callum and Katherine J. Lewis Gender and Holiness Men, Women, and Saints in Late Medieval Europe by Samantha Riches and Sarah Salih Brothers and Sisters in Medieval European Literature by Carolyne Larrington Medieval Bodies: Life, Death and Art in the Middle Ages by Jack Hartnell Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe by Richard W. Kaeuper Love, Sex and Marriage in the Middle Ages: A Sourcebook by McCarthy Conor Love, Marriage and Family Ties in the Later Middle Ages by Sarah Rees Jones Queens and Queenship in Medieval Europe: Proceedings of a Conference held at Kings College London, April 1995 by Anne J. Duggan Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others and Unmarriages: Women, Men, and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages by Ruth Mazo Karras Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England, 1270-1540 by Kim M. Philips Young Medieval Women by Katherine J. Lewis, Noël James Menuge, Kim M. Phillips Heraldry, Pageantry, and Social Display in Medieval England by Peter Coss and Maurice Keen Reputation and Representation in Fifteenth Century Europe by Douglas L. Biggs, Sharon D. Michalove, Albert Compton Reeves The Monstrous Regiment of Women Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe by Sharon L. Jansen The Livery Collar in Late Medieval England and Wales: Politics, Identity and Affinity by Matthew Ward    

Already in my possession and to be read at some point: Women, Power, and Religious Patronage in the Middle Ages by Erin L. Jordan  Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women by Caroline Walker Bynum How To Be a Tudor A Dawn-to-Dusk Guide to Tudor Life by Ruth Goodman (I’ve already read some excerpts)

I hope this selection is helpful to you 🌹x

[glorianas]

When John Beaufort died in 1444, he left no sons, only a solitary legitimate daughter, Margaret. His brother and successor, Edmund Beaufort, fared better, leaving three sons after his own death in 1455, but each of those, Henry, Edmund and John, failed to leave any legitimate issue. In short, the Beaufort line had come to a sudden end on the battlefield at Tewkesbury almost one hundred years after the first Beaufort came into the world. With the senior Lancastrian male line also terminating with the deaths of Henry VI and Prince Edward, it is unsurprising that a Milanese ambassador  noted on 17 June 1471 that Edward IV had 'chosen to crush the seed', for that is exactly what he had done. Shortly after the catastrophe at Tewkesbury, however, a small vessel left Tenby harbour in south-west Wales, having evaded all Yorkist attempts at capture. Aboard were Jasper Tudor and his fourteen year old nephew Henry Tudor, the son of Margaret Beaufort. Fourteen years later, the Tudors returned to Wales at the head of an army that included Henry's cousin Charles Somerset, the illegitimate son of Henry Beaufort, the 2nd duke killed at the battle of Hexham in 1464. Although not a Beaufort by name, the pair were Beaufort by blood, and at Bosworth field on 22nd August 1485, The Portcullis and the Yale standards once again fluttered proudly in the English breeze.

House of Beaufort, The Bastard Line That Captured The Crown, Nathen Amin

[minervacasterly]

Book Review: “House of Beaufort: The Bastard line that captured the crown” by Nathen Amin

This is a book every history buff needs to read if they are interested in finding out about the roots of one of the most infamous dynasties in world history, who will continue to fascinate us in decades to come. I absolutely loved how descriptive how Nathen Amin was. From start to finish, I was hooked. And this is one of those books that I just had to re-read again because being a huge history buff, I wanted to see what important things I hadn’t highlighted. Turns out that with a book like this, everything is a highlight so you might as well be stuck taking notes and going back to the original source when you want to check something you might have missed. Writing a biography is not easy, especially one that takes on the challenge of chronicling the life of a family that has been largely obscured by their most infamous and famous contemporaries. Nathen Amin begins with Henry Tudor’s ascension to the throne of England following Richard III’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth. It is a tale that takes you back through time, to an era of deceit, love, loss, shifting loyalties and above all, survival. When Margaret Beaufort watched her son being crowned, her confessor, later Bishop Fisher, said that they weren’t tears of joy but of fear. She was the only surviving member of the eldest son of John of Gaunt and his mistress (later wife) Kathryn Swynford. The fact that she had seen her family nearly fade into oblivion and lived through many reigns, was more than enough to worry about her son’s future. But through it all, she like most of the first Beauforts persevered. This is a tale of one’s family unlikely rise to power and whose descendants still sit on the throne of England. Those who are new to this era will learn a great deal about it from this book, and those who are already familiar with it won’t be disappointed either because unlike pop historians, the author was objective and the least bias possible, drawing his conclusions from what is known about this period, contemporary and later (reliable) sources, and archaeological evidence. I’m proud to say, this is a great addition to my collection of favorite books and I am guessing you will feel the same way after you finish it. This is a reminder that the impossible often became possible and that there were no shortages of twists and turns, often due to kings and aristocrats’ excesses and their miscalculation and plain sheer luck, that led to these least likely outcomes. If you are new to this era, this is a good book to start that sheds light on the roots of Henry VII's maternal family and if you already are, it will still be a good book to read because it highlights a lot of good facts about this period rarely explored. Full review: https://tudorsandotherhistories.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/book-review-the-house-of-beaufort-the-bastard-line-that-captured-the-crown-by-nathen-amin/

[glorianas]

Hello! This summer I need some reading recs and I saw you talking about a couple Tudor era books--which are your favorite?

Faves:

The Creation of Anne Boleyn, Susan Bordo

Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England, Thomas Penn

The Live and Death of Anne Boleyn (a.k.a the anne boleyn bible), Eric Ives

Elizabeth: Renaissance Prince, Lisa Hilton

The Rise of the Tudors: The Family That Changed English History, Chris Skidmore

Game of Queens: The Women Who Made Sixteenth Century Europe, Sarah Gristwood

Black Tudors: The Untold Story, Miranda Kaufmann

The Lives of Tudor Women, Elizabeth Norton

Currently Reading: Tudor: The Family Story, Leanda De Lisle and Catherine of Aragon: Henry’s Spanish Queen, Giles Tremlett

Desperate 2 get my little hands on: House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line that Captured The Crown, Nathen Amin, Among The Wolves At Court, Lauren Johnson, Katherine Howard: A New History, Conor Byrne, Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scots: The Life of King Henry VIII’s Sister, Sarah Beth Watkins and Henry VII, S.B Chrimes

[jezabelofthenorth]

alright guys, i’ve managed to find some recent re-leases for the tudors, it seems 2017 may not be their year, however many non-fiction books don’t get huge buzz before they get released so it’s possibly more will pop up as the year goes on

Henry VII New Men: The Making of Tudor England: This one seems to be a pretty academic release as it’s an Oxford Press so it may be hard to find but it seems worthwhile if you manage it

House of Beaufort: The Bastard Line That Captured the Crown: I’m really excited for this one, it comes out in August so awhile yet, but I’ve never read a book on the Beauforts before

Game of Queens: The Women Who Made Sixteenth Century Europe: This one was released in November, but I still haven’t managed to get my hands on it, soon hopefully, it’s by Sarah Gristwood who I really like so I have high hopes for it

Young, Fair and Damned Okay I didn’t really want to put this on here because I’m not huge on Gareth Russell and don’t really want men right about Katherine Howard anymore, but that’s just me, you can decide yourself

The First of the Tudors: A book on Owen Tudor and Catherine of Valois, I don’t think I need to add anything else, should be a good one it came out in the U.K in December and North America in January

Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey: This is another December release, and early 2017 North American release. I love Jane and anyone paying attention to her story is a good thing

[minervacasterly]

On the 28th of January 1457, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, and future Henry VII of England was born.

His father was Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, a loyal Lancastrian who had been captured by Yorkist forces in 1456 and died not long after as the result of the plague. Margaret Beaufort was only thirteen at the time. Fearing for her unborn son's life, the young widow fled to Pembroke Castle in Wales where she took refuge in her brother-in-law, Jasper Tudor's stronghold. While no one knows for sure if she fell pregnant in her last two marriages, it is safe to say that given that there is no record of any of them, she was probably unable to have any more children due to giving birth so young.

Henry VII remains an elusive figure, and as a result there are many misconceptions about him. Currently there are two prevailing schools of thoughts among many history fans. On the one hand who you have the Tudor fans who defend him without overlook his flaws (in contrast with his son and granddaughters), and on the other, you have those that hate him because he defeated their hero, the now popular, Richard III. Just who is right, Tudor fans or Ricardians? It is safe to say, that neither of them are. If there is one thing we can all learn from history is this: it is never a case about good and evil. Things are not always what they seem. What is recorded by the victor may not have been what really happened, but that doesn't mean that it was all made up. Historians, who are far more qualified than I, have elaborated on this on their books and countless documentaries. People's view of Henry changed because the religious landscape of England changed. England went from Catholic to Anglican to almost Protestant, to Catholic again and finally Anglican again. As a result, following the last Tudor monarch's death, and more radical Protestants wishing for a more Protestant country, Henry and his mother, once praised for their religiosity, became villains and ironically Richard (a man who was a staunch Catholic too and whose mother and wife were like most women of the age, devout Catholics) became the opposite.

Henry VIII, Henry VII's only son to outlive him, changed his father's narrative a bit, so it would justify his actions. In the famous 'Dynasty' portrait that he commissioned during the end of his reign, he and his father and their respective wives, Elizabeth of York and Jane Seymour (who was dead at the time Henry commissioned this) are seen standing next to either side of a massive monument that reads the following: "The former often overcame his enemies and the fires of his citizens" then adds, "the son, born indeed for greater tasks, drives the unworthy from the altars and brings in men of integrity. The presumption of popes has yielded to unerring virtue and with Henry VIII bearing the scepter in his hand, religion has been restored."

In short, Henry was saying something along the lines of 'my father overcame a lot of serious shit but I am still better because I stuck it to the Pope.' Henry VIII’s grandchildren were no different, especially his granddaughter. Although Mary Tudor was seen as the great Catholic hope when she became England’s first Queen Regnant, she soon proved that when it came to royal authority, she was every bit like her predecessors, especially her father. Her friend and Archbishop of Canterbury, Reginald Pole counseled her to return Church lands to the Church, and she pretended not to hear him. Mary looked highly upon her parents and paternal grandparents’ unions. Her grandfather’s narrative remained unchallenged during her reign. When her sister succeeded her immediately after her death, it was reinforced. Elizabeth I’s coronation procession saw several pageants that celebrated the union of Henry Tudor and Elizabeth of York, which was seen as the elixir that healed the nation from a dynastic warfare that had torn the country apart for over three decades. It was during her reign, that Shakespeare wrote his famous historic plays that also reinforced the image of Richard III as a man who was beyond redemption. But then she died and suddenly, even though they felt they had to appease their new Stuart overlords (who descended from Henry VII via his eldest daughter, Margaret), they no longer felt subject to look favorably on the first Tudor monarch and his mother. Suddenly, he was no longer the peacemaker but a despicable man whose mother was no better. The blame as to who was behind the Princes in the Tower’s disappearance was shifted from Richard III to Margaret Beaufort who became the mother-in-law-from-hell to poor, Elizabeth Plantagenet. To these chroniclers credit though, at least they pointed something true, that Henry was a usurper. And it is true, he was a usurper. But to judge him solely on that would be a bit hypocritical given that many celebrated kings and queens in English history were also usurper. In fact, not only were the two branches of the Plantagenet Dynasty, the houses of Lancaster and York, usurpers, but the founder of their dynasty, William, Duke of Normandy, also known as William the bastard and the Conqueror. His claim to the throne was based on nothing more than might and foreign support.

When you look at Henry VII's actions, you find that he was nothing out of the ordinary as far as ruling a country was concerned. He rewarded those who were loyal, and took an affront against him personally, and wasn't afraid to use full force to quell rebellions, even if some of them were well justified. His life is the stuff of legends. And while we live in a time where we looked highly on underdog figures (especially women), there is something about Henry, that religious propaganda following his granddaughter's reign, has been so successful in turning us against this figure to the point where we see him as a caricature rather than a man of his times.

For Henry Tudor, the price he had to pay for sitting on the English throne and wearing the crown of St. Edward, was a high one. The first monarch of the Tudor Dynasty had to live in constant fear, knowing that his claim to the throne (which came from his mother) was tenuous, and marketing his union to Elizabeth as this union of the red rose and white rose, few nobles bought into it, and as a result he looked on most of his new subjects with suspicion. He faced many uprisings, two of them the result of pretenders claiming to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, and the other, Richard of Shrewsbury, otherwise known as Richard, Duke of York, one of the Princes in the tower. Not to mention his personal losses. At the end of the fifteenth century he lost his uncle, a man who had helped him on his rise to power, and who had been with him during his exile. Then in 1502 he lost his firstborn, Prince Arthur, the year after that, his wife and baby daughter. Henry was survived by his mother, who lived long enough to see her grandson well established on the throne, and then joined her son, buried in the same chapel he constructed for him and his descendants, at Westminster Abbey.

Images: Henry VII, recreation of Margaret Beaufort giving birth to him at Pembroke Castle in Wales and Pembroke Castle seen from above.

.