Henry Tudor's Right to Rule?: John of Gaunt, Katherine Swynford and the Beaufort Line
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2024
- CORRECTION It has been kindly brought to my attention that I accidentally referred to Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) as Henry VI at around 8:53 in this video.
When I went through my comments I noticed some recurrent questions and suggestions for video topics - Henry Tudor's claim to the throne, a discussion looking at the Wars of the Roses and John of Gaunt's relationship with Katherine Swynford. I'll be touching on all of these things today...
I hope you enjoy this video and find it interesting!
Please subscribe and click the bell icon to be updated about new videos.
Also, if you want to get in touch, please comment down below or find me on social media:
Instagram: / katrina.marchant
Twitter: / kat_marchant
Email: readingthepastwithdrkat@gmail.com
Intro / Outro song: Silent Partner, "Greenery" [ • Greenery - Silent Part... ]
Images (from Wikimedia Commons, unless otherwise stated):
Portrait of King Henry VII by an unknown Netherlandish artist (1505). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby by an unknown artist (second half of 16th century). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Drawing from the effigy of John Beaufort 1st Duke of Somerset, made after Schebbelie's drawing depicted in Gough, Richard, Sepulchral Monuments in Great Britain, vol 2, part 2, p. 132, London, 1796, from Doyle, J. The Official Baronage of England vol. 3 (1886, London), p. 345.
Drawing from the effigy of John Beaufort 1st Earl of Somerset, made after Schebbelie's drawing depicted in Gough, Richard, Sepulchral Monuments in Great Britain, vol 2, part 2, p. 127, London, 1796, from Doyle, J. The Official Baronage of England vol. 3 (1886, London), p. 343.
Portrait of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster attributed to Lucas Cornelisz de Kock (circa 1593). Held in a private collection.
Arms of Katherine Swynford. Katherine de Roet became Lady Swynford upon marriage to Sir Hugh Swynford, then became The Duchess of Lancaster upon marriage to John of Gaunt, The Duke of Lancaster.
An illuminated manuscript miniature of Edward III of England. From the 1430 Bruges Garter @ made by William Bruges (1375-1450 c. between 1430 and 1440 - before 1450), first Garter King of Arms, British Library, Stowe 594 ff. 7v.
Portrait Richard II of England by an unknown artist (mid-1390s). Held by Westminster Abbey.
An illuminated manuscript miniature of Edward, the Black Prince. From the 1430 Bruges Garter Book made by William Bruges (1375-1450 c. between 1430 and 1440 - before 1450), first Garter King of Arms, British Library, Stowe 594 f. 14.
Portrait of King Henry IV by an unknown artist (1597-1618). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Blanche of Lancaster and John of Gaunt on their tomb monument in St Paul's Cathedral, as depicted in 1658 by Wenceslaus Hollar. Anachronistic inaccuracies include Blanche's early-16th-century-style gable headdress.
A Sketch/Etching of the Tomb Effigy of Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, father of Henry VII of England.
Arms of Owen Tudor Arms: gules a chevron between three helmets argent.
Catherine de Valois, engraved by W. H. Mote (1803-1871) after an illustration by J.W. Wright, an engraving published in 1875 book "The Queens of England or Royal Book of Beauty" (or 1851 book "Biographical Sketches of the Queens of England"), edited by Mary Howitt.
Portrait of King Henry V by an unknown artist (late 16th or early 17th century). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of King Henry VI by an unknown English artist (c.1540). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Horace Wright, The Marriage of John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster (1914). Held by The Museum of Reading
Ford Madox Brown, John Wycliffe reading his translation of the bible to John of Gaunt (1847-1848, 1859-1861). Held by the Bradford Art Galleries and Museums
Surrender of Santiago de Compostela to John of Gaunt from Jean Froissart’s “Chronicles” (15th century)
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, dining with John I, King of Portugal. Image is taken from Chronique d' Angleterre (Volume III). Originally published/produced in S. Netherlands (Bruges) (late 15th century). Held by the British Library.
An illustration of the priest John Ball on a horse encouraging Wat Tyler's rebels in 1381, from Jean Froissart's Chronicles in the British Library (circa 1470). British Library manuscript Royal 18 E. I f.165v.
*CORRECTION* It has been kindly brought to my attention that I accidentally referred to Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) as Henry VI at around 8:53 in this video.
We'll let it go......this time! x
That’s so sweet of you to clarify. I hadn’t noticed:) There will always be people on UA-cam to call out any errors!
Did the gauntlet come from John of Gaunt???
Awesome 👌 I caught that too
@@beverlyfletcher4458 hahahaha
Wonderful, thank-you. Katherine Swynford's sister Phillipa was married to Geoffrey Chaucer - it was a small World back then! And Joan Beaufort's youngest daughter, Cecily Neville was married to the Duke of York and, so, the mother of Edward IV and Richard III . The Wars of the Roses really was a "family quarrel" between John of Gaunt's descendants.
And Cecily's husband, Richard Duke of York was a direct descendant of Edward III through his mother and father! The family tree is so crazy complicated. Fabulous history to learn about but you have to constantly refer to the family tree to see who is related to who 😃
Katherine de Roet was descended from the Counts of Hainault, her father born in Belgium was of Nobility. Sir Payne de Roet kt. Some comments reveal ignorance.
John of Gaunt and Katherine are my ancestors
@AB. B. That's quite a disturbing comment. Good luck with your cluster B personality.
Rose Cloke my husband is also descended from them. He is the 15th great grandson of Mary Tudor, one time Queen of France, and her husband Charles Brandon, then through their daughter Frances and her daughter Catherine Gray (Seymour).
@AB. B. Katherine Swynford was the daughter of a knight, Sir Payn de Roet, and educated at court. She was a lady in every sense of the word. Your comment only makes you look uncouth.
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford are my 18th great-grandfather and great-grandmother and I’m related to them through John’s only daughter with Katherine, namely Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland, who is my 17th great grandmother, so that’s what brought me here. ☺️
I am so glad that you covered this subject. Although I am now 65 yrs old, I still remember vividly how much I loved the book "Katherine" by Anya Seton as a teenager. What a love story, I think I read it twice. Been reading about England and history ever since. Always look forward to a video from you. Thanks!
Me also! And Jean Plaidy for those Tudors; great writers and a fantastic intro to that history.
I loved that book! I think it was what opened up my love of historical fiction.
I'm 31, and I loved that book as a teenager too! It's so good!
I came to the comments to see specifically whether others had referred to this book! I’m glad to know I’m not alone, and others received a bit of knowledge about this period through Anya Seton.
I love this book too and am so excited to hear more about their bloodline....
I would have to think that John of Gaunt & Katherine Swynford's marriage was a love match, because not only did he not *have* to marry her, he damaged his reputation by doing so.
I always thought it was great love too.
I have my mother's original copy of Katherine from the 1950's. It is one of my favorites.
@@DorothyJanetoo I love that book and it was how I was introduced to Katherine. My book's a paperback from the 70s, but love that it's got a family tree in it.
It likely WAS a love match, but I believe it was also politically astute. Henry Bolingbroke had two sisters, no brothers. He was close to all of Katharine Swynford's children, including Thomas from her first marriage. When John of Gaunt married Katharine he gave Henry 3 to 4(including Thomas Swynford) powerful loyal ,brothers who could not inherit the throne in their own name. The Lancasters and the Beauforts fought together through the War of the Roses.
It absolutely was love. What would he have gained? If you are looking at it purely strategically, it was a bad move
Very interesting. No wonder Henry VIII thought he could rewrite the rules whenever he wished. Seems like a family trait.
Except that the law restricting access to the crown was made probably at some point in Henry IV's reign.
For England, the major rule changes happen in 927, 1087, 1649, 1653, 1660, 1689 and 1707.
Henry VIII could legitimately write the rules because he was the sovereign of England (between 1509 and 1547).
@@reddish32 William I changed access to the crown to inheritance. In 1649 access to the crown of England was denied completely. In 1660 access to the crown was restored. However, fundamentally, access to the crown is determined by acclamation and not by anointment this is "One reason why we had a King Louis, but not a Queen Jane." This has been the case since the Anglo-Saxons.
By the same logic, Elizabeth I had no right to inherit the throne also.
I can assure you, it absolutely is a family trait.
A historical fiction novel written by Anya Seaton called "Katherine" was what started me off on my love of British history. I "borrowed" it from my aunt when I was ten and read it and loved it - even it if I didn't understand everything I read. I kept that book for 30 years and read it over and over again. Katherine was my route into a lifelong interest and fascination with strong women in history.
I checked that book out of the library many times from age 11 on, and finally bought myself a copy when I spotted it in a used bookstore. It's still on my shelf.
My late mother had a copy of that beautiful book. And, now it is mine. I spent many hours reading & rereading that wonderfully written story. I had no idea that is was all based on historical events!
Me too I’ve read and re read this story. Did you know that Suzanne Howatch’s book wheel of fortune was a modern day version of some of this story.
AUTHOR'S NOTE (i)
THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE is a re-creation in a modern dimension of a true story in which the following people played a leading part:
EDWARD OF WOODSTOCK (1330-1376), known to history as The Black Prince,
His wife and cousin JOAN OF KENT, whom he called Jeanette, His brother JOHN OF GAUNT,
His younger son RICHARD OF BORDEAUX, later King Richard II, John of Gaunt's legitimate Son HENRY OF BOLINGBROKE, later sing Henry IV
150
@@Veronique876 I did not know that. I’ll have a look for that book. Thanks.
She was the love of his life in my opinion ! As she was still there during the times he had to marry politically.
This is so hard to keep up with. I’m glad you do it slow and with a chart.
Interestingly, John's great-granddaughters does become Queen of Castile -- Isabella. Her daughter, Catalina, goes on to become the wife of Henry VIII. It's interesting to me that Catalina or Queen Catherine, technically has a stronger claim to the English throne through John Gaunt than Henry VIII does.
Kacee Eddinger that is very interesting; I never knew that! What a tangled web of genes are the royal families of Europe!
I hadn't realized that. So their daughter Mary had, indeed, a claim from both parents!
It's a very interesting point. However, if we look at the Yorkist claim i.e. they descended from Lionel of Antwerp, 2nd son of Edward III, therefore they have the stronger claim to the English crown, and if we accept that Edward IV was indeed a rightful king, then his surviving grandson (Henry VIII) by his eldest daughter has a way stronger claim than Catherine of Aragon.
That's why they wanted to marry her I assume to further strenghen the Tudor claim
He and his papa married up!
Hey Dr Kat - could you do a video on Katherine Swynford, she's such an interesting woman!
Thank you! FINALLY some attention being paid to John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford! There's a big hole in those BBC documentaries...Every one of Henry VIII's wives has gotten more attention than Katherine, and yet without her even he wouldn't exist. I wish you would devote a whole program to her. She probably influenced John of Gaunt's patronage of her brother-in-law Geoffery Chaucer, and thence English literature. She was cleaner than most: she refused to keep the closet next to the privy chamber even though the stench killed moths. Henry Bolingbroke referred to her as his "mother" throughout his lifetime. She was by all reports gorgeous, gracious and talented, but we can only guess what she looked like.
I can't be too objective about the claim because I grew up reading Anya Seton's barnburner novel 'Katherine,' which had some misinformation but made us all fall in love with her anyway. (and with English history as well.) Alison Weir's book 'Mistress of Monarchy' is more historically accurate, but Seton's book brings it all alive. The novel came out in 1954 and there are still chat groups about it. Why Katherine's life hasn't been made into a series is a mystery. What seems very clear in all references to Swynford in Plantagenet history is that yes, they did love each other, it was a true romance, as attested to by all those land deeds and finally the legitimization of their children, which they loved as well. Of course that was pragmatic: it allowed all four to marry well and pursue all manner of goals denied to bastards. With the marriage, she was initially snubbed by the court but soon won them over because she outclassed them all. The claim to the throne was legitimate as far as I'm concerned. All those loveless state marriages, for money and property. It's with the romantic liasons that we find a struggle toward a meritocracy.
John of Gaunt is the progenitor of many notable people: every English king from Henry IV onward; Prince Henry the Navigator; Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy; Isabella of Castile, one of the Catholic Monarchs; Maximilian I, Emperor of Germany, as well as his wife, Mary, daughter of Charles the Bold; Joan the Mad as well as her husband Philip the Fair; Catherine of Aragon; Charles V and all subsequent Spanish monarchs; all subsequent emperors of Germany and the monarchs of the Austrian Empire.
Also, John of Gaunt can be credited to a good portion of the Scottish Dynasty of the Stewarts through his daughter Joan Beaufort and her marriage to Henry Stewart (Henry I.) This dynasty then went on to produce Mary, Queen of Scots and her son King James the VI (I of England).
Dr Kat, I realy appreciate this reading. I am, at this moment studying the War of The Roses. Was appalled of the marriage of a twelve year old girl and the birth of a child a year later. Women were certainly used and abused in those times. Could you do a program on the De La Poles as they had a more reliable claim to the throne........Well, Henry the eighth thought so. Thanks from Australia.
I believe there are descendants of the de la Poles living in Australia who technically have a stronger claim to the throne than the Windsors do.
I am a dexendant of the de la Poles, and would love to hear more about them! My supposed connection is thru Mary, daughter of Arthur
amcalabrese1, You can get information about this You tube. Britain’s Real Monarch. by Tony Robinson ( Baldrick) and look up Useful Charts on the same subject l.e. Does the real king of England live in Australia.
Jo Fry, Look up Britain’s Real Monarch on UA-cam. Also Useful Charts, does Englands real king live in Australia.
Jo Fry. Useful Charts is a very fascinating site. They have one chart with all the royal families of Europe and another which follows the male line from William to Phillip and all the way to a king who lived in the time of Charlemane. Many other charts. Look it up.
Bruh, that geneological recitation without notes or a teleprompter...*begins slow clap*
He had a week link to the throne, but my marrying Elizabeth of York nobody could doubt his children's claim.
unless someone better was around - they didn't believe in this women stuff like we are reaching for! :)
@@businessfinancecoach But, it was solidly accepted in England that a man could inherit a throne through his mother. While Empress Maude had never been crowned, her son, Henry II, was the first of the Plantagenets. Henry V claimed the throne of France through the maternal line as well.
The marriage of Elizabeth of York doesn't matter all that much because claims come from he sovereign, not the sovereign's consort. Henry VII's claim to the English throne was non-existent until Lord Stanley put a crown on his head and acclaimed him, King of England. Although, the Beaufort line was barred from the crown during the reign of Henry VI.
We just don't know how history would have been had the crown gone from Richard II to Edmund, 5th Earl of March. Assuming no children (as was the case) the crown then passes to Richard, 3rd Duke of York, to Edward IV to Edward V etc.
There are some, though, that claim George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, is the legitimate successor to Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York.
@@jonathandnicholson his marriage to Elizabeth does matter. Henry VII took the throne and ruled mainly by conquest, not lineage. His marriage to the Heiress of York legitamised his rule. Any man marrying the female heir could rule through her. Henry did not claim this, but it stopped Elizabeth from marrying others and transmitting a claim to other men and sons born of those men. So it prevented further potential civil unrest. The marriage was important and was strategic. Henry VIII's position as king was strengthened due to who his mother was.
@@jonathandnicholson Claims do and have came from the Consort. It is even mentioned in this video that John of Gaunt tried to claim the Castilian throne through his wife. Many men became King by marriage to a female heir. It is the reason Elizabeth I never married. Things changed a good few generations later.
That was great!! Katherine Swynford has long been one of my favorite historical women. Literally the foremother of so many royals later on lol!!
I have just come across her in my family tree she is my 17 x great grandmother
As a Welshman, I say yes Henry should have been king. As mentioned below, the crown was won by combat on the battlefield.
If Bosworth didn't happen, the princes were dead and Richard died without an hier would there have been a "better" claimant than Henry?
Dr Kat, I absolutely love how you unravel our extremely complex royal history. It's always been one of my favourite subjects but no one else has brought it to life in such a humane and interesting manner as you have done.
As an aside I always believed Margaret
Beaufort to be strong, pious, untrustworthy, pushy and a none too pleasant character, now I have much more insight and empathy into why she was as tough as she was. Bearing a son as a widow at the age of 12 would have certainly been a horrendous start to the long years of fighting which lay ahead in order to get her son onto the throne.
Thankyou and stay safe xx
Henry VII won the throne by battle, which, though a more mediaeval way to win a throne, must have held some sway. I think Margaret Beaufort was very ambitious for her son. She may have convinced him of his right throughout his upbringing.
John of Gaunt's marriage to Katherine does not have to be pragmatic or for love. It could be both. It was a long relationship.
As for him wishing to be buried with his first wife... Blanche of Lancaster brought him immense wealth and prestige. His life would have very different without it. That could also have been a marriage of pragmatism and love. And gratitude for everything she brought him. Didn't John ask Chaucer to write The Book of the Duchess after Blanche's death?
I love your videos. It's lovely to finish work on a Friday and know I can unwind, yet be kept interested by thinking about something completely different, with your latest posting. .
If it's enough to win the throne by battle, couldn't anyone claim the throne? William the Conqueror and Edward IV won the throne through battle, but they also had significant blood ties to the throne. Elizabeth of York, Henry VII's wife, was the eldest surviving child of Edward IV. Under the presumption that Edward's sons died in the Tower, any legitimacy that Henry VIII might have had came from the fact that he was Edward IV's grandson.
@@renshiwu305 Anybody could claim the throne. But they wouldn't have got support from people with the power to help them get it unless they had a good stock of the currency that the people with power value. The currency in that time and place was lineage.
We don't know that John of Gaunt asked Chaucer to write The Book of the Duchess. It seems obviously about Blanche but that doesn't indicate John of Gaunt's requesting it. If anything, Chaucer was seeking a patron, though Gaunt was obviously just that when in 1377 through his power over his ten year old nephew King Richard II's accession Chaucer's daughter Elizabeth was made an unendowed nun at St. Helene's Priory in London.
As for Margaret Beaufort, she was the remaining last heir/heiress of John of Gaunt in England via Gaunt's son with Katherine Swynford, John Beaufort. There is no denying she knew her own worth and where she came from, but all the nasty ideas of her being a witch/murderess/etc. is due entirely to a novelist, Philippa Gregory, and there is zero historical evidence indicating anything like her characterization of Margaret Beaufort.
Remember, too, that Margaret Beaufort was married and impregnated at age 12, giving birth at 13 and never having another child no doubt due to the damage to her body that the pregnancy and birth created. Of course she supported her son and of course she knew he was the next Lancastrian entitled to the crown of England.
Join our FB group "Katherine Swynford" if you wish to know more.
@@reddish32 Obvious??? No doubt???
You make it "seem" so while negating anyone else's statement on the matter incorrect and you the acclaimed authority on all matters.
Get real!!! You apply supposition as clear fact...when you don't know, either. Pshhhhhttt!!!
@@joannathesinger770 Why do I feel I am correct? Because I have researched the matter for 40 years. I doubt very much that you have done that. Yes, my statements count for more than yours because I have actually spent a really long time researching the matters. Do I need to say that again? You're pulling something out. of clear air is not equivalent to actual research. It simply is not.
Absolutely fascinating if complicated it may explain the Tudor fear of other legitimate contenders to the throne their own claim being predominantly based on a tenuous bloodline , right of battle and a marriage with the House of York (who I believe also took the throne by right of battle?)
(As an aside listening to you go through who married who and when reminded me of the Dr who episode when he tried to understand Rivers marriages. Not history I know but also complicated.)
I am sure I will get this nailed down on my 50th viewing. I am listening to "Lancaster and York" and to say Henry 7th claim is weak is an understatement. He seems to me to have had resentment that his wife had a much stronger claim to the throne. (Delayed her coronation etc.) I am really interested in the later Plantagenets, as I see the Tudors as "done to death" (ha)
And I don't get Henry the 8th at all. Why so mean to his wives when his mother was "so nice"and they were somewhat close by all accounts. Well thank you for this interesting and very thorough and very clear account.
The York’s technically were just taking back what was rightfully there’s as Henry boilingbrook was an usurper.
Yes-Bingo about The Tudors’ obsession with legitimate Heirs, and especially with Henry 8’s obsession with securing a legitimate son. That was a major motivating factor in his churning of his Queens- Next! Seems like he was almost panicking he wouldn’t get a son. The woman who did give him his son sacrificed her life for it and of course he idealized her as his primary love for the rest of his life. But it’s ironic because both of his daughters assumed the throne eventually and the people accepted both of them quite readily as their queen and the reigns, especially Elizabeth’s, was very long and stable.See my biography of Mary1 on my page on Medium:link.medium.com/jZPfOBMrwdb
@@sucreloveable What do you cite as evidence that Henry VII resented his wife? They ended up having a very happy marriage and his own birthright of the crown is not so weak, especially if you consider Edward III's entailment of the crown first to the Black Prince and his heirs, then to Lionel and his, and then to John of Gaunt and his. At the time of Henry IV's taking the crown, his Beaufort half-siblings were considered fully legitimate by both pope and parliament. There was no legal bar to the throne for the Beauforts as the interlining adding that statement attempted to alter an act of parliament, which even if Henry IV did it (nobody seems to know who added it or when), he lacked authority to do.
@@reddish32 Henry VII initially was very apprehensive about his subjects possible perception that Elizabeth's claim to the throne was stronger than his, and that he married her in order to give
his descendants enhanced legitimacy in regard to the succession. I seem to remember his being somewhat slow to marry her, but I read about all this awhile ago. He was very slow to hold her coronation. They did have a very happy marriage, but he was very wary and suspicious too. I have read in a few places that Owen Tudor's origins are somewhat vague ; the Beaufort line was legitimized on condition they did not claim the throne, so his Lancaster bloodline is a factor, but I consider it was by a couple of convenient deaths, his Mother's unending work on his behalf, and conquest that he took the throne.
I might be a hopeless romantic but I believe John of Gaunt always loved Katherine and was finally free to marry her and make their children legitimate in the eyes of the church and the law.
I'm a direct descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. You never really hear much about them. Thanks, that was very interesting.
Wow!! That's some lineage. I agree, you never hear much about them, but they were so damn important. A case for meritocracy for sure. Your great+ granny was far and away the most important of his wives.
As am I. Katherine is my 31st great grandmother!
I read their story by accident really as a child and have absolutely had their live story in my mind ever since. Toe it's amazing story and one of true love.He loved her and didn't ever leave her. The one time he did it was for country and had to be life or death and still he never left her. Theirs was the one story I feel still till this day. Im so lucky to have found your text to tell you this, so you know their story does live on and in anouther country. Life is funny.
Same with me it's cool
I recently discovered I also have direct lineage to John of Gaunt. The saying is: We Are All Royalty!
I always thought Henry VII's claim to the throne was tenuous both from his mother and his father. You gave a very good and informative explanation of that complicated family tree.
His father really had zero claim. Margaret Beaufort, however, did. Absolute legal right. The interlineation of the original act of Parliament legitimizing the Beauforts for ALL purposes wasn't legal.
Enjoyed a lot! My sister is our family geneologist. We are in the direct line to Katherine Swynford. She tells me John of Gaunt did not want to be a king, but a soldier. Shakespeare once mentioned his name in a sonnet. Extremely tall for the age. Over 6 feet. Very Courageous.
Must have been Katherine, who suggested securing their line? But we will never know! I would say that her children by John of Gaunt, were born out of wedlock and therefore not Royal lineage. Interesting isn't it? Oopsie!! Thank you lovely lady, for all that you do!! Appreciate all of your posts. Sending this to my sister!!
He was supposed to be 7 feet tall, nearly a giant.
I had always read that the Beaufort line was specifically barred from the succession. I think Henry had a weak claim but recognised that with his statement that his rule came from right of conquest. I certainly don't think he would have been the Lancasterian first choice!
I thought so, too. I read somewhere that Henry IV added a line to the decree stating they were able to inherit lands and titles except for the crown. Of course Henry IV was a usurper king, too.
I had read that, also.
Actually, the papal bull had no such limitation; neither did the parliamentary act which confirmed their legitimacy. The latter has a later insertion regarding the throne but could not supplant an act of parliament.
@@reddish32 Yeah, Henry IV altered the Act of Parliament, but given he didn't pass his amendments through Parliament, they had no legal effect, as only an Act of Parliament could undo another Act of Parliament in those days.
This is why the various sides of the Wars of the Roses would hold Parliament whenever they seized the crown to reverse the attainder placed on them by the other side in previous parliament. So under English law the Beaufort family was legally legitimate, & Henry VII senior heir of John of Gaunt.
Legitimated children *had* proven themselves capable of inheriting crowns in the 14th C British isles. John of Gaunt's contemporary, King Robert II of Scotland, also married *his* longtime mistress Elizabeth Mure, legitimating their children & allowing their son, the future Robert III, to ascend to *that* throne.
So it seems likely to me that everyone involved in that 1st Act of Parliament (Richard II, John of Gaunt, etc.) knew that this legitimation would put the Beaufort children in-line for the crown.
Although many like to point out that it was Richard of York who acted as heir presumptive to Henry VI b/f the birth of the latter's son, not Edmund Beaufort, 2nd duke of Somerset (who was the seniormost Beaufort alive at the time), it seems to me that York essentially appointed *himself* heir-presumptive (& later 'rightful' king).
Conquest aside, Henry VII's claim was *weak,* given the Yorkist ascendancy at the time, but it was not so weak as is usually supposed.
@@jeandehuit5385 Indeed. Edward III himself put the crown in tail to the Black Prince and his legal issue, then passed over Lionel and his legal offspring, to then go to John of Gaunt and his legal issue, of which the Beauforts did indeed become. Poor Edmund Beaufort... nobody had much use for him, lol.
As you were delivering the introduction and asking us what gave Henry his claim to the throne I responded, “His sword, and an army.” In this case, might seems to have made right, which would go a very long way to understand Henry VIII’s obsession with a healthy male heir. Once in possession of the throne, however tenuous the connection, the Tudors were not about to lose it.
Claire Pancerz I completely agree. It’s easy to simply say Henry VIII was sexist, however, when you delve into his past and his families past, he seems more concerned with creating an airtight legitimacy. We all see how it went and he likely could have seen the writing on the wall.
Your videos always put a smile on my face , with everything thats happening in the world at the moment watching your videos and learning from you always makes the day a happy one. ❤
Anya Seton’s Katherine is one of the best books I’ve ever read. And Lincoln Cathedral is magnificent,
I remember reading the book, "Katherine" when my mother gave it to me when I was in 8th grade---years ago. It is one of my absolute favorite stories. I visited John's place of birth a few years ago in Ghent. BUT-------a few months ago, I just found out that Katherine and John of Gaunt are my great-grandparents (15 times back)!!!! I followed an ancestor through a family tree website called' "our family tree", started by a guy in North Carolina. Sooooo cool! I'm reading the book again now with a different, fun outlook :)
Henry VII, as William I (the Conqueror), ruled by right of conquest.
William the Bastard claimed the throne by the will of Edward the Confessor, attested by Harold Godwinson’s oath on relics all backed by a papal bull. This was only accepted because the Witan couldn’t raise an army to back Edgar the Atheling.
Lovely video! I'd lile to suggest a video on the reasons for the nobility's dislike of Elizabeth Woodville. The rumors of her being a witch have always fascinated me.
Thank you for doing this video! I have always loved the story of John and Katherine. I found it kind of tragic how much they were forced to be apart when they were obviously a love match.
Thank you for that very clear family tree! Soooo much better than in Alison Weir’s books on the Wars of the Roses-I have to hold those books about two inches from my face to try and decipher the family trees.
I started watching your videos a few months ago and find them utterly fascinating. I especially like your discussion of Margaret Beaufort-I think she is one of the most amazing women in British medieval history,, up there with Eleanor of Aquitaine, but not nearly as well-known.
(BTW, I think you misspoke in listing John of Gaunt and Blanche’s children-you said the son was the future Henry VI, not Henry IV.)
Thank you again, DrKat! I think this is my favourite talk so far. I have been fascinated by the relationship between John and Katherine since reading the novel 'Katherine' by Anya Seton when I was a kid. The romantic in me still sees these two as being true lovers, who finally had their love legitimised late in life. I do think that there must be something to this, as their relationship was long and enduring. His choice to be buried with Blanche says that, as the mother of his heir, (he could not have known that his Beaufort descendants would ever claim the throne) his place for burial was beside his first wife. I do suspect that John of Gaunt cared greatly for his Beaufort children, and that legitimacy was his gift to both Katherine and the kids.
I'd recommend reading Kathryn Warner's bio of John of Gaunt. She is the first to have translated John of Gaunt's will in its entirety and she remarks that he was 'astonishingly generous' to Katherine and their children.
Thanks Dr Kat. Love it when you upload so that your videos accompany my morning coffee here in Los Angeles. 💜 As a side note, anyone else here wish the royal family would draw from a larger name pool.
Henry VII would not have been king without Margaret Beaufort paving the way
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford are my 21st great grandparents so I found this particularly interesting! Thank you!
Another lovely, lucid video: Thank you, Dr. Kat. I recall once seeing a really large roll of paper on which the ancestry of Henry VII was traced. In *Large* letters, his paternal grandfather, Owen Tudor, was listed as a courtier who served Catherine de Valois. The implication of this genealogical roll was that Henry VII's claim to the throne was non-existent on his paternal grandfather's side, and shaky on his mother's (illegitimate) Beaufort side. No wonder that all of the Tudor monarchs were incredibly touchy on the subject of their right to the throne, as that right primarily derived from Conquest! I wonder whether some people gave Elizabeth of York more credit as an authentic Royal than they gave Henry VII....
At the time of the negotiation of the marriage of prince Arthur with Catharine of Aragon, the Spanish were surprised that Henry and Elizabeth of York did not reign as joint monarchs like Ferdinand and Isabella.
Nor do they give credit to Catherine of Aragon for her impeccable royal blood.
Henry VII's mother was NOT illegitimate! Pope and Parliament legitimated the original Beauforts for all purposes at the time of John of Gaunt's marriage to Katherine Swynford.
Thank you for this very interesting video. IIRC, this legitimization occurred after the illegitimate Henry Trastamara became the alternative to Pedro the Cruel. The Lancastrian family was connected to the royals of Castile and Portugal, whose inheritance rights may have been considered more significant than the Beauforts. In the time of Elizabeth I, those kings were descended from John of Gaunt, as were the Dukes of Braganca, Medina Sedonia, and Parma. One alternative story about Henry VI was that he was struck dumb at the time he lost Bordeaux and may have had a stroke. You are the only historian I have ever heard mention that Margaret Beaufort was 12 years old when she became pregnant. Most usually only mention that she was 13 when she gave birth.
Awsome
Umm... well... if she was 13 when she gave birth it isn't such a bizarre notion that she conceived at 12.
The Trastamera heir was married to John of Gaunt's daughter by his second wife, Constance or Costanza of Castile, who was the illegitimate daughter of Pedro the Cruel by his mistress Maria de Padilla as opposed to his legal wife, Blanche of Bourbon, whom Pedro treated horribly.
Round and round.....related by marriage to several important people, but not legitimately in line for anything.
As for Katherine and John of Gaunt....looks like Ol Johnny-hot-pants was greedy for wealth and power rather than a loyal boyfriend. He married DURING his relationship with Katherine. That action alone should prove his metal. For me, the answer to whether or not his children born to Katherine were NOT eligible for the throne (based on the rules at the time). Look at the BS involved in the Edward IV possible pre-contract (engagement) supposedly creating bastards of all of his children by E Woodville !! Somehow, a former fiance (who was dead before the princes were born) can disinherit a declared prince, but children born to a man while he is LEGALLY MARRIED to, and PROCREATING with another woman does NOT disinherit children who were clearly not legitimate. Ridiculous
Thanks so much for this clear and concise summation of what is, indeed, a knotty problem. There's another knot to toss in: 10 years after the original issuing, Henry IV added a phrase to the patent legitimizing the Beauforts: "excepta dignitate regali", which, on paper, does exempt the Beafort line from succession to the crown.
Fascinating stuff! John of Gaunt is my 19 x great grandfather - I am a direct descendant of his youngest child, only daughter, with Katherine Swynford, but don't know much about him.
I've always been confused by the fact that Henry VII, knowing his claim to the throne was tenuous, focused instead on having the right to rule by conquest (defeating Richard III at Bosworth Field) on August 22. However, he then dated his reign as beginning on August 21, so that Richard and anyone fighting with him were supposedly traitors. How could he be king via conquest if he was allegedly king the day before he conquered Richard? It doesn't make much sense.
Nothing about the Tudors makes much sensei Rather like the times we are living through
By dating his rule to the day of Bosworth Field, Henry VII made *All* of his opponents traitors -- so he could legally fine the daylights out of them. Henry VII used ruinous fines to control & hobble all levels of society. Nobles *&* merchants were fined alike. No one could *afford* to fight the first Tudor king! As to making sense: nope, not a Tudor concern. After all, Henry VIII annulled his marriage to Anne Boleyn while still accusing her of adultery. Logically speaking, how can a woman who is declared to be unmarried commit adultery?
It makes a little more sense when you think of Henry VII as a compromise candidate between Lancastrian & Yorkist factions *against* any die-hard Ricardian faction (as, indeed, Henry VII's throne came from the alliance between Elizabeth Woodville & Margaret Beaufort for precisely this purpose).
So in Henry VII-world, Edward IV was a legitimate king (presumably by right-of-conquest), whose children had been unlawfully declared illegitimate & their rightful crown stolen by their uncle who had promised to protect them (this story is mostly true).
[Elizabeth & Margaret hatch their plan aft. word gets out the boys are dead].
*THEN* Henry of Richmond, at this point still in exile in France (aft. previously being in Brittany), announces his claim to the throne & promises to marry the sister of the princes in the tower & unite the warring houses.
After that you get Buckingham's rebellion followed by the successful Bosworth campaign.
I *think* the idea here is Richard III was an unlawful king, & Henry had already announced his claim & promised to unite the lines. Since Richard III was 'obviously' not the rightful king & Henry *arguably* the rightful Lancastrian claimant, I think the logic goes that Richard's supporters were treasonous *because* they had the opportunity to support the rightful claimant but refused to do so.
Again, it's not airtight logic by any means, & only parts of it square 1:1 w/ reality, but I think it works as well as any logic used by these guys to justify their reigns. I mean, Richard III's reign is based on his nephews being illegitimate based on *very* flimsy evidence, so the underhandedness goes both ways.
@@jeandehuit5385 IF you consider the (never retracted, not even under Henry VII and after being questioned by Henry VII) testimony of a priest who supposedly conducted Edward's first secret marriage (and was later given high postions by the same Edward IV) as "flimsy evidence".
@@frakkintoasterluvva7920 Yes, I do consider that flimsy evidence; everyone who was involved in that 'ceremony' *except* that priest was dead at the time, which was certainly very convenient.
Plus, Richard of Gloucester supposedly tried to pull the Clarence routine of claiming Eddie was illegitimate b/f he settled on the bigamous marriage one.
I don't think Richard was actually a bad king; he did a decent job for only 777 days & he has positive qualities about him. I think he was also probably more qualified than his nephews by virtue of being an adult, but that doesn't change the fact his claim was dubious.
Your videos always make my day. I’ve never quite understood how Henry VII could claim the throne. This explanation cleared it up. It’s interesting how monarchs have been creative in their genealogy. The Romanovs and Hapsburgs did it too. Thank you Dr. Kat!!!
I will never not dance to your intro song Dr. Kat! It is so cheerful and never fails to make me smile. Loved this video! 💜
Henry VII had a dubious blood line to be king but he was king nonetheless winning the crown by conquest. I would much rather that Richard III had won but alas
So excited for this video before it's even started. The Wars of the Roses is one of my favourite historical periods. I'm lucky to live near Raby Castle where Cecily Neville was born (Edward IV's mother). The church in nearby Staindrop Village is where her father is buried, I actually cried when I saw his tomb, I'd read so much about their family that it felt really emotional to be that close to them.
Oddly enough, neither of Ralph Neville's wives were buried under that magnificent triple effigy tomb at Staindrop. His first wife, Margaret Stafford, was buried solo at Brauncepeth I believe while second wife Joan Beaufort was buried next to her mother in Lincoln Cathedral in her own tomb.
Dr. Kat, could you please do an episode on Thomas Cromwell as well as Thomas More? Maybe even on the latter's book Utopia, if you are acquainted with it. I would love to hear your take on it. 🥰 You are amazing to listen to, and i use your videos as a launching pad to look more into historical figures and their critical interpretation. I have hard time reading large swathes of text for long periods of time due to headaches from eye strain and have supplimented my learning of history mostly by listening to documentaries and verbal presentations. Thank you so much for the content in your channel!
I have learned so much from watching you! Thank you 😊 would you consider doing a video about Joan Beaufort?
Thanks Dr. Kat! Love Tudor history!
Such a fascinating video, thank you! That family tree certainly is knotty, as you have said! Personally, having looked at his family’s origins, I believe that Henry Tudor’s right to the throne is tenuous at best... I think he knew this though, which is why it was such a great political and diplomatic move to marry Elizabeth of York and somewhat ‘cement’ his claim. It seems to me like this proof of the right to rule is something that plagued the Tudor line continuously for many years, and it’s fascinating to delve back in time and see the roots of this dispute. I look forward to the next video!
I think John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford truly loved each other. The length of the affair demonstrates that. She's the only mistress he had (as far as I know).
I agree that John and Katherine Swynford did love each other because he didn't had to go back to her when his second wife Constance of Castile died- and even more when he had broken up their affair in 1381- but he did. And as for the mistresses, John had one mistress named Marie before he married Blanche of Lancaster, his first wife.
Hello dr.Kath, I love the subject of your video, but what i love more is calm , clear and peaceful maner you deliver your story. Regarding your today subject i found it really interesting as i never before heard of them but as far i am concerned i dont realy think that Hanry VII had any claim on throne on his own.
Perfect time for this, watching this makes the time pass fast while doing physiotherapy. Thank you doc Kat! Have an awesome day!
I love history! Great subject
I’m going through therapy, also. Dr. Kat helps so much.
Margaret Beaufort had a traumatic life and I admire her devotion to her son! She was a remarkable woman...
The birth at 13 was certainly traumatic; she wasn't fully developed so it was actually pretty lucky for her that she survived at all. And 3.5 husbands is certainly quite a bit more than she probably bargained for (history records her 4 husbands; John de la Pole, Edmund Tudor, Henry Stafford, & Thomas Stanley, but Margaret herself only considered the last 3 her real spouses).
The only husband she would have consented to by our standards was the last; her first 3 marriages were all contracted b/f she as even 15 years old. Husband number 3 died when she was 28 so she was an adult when she remarried that time.
One overlooked aspect of her life is that she tried to do well for her half-siblings as well; her mother had also been married multiple times, & had children w/ each spouse, so Margaret had many maternal-half siblings that she made sure were looked after once she finally got some influence.
Another sad thing to note is that she technically outlived her only son; Henry VII died a month or two b/f she did. She was an old woman at that time, & apparently lived just long enough to see her grandson coronated b/f she died.
Given how I doubt Margaret Beaufort would have approved of Henry VIII's reign, perhaps it was for the best...
@@jeandehuit5385 I think is adorable that you took some time to highlight her actions and how much of a caring sister she was! And true, she wasn't going to approve Henry VIII's actions! For SURE!
I really enjoyed your video! My opinion is that John and Katherine married for several reasons. Of course, apparently they had loved each other, and they wanted to be married because they still loved each other and wanted to be together during their remaining years. But both of them would certainly have wished to remove the stain of bastardy from their children's prospects, so that was another compelling reason for the marriage. Because John and Katherine's long affair had been so notorious, I think they waited a bit before marrying.
In any case, Katherine Swynford must have been a very interesting woman! I do so wish that the story of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford could be told in a film or limited series.
As to their heirs, especially Henry VII, I think we are enlightened enough to bestow retroactive respectability to the Beaufort line, and to accept the legitimacy of the succession. It's certainly true that the launching of Henry VII's Tudor dynasty resulted in a very fascinating and colorful period of history, and we still find the Tudors fascinating after more than 500 years.
Love your videos! Keep up the good work! Thank you for these wonderful lessons!💙💙💙💙
You have inspired me to re read Philippa Gregory's series of historical fiction about this time in history. I will now be able to consult your posts for your insight as a historian to these wonderful novels.
Oh please dear lord! Her characterization of Margaret Beaufort is inspired demonization at best. Read real history!
I love that you're doing this time line and specific set of Royal family - my fiance and I just did some digging into our ancestry and both realized that we are related to Joan Beaufort, so I find this fascinating!
Given that Joan had more than a dozen children from her two marriages, being a descendant of hers really isn't very odd.
@@reddish32 No it is not 😄. Very easy to notice when you read comments 😅. I am not related.
This was the best explanation of Henry VII's claim to the throne I've heard! Thanks!
I think it is interesting that legitimacy is so much a question in the Tudor Dynasty: Henry VII, Mary I, Elizabeth I. More than half face this question on their way to the Throne. I never realized that until your video. Technically, Henry VIII and his son Edward would also have faced that if Henry VII work at ruling and getting rid of all opponents hadn't worked out so well. Wow, I had not thought of it that way. Interesting.
The difference is that Mary really had royal blood and was born into a stable marriage.
Thank you, Dr. Kat for a fascinating video. I am off to read Katherine which I downloaded on my Kindle. Would you consider bringing up Eleanor of Aquitaine? That’s another interesting time, and Eleanor is unforgettable. Thank you again.
Wow makes a persons head spin with all the family tree shakin'. Loved the vlog.
Wonderful explanation. The Tudors unified the country - England - and put an end to all those years of war and unrest. How fortunate are we.
the house of beaufort and the house of tudor-lancaster did more than unifying england, they also unified a divided wales and became kings and queens of ireland
and married into the stuart dynasty in scotland...,
the tudors distant relatives were the fitzgeralds of kildare *(lord deputy or de facto rulers of ireland*)... through princess nest ferch of wales...their common ancestor...
the tudors claimed descendent from ancient british kings arthur,cedwallon, and modern welsh ones, rhodi,llewellyn,owen glendower,,,,
the beauforts even married into both portugal and scotland...intresting too note the house of york also claimed descendent from the same king arthur-cedwallon and ancient british kings... though the house of mortimer & Princess Gwladus Ddu of wales*...
Henry Tudor won the crown by right of conquest. Hence, there may have been others with a stronger claim, on paper, but if they could not assert such a claim on the battlefield, it was of no avail. Henry VII won the War of the Roses: That put his claim above all other contenders. If anyone disagreed with this, they could have taken it up with Henry on the battlefield. Suffice to say, he defeated all contenders after taking the throne.
Dr Kat. We have been doing our ancestry and we have found out that King Edward the first is one of our grandfathers and we have found out that William the Conqueror is a grandfather on one side and Robert the Bruce is a grandfather on the other side and Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain is a grandfather and grandmother it was really astonishing somebody else has done the tree on FamilySearch it's very exciting and wonderful. I love watching your videos. you do wonderful job of telling the history of the monarchs.
Can you tell us more about Margaret Beaufort sometime please? Enjoyed the video and the family tree on screen was very helpful. What a complicated family!
I just subscribed and love this video.The Tudor line was tainted back from Katherine V. French princess whose father was ‘the mad’ king who thought he was made of glass. I really appreciate your video, been engaged by this for some time. As far as John Of Gaunts intentions I think he wanted the Beauforts to have the same status as his other children, but Henry IV was not supposed to ever be the King. In that, John would have backed his son Henry, under the circumstances.
Actually, through Gaunt's efforts, the Beauforts were FULLY legitimized by both pope and parliament.
Thank you so much for the info on Katherine Swinford. I am a descendant of hers thru Joan. It is good to know how each person fits in the tree. Catherine Valois is an ancestor but had difficulty finding info on her and where she fit in. I enjoy your videos immensely and love your presentation on English history and the royals. Keep up the good work.
Love your voice, could listen to it for hours. And the content always very interesting and something to learn. Thank you for your work.
Thank you for the wonderful videos! I discovered your channel a few weeks ago and have really enjoyed watching all your content. I'd love to hear you discuss the life of Isabella of France in more detail. I find what I know of her life story so much more fascinating than the highly fictionalized portrayals in pop culture.
Edward of Warwick had the strongest claim to the throne. Stronger than Richard the third or Henry the seventh.One of the saddest stories in the whole of the war of the roses saga. I would love to hear more about the reign of Queen Anne.The introductory music sticks in my head all day lol!😂
I've recently started watching your videos, and I'm really enjoying them. Would you be able to direct me to some history about Anne Neville? My knowledge on her is sadly lacking and is limited to Shakespeare's play Richard III and Philippa Gregory's novel the Kingmaker's Daughter.
Thank you for this video! this was really insightful into the line of succession that came from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. Personally, I believe it was a marriage out of love because he continue their relationship even after his reputation suffered from it.
Like many people, I came to Katherine Swynford through Anya Seton but recently picked up a book by Jeannette Lucraft -The History of a Medieval Mistress, published by The History Press. it has Bibliographies, Notes showing where and when she obtained land and her relationships with those around her. Emphasizing her discretion.
Hazel Meldrum one of my favorite books, I will have to look into that second book, thanks for the info!
Thank you for the tip, I will look into that book. Before my uncle died a couple of years ago, he did some genealogical research, and found out that my family is related to Katherine swynford. I have loved her story since I was a teenager and I know it was romanticised in the book I read, but it is still so interesting
The graph of the family tree was very helpful and simplified those complex relationships. Although I had to keep pUsing the video to really settle it in my brain. 😂. It was a very enlightening video. I had also heard that since Henry Tudor’s claim was a bit shaky and that was due to it being from his maternal side. Wasn’t more weight put on claims through the paternal side?
Love your channel! Would you consider discussing the historical accuracy of Philippa Gregory’s novels?
That's a great suggestion, thank you. I will put it on my list for the future!
I’m always confused why Henry VII’s right to rule is argued since conquest is an accepted way to gain the English throne… just ask William the Conqueror :) this was another excellent video
Thank you for this video! I thought the explanation of Henry VII's family tree was rather clear and despite a family tree that's more like a thorny wreath how he could believe a claim could be made to the English throne.
I think the later marriage of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford was pragmatic in nature and to secure matters for their descendants; even though they married a papal bull was issued legitimizing their children. John being buried next to Blanche of Lancaster gives credence (at least to me) of his final marriage being pragmatic; it was in John's will to be buried next to Blanche. It puts in mind a bit of Henry VIII being buried next to Jane Seymour--she was the only wife that gave birth to a son, which mattered so much to him.
John only took Katherine as his mistress after the death of Blanche, so he could have loved both of them deeply. I believe both were buxom blondes which would indicate a taste for a certain look that the poor Infanta Constanza didn't match.
It was his marriage to Blanche that made him the rich and powerful Duke of Lancaster. Being buried next to her would be a small price to pay for all that
Gaunt's double-effigy tomb in St. Paul's had its construction started in maybe 1381-ish if not earlier. What was he going to do -- leave his half empty? To Blanche he owed his wealth. In his youth, her death was likely significant. And Katherine Swynford didn't die until 1403.
I’m related to Henry VII by Margret Beaufort’s sister Tacine of Somerset and then again on the Tudor side illegitimately through his uncle Jasper Tudor.
Very interesting understanding this more thoroughly, thank you so much for the video!!
What we say in my family is that it is not a family tree , it’s a trellis!
Thank you so much for covering this subject. It's always seemed to me that many of the problems regarding heirs to the throne were caused by men not accepting that women could rule.
I’m from Belgium and I have always loved the English history and off course the country. I thank you dr. Cat for these nice, well explained videos. While watching them I can dust off my brain and refresh my knowledge. You have a natural nick for explaining , it makes it all the more interesting.
Thanks for the video. I'd love to know more about Hugh Swynford and Katherine's descendants as I'm trying to confirm an ancestral connection to Katherine. She could well be my 18x great grandmother.
Thank you DK 😁 Great, great video and well explained. I love how you did the charting for the ancestry. It explains everything! Please do this with King Edward IV. Everyone always questions his ancestry as well and whether he had any right to the throne. If you have already created a video of this nature, please disregard and let us know 💜 I hope all is well with you and your family. Thank you again and take care-Debbie from Michigan (USA) 🤗
It would seem that Cecily had a temper tantrum in not being able to choose Edward IV's wife and thus cried out that he was illegitimate.
Up to almost 37k. Congrats, well deserved!
Hi!!! I'm from Argentina and I must study the Tudor dinasty for this year.I'm glad to know I have someone to rely on if I need help. Love your videos!!!
I think that, in the end, it doesn't matter, because he usurped the throne and kept it. Plus, didn't most people accept his rule?
Such an interesting situation, story, and outcome. I believe(?) Victoria Holt wrote a fictitious version of this story. I've been fascinated by it ever since. thank you.
Thank you! My head is spinning with all that information. I'm fascinated by the Tudor History
I think Henry's familial claim was tenuous at best. He mostly got his claim from battle and cemented it through the very astute marriage to Elizabeth of York. No wonder the competition was eliminated so thoroughly.
Great video (as usual). I'm still hoping for a video on the deaths of Margaret Drummond (mistress of James IV of Scotland), and her sisters, Sibylla and Euphemia Flemming. Quite a snarled story there. Then what happened with Archibald and what lead to the death of Janet Douglas!
Not tenuous. The Beauforts were legitimated by pope and parliament in 1396/7 for ALL purposes.
Truly one of the best of your videos, and that’s saying something! A perfect blend of quantitative & qualitative information with the little sprinkles of wit that your fans know & love so much ☺️
Thank you so much, you are very kind ☺️
Hi Kat,
Once again thank you for the video. The whole material is well researched and put together.
Just to let you know that on this particular instalment about ‘Henry VII Right to Rule’, l found yet another mistake, which l’m sure it’s only but a reading error. It’s on the 8.55 when you’ve listed the children of John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster. You’ve named Henry Bolingbrook, (future Henry VI) as being one of them. I’m sure you meant to say Henry Bolingbrook (future Henry IV). Again it doesn’t detract anything from the thoroughly informative work.
With lots of regards and respect for your good work.
AK
Hey Dr Kat! I just want to give you a shout out! I love your videos. I'm a Yank who inherited a fascination with English history from my mom. I've read on many of the topics you cover, but never extensively as a scholar, and your objectivity is SO welcome. I love how you present the evidence, offer your thoughts but then also leave open questions open. Thanks for your terrific work!
Excellant subject, Thank you. I have submerged myself for some time now with War of the Roses and the lines and units the family took. Lancaster and York! Still find it fascinating after reading so much, well explained Kat 👍🏻👑
I thought Henry the VII was crowned King by "right of conquest" .After being crowned King, he then had Elizabeth of York crowned Queen. If so, then would he need to be in the line of succession?
No, he didn’t need to be in the line of succession, that’s the point of right of conquest. Any genealogical claims are about papering over conflict and accommodating the losing factions to the new regime. It’s all a pretty stupid way to run a country.
You are correct about Henry VII. He didn't have to be in the line of succession but wanted to spin doctor the past to make his claim seem more grand than it actually was. That is also the reason he married Elizabeth of York, who was undoubtedly the eldest daughter of Edward IV.
Well he can say that but he still needed the support of the people and the other nobles. Its not so simple or so black and white.
@@mim0381 transport of troops and supply lines were nowhere near as easy as they were in even the 18th century. Henry VII could and did use mercenaries for the initial conquest but he knew from the very beginning that he'd have to win over the nobles who controlled most of the populace.
Fascinating! Love me some Dr Kat!
Thank you so much for the informative family tree. I often have to refer to these trees, when reading English history. Think I will watch this one again, to make sure I didn't miss anything :-)
Love that you pay attention to your fans and our questions, we all enjoy your channel very much!
Thank you for this video! I recently found out that I am (probably) a descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford through Joan Beaufort, and I wanted to learn more about them. I always did like the Lancastrians better than the Yorkists... ;)
My opinion: Henry Tudor won the throne through bigger army diplomacy and his mother's plotting. It wasn't a legitimate claim, but it doesn't matter since he won out.