I would have put my money on the Pole family, Henry VIII did not regard them as dangerous adversaries for no reason. They had a strong claim to the English throne . Robert Prummel Groningen
@@RobertPrummel it is academic of course, but Henry VIII did rather a lot of things in his reign that were unthinkable. A woman as queen regnant was unthinkable too (empress Maud doesn't really count), but it happened anyway and he made that happen.
@@RobertPrummel certainly the Pole family were the biggest threat and Henry constantly felt that. I suspect that by 1547, if they were still at liberty, their Catholicism would have prevented their general acceptance.
Ah, Henry Fitzroy, one of the two main characters in the Canadian Blood Ties TV show. The show wasn't that great but I loved they chose to create the vampire character as a Henry Fitzroy who never died, just became a vampire back in the day.
Thank you so much for bringing up the idea about the stability of the country being the reason for needing a male heir. I despise Henry as a manipulative cruel man. However, civil war is the one thing that will hurt a country more than anything else. Economically it's devastating. That's why they needed a male heir. Most people just think Henry was being selfish and wanting a boy to follow him. Some of it was selfish of course, but most of it was needed for the country.
What a treat this was! This is a hugely interesting period of history, and we can only speculate on the might-have-beens. I think if the king had really been preparing to make Henry his heir, then we would have some better portraits of him. As usual your illustrations are excellent, and the more usual 'antiquary'' content at the end of the video was fascinating. Thank you again.
I wonder if there might originally have been some larger, better portraits of Fitzroy that don't survive? Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I might not have been likely to have had a huge interest in preserving full-size portraits of their illegitimate half-brother, and it might not have been a high priority for the Stuart kings either. Then there was the Civil War and Commonwealth of the mid-1600s, in which innumerable things connected with royalty were destroyed. We'll never know, of course, but I do wonder if the little miniature of Fitzroy survived just because it was small and relatively easy to keep hidden?
Henry VIII remembered the “Anarchy”. Henry I persuaded the nobles to agree that his daughter, the Empress Mathilda, should succeed him. Following his death, the nation was divided. Half accepted the Empress Mathilda, half supported Stephen. The resulting civil war lasted several years, until a compromise was reached. Stephen would be King, but the Empress Mathilda’s son would then succeed him as Henry I. Nevertheless, by the time of the death of Edward VI, views had changed. The nation was, by then, prepared to accept a female Sovereign. Some supported Lady Jane Grey, some Mary. There was a short civil war, which everyone expected Lady Jane Grey’s forces to win. Instead, by good fortune, Mary’s forces won against all the odds. There then followed successful reigns by female Sovereigns - Mary I, Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, Queen Mary II, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II.
To bad not knowing where she is buried and that there is only that small portrait of the kings son. You would think that the king would have wanted more portraits of his son. There are so many movies about the older king. I was wondering if you knew of any movies about his life as a younger king?
Interesting. Henry Fitzroy is one of the great "what-ifs" of history - what if Henry VIII hadn't had a legitimate son with Jane Seymour and Fitzroy hadn't died in 1536 - would he have been made heir and subsequently become King?
@allanbarton He didn't take much responsibility on, but that was probably quite universal with Kings 🙄 I also believe he had his father's tax collectors executed soon after his reign started to appease the people 🤷♀️ I just personally think the king we see in his later years was always there but life treated him better when he was younger. If Prince Henry had survived, Henry probably would have stayed good and kind.
@@cenedra2143He may have stayed a decent King had he not endured a Jousting injury that, it seems likely, caused a head injury and a resulting change of disposition for the worst. Certainly there are reports that he changed after the accident. A leg ulcer that left him in constant pain in his later life would also have contributed to his bad temper.
No - it's fantasy fiction and FitzRoy wasn't a vampire. They do sound like fun books though, they may even entice me (not a fiction reader) to read them.
Henry proved he could sire a son but no end to problems in pregnancy of his wives Catherine and anne which leads me to believe they may have contracted a disease such as chlamydia from Henry who was no stranger to outside dalliances.
If you go into the disastrous 'Confinement' practices, lack of hygiene and nutritional beliefs of the upper classes at the time it made them as equally prone to childbirth issues as their Peasant counterparts, if for different reasons.
@@Arielsfork chlamydia wasnt known then and wasnt detectable like the “pox” of henry’s time. Of course there are many other reasons for problems of this kind and this is just one possibility.
Oh what a tangled web we weave. The Royals have always played away as it were. May I take this opportunity to wish you and your family a Happy Christmas and all the best for 2025.
The U.K. wouldn’t exist, and England may have become a person union or vassal state of the Spanish empire. The British empire likely wouldn’t have existed and would have been under the Spanish, meaning the USA as we currently know it wouldn’t exist, and neither would modern China, as the fall of the Qing dynasty was heavily influenced by the opium wars. Most countries we currently know would be completely different without the British empire which began under Elizabeth I and later the Stewarts who wouldn’t have had the throne had Arthur lived, and since it is the cause of more independence days than any other nation and without its influence the world would be unrecognisable
Nice pictures! It should be noticed though that this depicted "procession of the Knights of the Garter" is just symbolic. These kings never assembled and they would not have worn "heraldic mantles" as depicted. In fact, I am convinced that heraldic mantles were never actualy worn, they were just a ploy to identify a royal or armigerous person. Moreover, these monarchs would never have consented in giving precedence to a bastard!
Like the Black Books produced by other establishments (such as cathedrals) the Black Book of the Garter is essentially a ceremonial manual for the officers, its made function is to lay down existing tradition and establish precedent in ceremonial. The image was about about establishing clearly the order of precedence among the knights. None of the stranger knights attended as far as I'm aware, had they done so as sovereigns they would have taken precedence over all English lords. The heraldic mantles were certainly never worn, but it was a helpful way of visually showing that established precedence. I ought to do a short video on the Black Book as part of my irregular Garter series.
The roAh yes, the Borders - a region so ferocious, chaotic, and blood-soaked it’s barely worth a footnote in our gloriously oversimplified national narrative. Why bother with the messy reality of a place where endemic warfare raged for at least half a millennium, where national identity was about as important as the weather forecast, and where raids weren’t quaint little scuffles but full-blown military operations involving thousands? No, let’s just skip over all that. After all, who cares that this was a world where the Lord Warden of the Marches had to deal with constant, rampant banditry while the Lieutenant of the North planned full-scale invasions-because apparently managing northern chaos required two entirely separate job descriptions. And during the Wars of the Roses, London itself was on edge. The fear wasn’t unfounded, given that the so-called Border Reivers (as we now romantically call them) had the audacity to raid Newcastle for captives-right under the nose of English authority. But sure, let’s pretend they were just a minor nuisance. Why dig into a history so brutal and complex it makes your precious Highland clans look like amateurs when you can stick to tartan fantasy and London centrism? God forbid people actually bother to learn something
That's not what the video is about and if people want further information it's ridiculously easy to 'learn something' about anything on the Web. There are still some quaint old institutions called Libraries where one can wander at will that have these glorious objects called 'books' that contain all kinds of info. 'Ti's not rocket science mate.
@@allanbarton It's just the wilful ignorance of historians about anything north of Trent or anything that isn't all that Celticist nonsense or Scottish post-1707 navel gazing. I have read at least three books on Tudor and Stuart rivalry that failed at all to mention anything to do with the 'Border Reivers' or anything like that. It was a good opportunity to mention this period, but again immediately turned away from the subject.
@@memofromessexthis video was not in any respect a good opportunity to talk at length about that subject, given this was a biography that was already very wide-ranging in scope. Personally I'm not in the least London-centric and I live north of the Trent!
While it's sad that Fitzroy died young i think it was for the best. An illegitimate king might have set a dangerous precedent.
Great video ❤
Forever in your debt for these wonderful installments, Allan. Thank you very much.
As always, superb content. Thank you.
My pleasure!
You always do a fantastic job. Cheers!
Thank you very much!
Another piece of history quite new to me in full. Thanks a lot for posting. Regards, John.
My pleasure!
Hi Allan! One is given the impression that Henry VIII was most certainly hedging his bet with Fitzroy just in case a legitimate heir did not...emerge.
I think that is very much the case Terry. I wonder what England would have been like if FitzRoy had lived and succeeded?
No, an illegitimate child would not have been accepted as a king, the distant plantagenet descendents would have rebelled and taken the throne.
I would have put my money on the Pole family, Henry VIII did not regard them as dangerous adversaries for no reason. They had a strong claim to the English throne . Robert Prummel Groningen
@@RobertPrummel it is academic of course, but Henry VIII did rather a lot of things in his reign that were unthinkable. A woman as queen regnant was unthinkable too (empress Maud doesn't really count), but it happened anyway and he made that happen.
@@RobertPrummel certainly the Pole family were the biggest threat and Henry constantly felt that. I suspect that by 1547, if they were still at liberty, their Catholicism would have prevented their general acceptance.
I was hanging on every word. Henry would be proud of the respect you showed him.
Thank you David.
Ah, Henry Fitzroy, one of the two main characters in the Canadian Blood Ties TV show. The show wasn't that great but I loved they chose to create the vampire character as a Henry Fitzroy who never died, just became a vampire back in the day.
Thank you so much for bringing up the idea about the stability of the country being the reason for needing a male heir. I despise Henry as a manipulative cruel man. However, civil war is the one thing that will hurt a country more than anything else. Economically it's devastating. That's why they needed a male heir. Most people just think Henry was being selfish and wanting a boy to follow him. Some of it was selfish of course, but most of it was needed for the country.
At last ! Cadavers!
There is always a dead body waiting just around the corner on my channel!
What a treat this was! This is a hugely interesting period of history, and we can only speculate on the might-have-beens. I think if the king had really been preparing to make Henry his heir, then we would have some better portraits of him. As usual your illustrations are excellent, and the more usual 'antiquary'' content at the end of the video was fascinating. Thank you again.
I wonder if there might originally have been some larger, better portraits of Fitzroy that don't survive? Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I might not have been likely to have had a huge interest in preserving full-size portraits of their illegitimate half-brother, and it might not have been a high priority for the Stuart kings either. Then there was the Civil War and Commonwealth of the mid-1600s, in which innumerable things connected with royalty were destroyed. We'll never know, of course, but I do wonder if the little miniature of Fitzroy survived just because it was small and relatively easy to keep hidden?
Henry VIII remembered the “Anarchy”. Henry I persuaded the nobles to agree that his daughter, the Empress Mathilda, should succeed him. Following his death, the nation was divided. Half accepted the Empress Mathilda, half supported Stephen. The resulting civil war lasted several years, until a compromise was reached. Stephen would be King, but the Empress Mathilda’s son would then succeed him as Henry I. Nevertheless, by the time of the death of Edward VI, views had changed. The nation was, by then, prepared to accept a female Sovereign. Some supported Lady Jane Grey, some Mary. There was a short civil war, which everyone expected Lady Jane Grey’s forces to win. Instead, by good fortune, Mary’s forces won against all the odds. There then followed successful reigns by female Sovereigns - Mary I, Elizabeth I, Queen Anne, Queen Mary II, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II.
There was a fantasy series by Tanya Huff that has Henry Fitzroy surviving to the 20th century as a vampire.
To bad not knowing where she is buried and that there is only that small portrait of the kings son. You would think that the king would have wanted more portraits of his son. There are so many movies about the older king. I was wondering if you knew of any movies about his life as a younger king?
Interesting. Henry Fitzroy is one of the great "what-ifs" of history - what if Henry VIII hadn't had a legitimate son with Jane Seymour and Fitzroy hadn't died in 1536 - would he have been made heir and subsequently become King?
Looking forward to this! Have you made a feature on Prince Arthur? Would you consider doing so?
That is on the cards - but I'm going to do some filming in Ludlow and Worcester before I do it, so it may be next Spring.
@allanbarton Nice! Another one to anticipate.
Thank you ❤
I wish more people would remember his younger days, in appearance at least. He was always a monster if he thought he needed to be!
I think he was a good king in his early years, a fine, strong and able prince.
@allanbarton He didn't take much responsibility on, but that was probably quite universal with Kings 🙄 I also believe he had his father's tax collectors executed soon after his reign started to appease the people 🤷♀️ I just personally think the king we see in his later years was always there but life treated him better when he was younger. If Prince Henry had survived, Henry probably would have stayed good and kind.
@@cenedra2143He may have stayed a decent King had he not endured a Jousting injury that, it seems likely, caused a head injury and a resulting change of disposition for the worst. Certainly there are reports that he changed after the accident. A leg ulcer that left him in constant pain in his later life would also have contributed to his bad temper.
Actually something new.
Excellent upload.
New sub.😊
Thank you and welcome to the channel, I hope you enjoy it.
Burial for the powerful in those days was the start of a journey.
No mention of the books by Tanya Huff, or the series "Blood Ties"?
No - it's fantasy fiction and FitzRoy wasn't a vampire. They do sound like fun books though, they may even entice me (not a fiction reader) to read them.
@@allanbarton they are good escapist fiction. Well thought out plots.
They do sound entertaining - another alternate universe.
Why would he mention fictional books? This is about actual history
@@ArielsforkT'was a comment mayde in jest methinks..(hope this is historical enough for your tastes)..
Very captivating
So Henry didn't mind having the grave of his son disturbed. Kind of sounds like if someone wasn't of used to him, Henry discarded them.
Henry proved he could sire a son but no end to problems in pregnancy of his wives Catherine and anne which leads me to believe they may have contracted a disease such as chlamydia from Henry who was no stranger to outside dalliances.
This has been ruled out as the cause. He didn't have an std.
If you go into the disastrous 'Confinement' practices, lack of hygiene and nutritional beliefs of the upper classes at the time it made them as equally prone to childbirth issues as their Peasant counterparts, if for different reasons.
@@Arielsfork chlamydia wasnt known then and wasnt detectable like the “pox” of henry’s time. Of course there are many other reasons for problems of this kind and this is just one possibility.
Oh what a tangled web we weave. The Royals have always played away as it were. May I take this opportunity to wish you and your family a Happy Christmas and all the best for 2025.
Thank you Chris, and a merry Christmas to you too.
Makes one think about what the world would be like under the timeline of King Arthur the 1st
The U.K. wouldn’t exist, and England may have become a person union or vassal state of the Spanish empire. The British empire likely wouldn’t have existed and would have been under the Spanish, meaning the USA as we currently know it wouldn’t exist, and neither would modern China, as the fall of the Qing dynasty was heavily influenced by the opium wars. Most countries we currently know would be completely different without the British empire which began under Elizabeth I and later the Stewarts who wouldn’t have had the throne had Arthur lived, and since it is the cause of more independence days than any other nation and without its influence the world would be unrecognisable
HENRY DUCK
Nice pictures! It should be noticed though that this depicted "procession of the Knights of the Garter" is just symbolic. These kings never assembled and they would not have worn "heraldic mantles" as depicted. In fact, I am convinced that heraldic mantles were never actualy worn, they were just a ploy to identify a royal or armigerous person. Moreover, these monarchs would never have consented in giving precedence to a bastard!
Like the Black Books produced by other establishments (such as cathedrals) the Black Book of the Garter is essentially a ceremonial manual for the officers, its made function is to lay down existing tradition and establish precedent in ceremonial. The image was about about establishing clearly the order of precedence among the knights. None of the stranger knights attended as far as I'm aware, had they done so as sovereigns they would have taken precedence over all English lords. The heraldic mantles were certainly never worn, but it was a helpful way of visually showing that established precedence. I ought to do a short video on the Black Book as part of my irregular Garter series.
The roAh yes, the Borders - a region so ferocious, chaotic, and blood-soaked it’s barely worth a footnote in our gloriously oversimplified national narrative. Why bother with the messy reality of a place where endemic warfare raged for at least half a millennium, where national identity was about as important as the weather forecast, and where raids weren’t quaint little scuffles but full-blown military operations involving thousands? No, let’s just skip over all that. After all, who cares that this was a world where the Lord Warden of the Marches had to deal with constant, rampant banditry while the Lieutenant of the North planned full-scale invasions-because apparently managing northern chaos required two entirely separate job descriptions.
And during the Wars of the Roses, London itself was on edge. The fear wasn’t unfounded, given that the so-called Border Reivers (as we now romantically call them) had the audacity to raid Newcastle for captives-right under the nose of English authority. But sure, let’s pretend they were just a minor nuisance. Why dig into a history so brutal and complex it makes your precious Highland clans look like amateurs when you can stick to tartan fantasy and London centrism? God forbid people actually bother to learn something
Who precisely is pretending?
That's not what the video is about and if people want further information it's ridiculously easy to 'learn something' about anything on the Web. There are still some quaint old institutions called Libraries where one can wander at will that have these glorious objects called 'books' that contain all kinds of info. 'Ti's not rocket science mate.
@@allanbarton It's just the wilful ignorance of historians about anything north of Trent or anything that isn't all that Celticist nonsense or Scottish post-1707 navel gazing.
I have read at least three books on Tudor and Stuart rivalry that failed at all to mention anything to do with the 'Border Reivers' or anything like that.
It was a good opportunity to mention this period, but again immediately turned away from the subject.
@@OdeInWessex It's the wilful ignorance of historians like this, almost got to the point to discussing this but turned away immediately.
@@memofromessexthis video was not in any respect a good opportunity to talk at length about that subject, given this was a biography that was already very wide-ranging in scope. Personally I'm not in the least London-centric and I live north of the Trent!