Tudor party crashers
Those irksome Tudors are barging onto my Facebook page again, the ultimate party-crashers. I’ll start with the Tudor by marriage, whom I still think of as a daughter of York, Elizabeth. She has the dubious distinction of being born and then dying on the same date, February 11th, entering the world in 1166 and departing it in 1503, at only thirty-seven. She must have been a woman of considerable charm, for even Henry Tudor seems to have grieved for her. He and his son are strangely linked by the date, January 28th, for he was born on that day in 1457 and Henry VIII died on January 28th, 1547.
I hope that all of my readers down in the Atlanta area are faring better in this latest storm than they did last week. We’re getting another storm ourselves on Thursday. One of the TV forecasters said it is our eleventh of the season, and I can well believe it. I am so ready to surrender, to concede defeat to Mother Nature, but she seems intent upon taking no prisoners in her winter war.
I hope that all of my readers down in the Atlanta area are faring better in this latest storm than they did last week. We’re getting another storm ourselves on Thursday. One of the TV forecasters said it is our eleventh of the season, and I can well believe it. I am so ready to surrender, to concede defeat to Mother Nature, but she seems intent upon taking no prisoners in her winter war.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Sharon
(new)
Feb 11, 2014 07:01AM
Several eagle-eyed readers pointed out that Elizabeth of York had an extraordinarily long life, based on the dates I provided. To save time, I am copying and pasting my response. " if only I had a dollar for every time I did that, I could go someplace warm for a week! I used to think it was carelessness, typing too fast or not proof reading. But since I almost always transport people back to the 12th century, which happens to be my favorite medieval period, I think more may be at work here."
reply
|
flag
Happy Birthday to Elizabeth of York!I think that deep down Henry Tudor did love her, but I am curious that as a queen she has a backseat to his mother. I am not a fan of Margaret Beaufort, at all, but I think that because his claim to the throne really could only be made through Elizabeth, you think that he would have wanted her more as she was, and not brow beaten by his mother. Just me? Or does anyone else feel this way?
I don't think Henry wanted people to think his right to the throne came through his wife, Rebecca. It always seemed to me that he was defensive about his claim. And of course he committed an utterly unscrupulous, despicable act by claiming his reign began the day before Bosworth so he could charge with treason men who'd fought for King Richard. I think the Tudors deliberately kept Elizabeth in the background. Having said that, I do think he came to care about her and his grieving was genuine.
Tudor though had no right to the throne, Elizabeth or not. Since Katherine Swineford was a mistress who bore children before the marriage, they were barred from the succession by decree when Swineford married john of guant. But I guess the Lancastrians we're so desperate they either forgot, convieniently ignored, or honestly didn't know that Margaret Beaufort had no legal claim through the throne, by her own right or her sons.
But you are right. He did not want people to think she was his only link to the throne, when in fact she was
I agree, Rebecca. In reality, he claimed the crown by right of conquest, but kings were rarely comfortable admitting that and usually tried to give their claims a patina of legality.
I can't even begin to imagine having Margaret Beaufort as a mother in law - oh, forgive me. That's monster-in-law!It is very sad that Elizabeth was kept in the background - not at all like her mother, was she? No keeping her in the background!
Sharon Kay Penman's Blog
- Sharon Kay Penman's profile
- 4037 followers
Sharon Kay Penman isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
