Lovely post on Elizabeth and Henry's wedding. If Elizabeth had been a Spanish or French Princess having to prepare and travel to England and negotiations taking place, the delay would have been longer than a few months. Nobody would be questioning any delay. The preparations alone must have taken some time to arrange.
Thank you for explaining what actually happened from the contemporary sources and the context of Henry and Elizabeth's union.
Legal complications, the coronation of Henry and Henry's settlement of a divided group of factions all had to be done first. All delays are perfectly obvious to me and practical. I think the criticism of Henry in this shows people don't read anything.
Worse still is the accusation put forward by PG in her popular novels that Henry raped Elizabeth or tried her out. There is absolutely no evidence for this and it makes no sense at all. Unfortunately too many people believe such nonsense. We don't even know if Elizabeth was pregnant before her wedding or if Arthur was simply a few weeks premature. If she was then we should allow that the couple fancied each other and good luck to them. Again there is no evidence other than the dates not quite working out for anyone to know either way. Arthur was healthy and 8 month babies are not uncommon.
Was it a love match? Probably not but it grew into a successful one, they were devoted as a couple, had 7 children and despite the politics, Elizabeth found life with Henry rewarding.
Excellent post - one question: Is there any possible truth to the rumor that Elizabeth of York was already pregnant at the time they got married? Could they have slept together in December, which might explain Arthur's early arrival? Just curious, although I'm guessing it's doubtful. Thank you for your wonderful insights and the sharing of your knowledge.
Its an unknowable question. Arthur was born 8 months after his parent's marriage but could simply have been premature. It happens. One thought is that, with the dispensation a certainty, they bedded early. However, I'm inclined to believe the former - it seems incredibly unlikely Henry would do anything that could sabotage any accusation his child was a bastard.
So in reversing the act of illegitimacy for Elizabeth he also did so for her bothers? If that’s the case he must have known they were dead or surely it was a risk to himself. The Princes illegitimacy helped his claim as much as it had helped Richard’s.
A Ricardian would argue that by doing so, he had the motive to kill the princes. I'd agree with that stance, but it takes a huge leap of faith that they survived for 2years under Richard III until Henry became king.
For me, my reading is exactly as you put it - he must have been confident the boys were dead, as too were the Woodvilles to give him their support.
And to your point that it would have given Henry motive to kill the Princes and if that was what he intended then he surely would have had to have them already in custody as making them legitimate while they were out of his control had to be too risky. Either the Princes were already dead or Henry had them. Hence the pretenders were just that. Case closed 😀
I personally feel that he, including his allies, believes 80% that the prince is dead. This is not a matter of either completely believing or absolutely not believing.
This is not necessarily the case. If Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, she could not have become the Queen of England. Since England has never had an illegitimate queen, since most supporters of Henry VII were supporters of Elizabeth's father and brothers, even if he was unsure if the prince had died, they must be legalized or else it would lead to their dissatisfaction. Therefore, Henry VII's parliamentary bill explicitly stated that he and his heirs were superior to all other heirs
Lovely post on Elizabeth and Henry's wedding. If Elizabeth had been a Spanish or French Princess having to prepare and travel to England and negotiations taking place, the delay would have been longer than a few months. Nobody would be questioning any delay. The preparations alone must have taken some time to arrange.
Thank you for explaining what actually happened from the contemporary sources and the context of Henry and Elizabeth's union.
Legal complications, the coronation of Henry and Henry's settlement of a divided group of factions all had to be done first. All delays are perfectly obvious to me and practical. I think the criticism of Henry in this shows people don't read anything.
Worse still is the accusation put forward by PG in her popular novels that Henry raped Elizabeth or tried her out. There is absolutely no evidence for this and it makes no sense at all. Unfortunately too many people believe such nonsense. We don't even know if Elizabeth was pregnant before her wedding or if Arthur was simply a few weeks premature. If she was then we should allow that the couple fancied each other and good luck to them. Again there is no evidence other than the dates not quite working out for anyone to know either way. Arthur was healthy and 8 month babies are not uncommon.
Was it a love match? Probably not but it grew into a successful one, they were devoted as a couple, had 7 children and despite the politics, Elizabeth found life with Henry rewarding.
Excellent post - one question: Is there any possible truth to the rumor that Elizabeth of York was already pregnant at the time they got married? Could they have slept together in December, which might explain Arthur's early arrival? Just curious, although I'm guessing it's doubtful. Thank you for your wonderful insights and the sharing of your knowledge.
Its an unknowable question. Arthur was born 8 months after his parent's marriage but could simply have been premature. It happens. One thought is that, with the dispensation a certainty, they bedded early. However, I'm inclined to believe the former - it seems incredibly unlikely Henry would do anything that could sabotage any accusation his child was a bastard.
So in reversing the act of illegitimacy for Elizabeth he also did so for her bothers? If that’s the case he must have known they were dead or surely it was a risk to himself. The Princes illegitimacy helped his claim as much as it had helped Richard’s.
A Ricardian would argue that by doing so, he had the motive to kill the princes. I'd agree with that stance, but it takes a huge leap of faith that they survived for 2years under Richard III until Henry became king.
For me, my reading is exactly as you put it - he must have been confident the boys were dead, as too were the Woodvilles to give him their support.
And to your point that it would have given Henry motive to kill the Princes and if that was what he intended then he surely would have had to have them already in custody as making them legitimate while they were out of his control had to be too risky. Either the Princes were already dead or Henry had them. Hence the pretenders were just that. Case closed 😀
I personally feel that he, including his allies, believes 80% that the prince is dead. This is not a matter of either completely believing or absolutely not believing.
This is not necessarily the case. If Elizabeth of York was illegitimate, she could not have become the Queen of England. Since England has never had an illegitimate queen, since most supporters of Henry VII were supporters of Elizabeth's father and brothers, even if he was unsure if the prince had died, they must be legalized or else it would lead to their dissatisfaction. Therefore, Henry VII's parliamentary bill explicitly stated that he and his heirs were superior to all other heirs