Were Richard III and Henry Tudor (Henry VII) related?

[md2000]

The other point about knocking off potential claimants - the rival does not need to be imposing, threatening, claiming the throne, or even of age. Witness the case of Lady Jane Grey - all that is necessary is for an ambitious puppet master to get hold of the person with an arguably legitimate claim, to front for their cause. Hence, the more tenuous the current claim, the more important to eliminate roughly equally legitimate rivals.

[dtilque]

Anyone think this would all be simpler if they went back to the tradition of moistened bints passing out cutlery?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@dtilque

Anyone think this would all be simpler if they went back to the tradition of moistened bints passing out cutlery?

The Electoral College?

[md2000]

@dtilque

Anyone think this would all be simpler if they went back to the tradition of moistened bints passing out cutlery?

Watery tarts lobbing scimitars is no basis for a system of government.

[Encinitas]

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

[dtilque]

@Bryan_Ekers

The Electoral College?

I said “simpler”…

[Jim_s_Son]

@Tamerlane

Gentlemen, gentlemen - can’t we just agree that the princes were doomed either way ;)?

Personally as I’ve argued before I do think Richard III snuffed them, which was the only thing that kept Henry VII from doing the same. Those two characters were ruthless and calculating operators even by the brutal standards of their times ( and both were in that context pretty good monarch material ). Once Edward IV died the princes were probably as good as worm food no matter who ended up on top.

Someone once pointed out that the real villain of the War of the Roses wasn’t Richard III but Henry VI. Of course if wasn’t Henry’s fault his father died when he was a child or as an adult he had months of mental insanity. But England suffered because of his reign.

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Jim_s_Son

Someone once pointed out that the real villain of the War of the Roses wasn’t Richard III but Henry VI. Of course if wasn’t Henry’s fault his father died when he was a child or as an adult he had months of mental insanity. But England suffered because of his reign.

I blame Margaret of Anjou.

[DrDeth]

@TwentyTrees

Henry VII and Richard III were third cousins one removed.

Henry’s mother, Margaret Beaufort, and Richard III were third cousins ie they shared a Great Great Grandparent Edward III.

Edward III -> John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster) -> John Beaufort (1st Earl of Somerset) -> John Beaufort (1st Duke of Somerset) -> Margaret Beaufort -> Henry VII.

Edward III -> Edmund of York -> Richard of Cambridge -> Richard of York -> Richard III.

All’s well that ends well since Henry marries Edward IV’s daughter, his fourth cousin, Elisabeth and brings the houses of Lancaster and York together in the body of Henry VIII although it is Henry’s elder sister Margaret that continues the line to the present day.

Complex. The succession of Henry VII is the largest distance in terms of genealogy that occurred in the English monarchy.

Are you sure? William the bastard was pretty far removed from Edward the Confessor.

[Saint_Cad]

@DrDeth

Are you sure? William the bastard was pretty far removed from Edward the Confessor.

As per Wiki - not that far removed

In the 1050s and early 1060s William became a contender for the throne of England, then held by the childless Edward the Confessor, his first cousin once removed.

[MarcusF]

@Saint_Cad

As per Wiki - not that far removed

Yes, Edward’s mother was William’s grandfather’s brother.

[Saint_Cad]

@MarcusF

Yes, Edward’s mother was William’s grandfather’s brother.

That’s an interesting family dynamic.