tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post3830129508463759462..comments2024-03-28T15:16:29.965-05:00Comments on Tudor Q and A: Question from Tudor Fan - Henry's potential career in the Church if Arthur had livedLarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630629272030282584noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-68260939109043829552012-02-22T16:54:15.933-06:002012-02-22T16:54:15.933-06:00Good call, Laura! I, too, doubt that a son of Arth...Good call, Laura! I, too, doubt that a son of Arthur's would have lived to take the crown.<br /><br />There is a great deal of debate about whether Richard III was guilty of the murder of his nephews. It does seem a bit out of character for him. He forbade his troops, during the War of the Roses, to rape and pillage. This was very unusual for the time period, and much resented by the soldiers.<br /><br />Before Richard actually governed them, (prior to the time he became king) the people of York were not pro-Yorkist. Richard, during his tenure there under Edward IV, became a much loved leader. In a nutshell, Richard had this totally bizarre idea (for the times) that the common people should have rights, too.<br /><br />I honestly think that for his time, Richard was a good man. This being said, I'm not ready to run out and join the Richard III society. Richard saw firsthand as a child what civil war could do to a country, especially when the House of Lancaster was "ruled" by a child king, or a mad king, (take your pick) surrounded by ambitious men.<br /><br />Had he tried to hold the throne for his nephew, Edward, there would have been civil wars to control him,(The Woodvilles vs. Plantagenet) as well as the Lancastrian threat presented by Henry Tudor. Can I see Richard, very regretfully, ordering the murders of his nephews to avoid the deaths of thousands? Possibly.<br /><br />That being said, can I imagine Henry VIII doing this to a son of Arthur? Absolutely.Mary Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-73696745557966801482012-02-17T12:03:07.875-06:002012-02-17T12:03:07.875-06:00Any son of Arthur would likely have been given his...Any son of Arthur would likely have been given his own title...there were certainly enough titles owned by the crown to have allowed for this.<br /><br />While he would not have held the title "Prince of Wales" concurrently with Arthur, if Katherine had given birth to a son after Arthur had died, he certainly would have been next in line for the throne when Henry VII died, rather than Henry. Though, English history being what it was, it is unlikely that any potential child heir could have held the throne at the time. The Tudor dynasty gained legitimacy mostly through H VIII's long reign, which is why his so, though still a child was able to inherit the throne. I suspect that if Katherine had given birth to a son following the death of her first husband, the fate of the child would likely have been the same as the fate of the Two Princes (the sons of Edward of York) who both perished while under "protection" in the Tower of London.Laurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02432041328889618278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-30109929191467291262012-02-13T10:05:29.566-06:002012-02-13T10:05:29.566-06:00I believe Henry was slated to become Archbishop of...I believe Henry was slated to become Archbishop of York upon his ordination-no starting in the mailroom for a Tudor! <br /><br />The fact that Henry VII wanted his younger son to go into the church surprises me, because if Arthur didn't have sons, the Tudor dynasty would have come to an end, at least through the male line.<br /><br />As far as a aon of Arthur's, he would have been Prince (whatever his name was) just as Prince William was Princ William before he married and the Queen made him the Duke of Cambidge.Mary Rnoreply@blogger.com