tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post3798017321930622697..comments2024-03-28T15:16:29.965-05:00Comments on Tudor Q and A: Question from Mary Ann - Possible 8th child of Henry VII and Elizabeth of YorkLarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630629272030282584noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-72250963485904188172013-09-21T18:11:48.588-05:002013-09-21T18:11:48.588-05:00Hi a reason you can not find it by reserching is ,...Hi a reason you can not find it by reserching is ,that children born ,who may have died in infancy were not added to the censes as living people.This might be why you have not found him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02214900743574289141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-81502492890225146432013-09-21T15:57:27.829-05:002013-09-21T15:57:27.829-05:00This painting has all Henry VII's children, ev...This painting has all Henry VII's children, even the ones who did not survive infancy. It only shows 3 boys (Arthur, Henry & Edmund), yet it has all 4 girls which includes Catherine who was the last-born (after Edward's supposed birth date). It is supposed to be contemporary (1503-9).<br /><br />http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/401228/the-family-of-henry-vii-with-st-george-and-the-dragon<br /><br />It seems if there was a prince Edward he would be included in here.Denisenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16981893.post-35683903617284057762013-09-06T18:29:24.218-05:002013-09-06T18:29:24.218-05:00Among contemporary historians of the period, the r...Among contemporary historians of the period, the reference appears only in Holinshed's Chronicles: "The foure and twentith of Februarie in this fifteenth yeare of this kings reigne his third son was christened and was named Edward."<br /><br />Most historians who embrace the existence of Edward identify his birth year as 1500, 15 years after Bosworth. The difficulty is that Holinshed identifies him as the third son and omits entirely the existence of Edmund Tudor, indisputably the third son and comparatively well-documented in his existence.<br /><br />Edmund was born February 21, 1499 (although I found one 17th-century historian who said 1487). If Edward is a mistake for Edmund, you can see how it happened - the similarity of the names and dates, and possible confusion over calculating regnal years. <br /><br />On the other hand, although Henry VII and Elizabeth generally observed a greater spacing between their children, there is one other similar set of births spaced only 1 year apart: Henry VIII, born June 28 1491, and his sister Elizbeth, born July 2 1492. So it's possible. <br /><br />Some reputable modern historians assign eight births to Elizabeth of York - G.W. Bernard and Susan Doran among them - but many go with the count of seven. I suppose it can't be finally resolved until the Tudor tombs are opened up and the bones counted.<br /><br />I tend to be skeptical - the lack of other contemporary sources acknowledging the child's existence seems a bit suspicious, plus the similarity of names, plus Henry VII's apparent uneasiness in dredging up Yorkist references in his progency's naming. "George" seems definitely a stretch - there are no Georges in the Tudor or Beaufort lines, and Elizabeth of York's Uncle George was remembered as a bad 'un. Possibly if Margaret Pole was chosen as godmother, the name might have cropped up - but I doubt she'd have the temerity or standing, in 1500, to suggest it.Foosenoreply@blogger.com