Contrary to popular assumption, Pope Boniface IX did not retrospectively render the Beauforts legitimate in the eyes of the Church when their adulterous parents eventually married. His apostolic letter explicitly states that he declares legitimate any offspring ‘received and to be received from this marriage’ [of Gaunt and their mother]: prolem ex hujusmodi matrimonio susceptam et suscipiendam (my emphasis). The Beauforts were born before their parents’ marriage.
I saw ANNETTE CARSON's article??? Their history is different from what I know. If Beaufort had not been legalized, why would Henry IV have deprived them of their inheritance rights? Why was Suffolk imprisoned during the reign of Henry VI on charges of wanting to inherit the throne?? I know this lady's paper is not very reliable, can you explain it?
I'm assuming you're talking about Annette Carson's self-published essay "The Beaufort Legitimation", which I couldn't do more than skim read as I could actively feel my braincells die as I started reading it. I'm never read Annette Carson's work before, mainly because her reputation as a crank has always preceded her (my lack of interest in Richard III also helps). This... does not convince me her reputation is unearned.
So: if a historian with a dubious reputation suddenly declares they have proof of something that upends a centuries-old accepted fact, they need some really good evidence. Carson does not have really good evidence. She has nothing new. Her "proof" is the assertion that the translators of the Calendar of Papal Letters have translated the letter legitating the Beauforts wrong and she (who, as far as I can make out, is not a trained historian), has translated it right.
I can't read Latin so I can't comment on her translation work and honestly, I think her argument is so specious that I don't think it's worth bothering my friend who does. I will note that both Carson and the Richard III Society insist she is the only one to have translated Mancini's De Occupatione Regni Anglie (again, self-published by her) properly so it seems like a trend.
I also wonder why, if the evidence is as clear-cut as Carson says it is, why no one has ever questioned it before this. The Beaufort's legitimation has been the subject of some pretty intense scrutiny, both because of what it meant for the Tudor claim to the throne and because of it's connection to the love story of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. The explanation cannot be "Tudor propaganda" or "historians are too dumb to recognise the truth" or "historians are actively covering it up" because those are deeply unserious explanations.
It also just does not make sense. Why was there the "mantle ceremony" performed in parliament when the Beauforts were legitimated if they weren't actually legitimated? Why does Froissart state the legitimation of the Beaufort children was a motivation for Gaunt's marriage to Katherine? Why did no one make plain that the Beauforts held no rights to the throne at an opportune moment? As you point out, the marriage of Suffolk's son to Margaret Beaufort raised fears he was trying to effectively claim the throne for himself. Why did no one point out that the Beauforts had no claim then? How do we explain why Henry Tudor was seen as a potential threat by the Yorkists? Why did Richard III make no use of this to nip support for Henry Tudor in the bud?
And why doesn't Carson discuss these things? Probably because it would undermine her argument and because she has no explanation for it beyond asserting that the Lancastrians and Tudors covered it up, though there was little reason to.
Her other "proof" is a highly speculative argument about Richard II and John of Gaunt's motives and relationships. It is... not good. Her bias against Gaunt is also very clear, especially since she characterises him primarily as a covetous villain. There's a lot of things here that people who specialise in Richard II's reign would take issue with. It's a very simple narrative that demonises Lancaster and sets the stage for the Glorious Yorks Correcting A Terrible Wrong. In other words, it's the prequel to the Ricardian view of the Wars of the Roses.
We don't know what Richard II really intended when he legitimated the Beauforts. Likely, it was a reward for Gaunt's assistance in the Revenge Parliament. We do not know that Richard was always planning to banish and disinherit Henry (which I believe Carson gets from Ian Mortimer - if Mortimer told me the sky was blue, I'd need a peer-review before I believed him) and that he would have never, ever have allowed the Beauforts to be in the line of the succession because he hated Gaunt that badly.
Here's some things we do know. The story Richard banished Henry for life is only, iirc, found in one account with a clear Lancastrian bias so it was probably not true. We know that he did not attaint Henry or his line - I believe there is some evidence that Richard left the possibility that Henry and his heirs could claim the inheritance open. IMHO, it seems likely that what Richard was doing was using Henry's absence as an excuse to take the duchy lands into his own hands and grant them out as he pleased in a similar way that a king could hold lands while the heir was a minor. We also know Richard had a positive relationship with Henry of Monmouth, the future Henry V, and it is entirely possible that Richard was doing this with the intention of having a Duke of Lancaster that was loyal to him. In short, the picture is a lot more complicated than Annette Carson allows.
The theory, although novel, fits in a certain pattern. Ricardians have been salivating over the thought that Henry VII had no real right to the throne for a very long time now. They've promulgated theories that Catherine of Valois's Tudor children are secret Beaufort bastards based on such poor evidence like "they had a border around their arms!" and "Edmund Tudor has the same name as Edmund Beaufort?!" They've theorised that John Beaufort was actually Hugh Swynford's son and not John of Gaunt's and thus the Tudors had no right to the throne because they had no royal blood. They've declared the Beauforts to be Not Lancastrian because they weren't descended from Blanche of Lancaster and then brought up the story about Edmund Crouchback being the elder son of Henry III as proof that the Beauforts had no right to the throne at all. They happily point to the story that John of Gaunt was a changeling because it means neither Lancaster nor Tudor had a claim to the throne... a
There is not a shred of real, definitive evidence for any of this. All of it is just a Ricardian fever dream of speculation upon speculation that basically comes back to the same old thing: proving that Henry VII had no right to the throne, none at all, and Richard III was wronged!
Book Review: “House of Beaufort: The Bastard line that captured the crown” by Nathen Amin
This is a book every history buff needs to read if they are interested in finding out about the roots of one of the most infamous dynasties in world history, who will continue to fascinate us in decades to come.
I absolutely loved how descriptive how Nathen Amin was. From start to finish, I was hooked. And this is one of those books that I just had to re-read again because being a huge history buff, I wanted to see what important things I hadn’t highlighted. Turns out that with a book like this, everything is a highlight so you might as well be stuck taking notes and going back to the original source when you want to check something you might have missed.
Writing a biography is not easy, especially one that takes on the challenge of chronicling the life of a family that has been largely obscured by their most infamous and famous contemporaries. Nathen Amin begins with Henry Tudor’s ascension to the throne of England following Richard III’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth. It is a tale that takes you back through time, to an era of deceit, love, loss, shifting loyalties and above all, survival.
When Margaret Beaufort watched her son being crowned, her confessor, later Bishop Fisher, said that they weren’t tears of joy but of fear. She was the only surviving member of the eldest son of John of Gaunt and his mistress (later wife) Kathryn Swynford. The fact that she had seen her family nearly fade into oblivion and lived through many reigns, was more than enough to worry about her son’s future.
But through it all, she like most of the first Beauforts persevered.
This is a tale of one’s family unlikely rise to power and whose descendants still sit on the throne of England. Those who are new to this era will learn a great deal about it from this book, and those who are already familiar with it won’t be disappointed either because unlike pop historians, the author was objective and the least bias possible, drawing his conclusions from what is known about this period, contemporary and later (reliable) sources, and archaeological evidence.
I’m proud to say, this is a great addition to my collection of favorite books and I am guessing you will feel the same way after you finish it. This is a reminder that the impossible often became possible and that there were no shortages of twists and turns, often due to kings and aristocrats’ excesses and their miscalculation and plain sheer luck, that led to these least likely outcomes.
If you are new to this era, this is a good book to start that sheds light on the roots of Henry VII's maternal family and if you already are, it will still be a good book to read because it highlights a lot of good facts about this period rarely explored.
Full review: https://tudorsandotherhistories.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/book-review-the-house-of-beaufort-the-bastard-line-that-captured-the-crown-by-nathen-amin/
“As I have spoken her praises in a funeral oration, I will not pursue the subject here, though she never could be praised too much. This only will I add, that though she chose me as her director, to hear her confessions and guide her life, yet I gladly confess that I learnt more from her great virtue than I ever taught her.”- Bishop John Fisher on Margaret Beaufort.
(HENRIETTE hears unrest and finds the source in DAMIEN’s room)
Henriette: Dearest? Are you alright?
Damien: It’s fine, Mother. I just can’t sleep.
Hnriette: You’ve cut your hair...
Damien: You hated it long, didn’t you? It’s too warm now, anyways.
(HENRIETTE sits at her son’s bedside)
Henriette: What’s wrong?
Damien: Everything, nothing. I don’t know.
Henriette: You always were my favorite, Damien. You and Christiana. I know a Mother should never, but it’s true. I love the others very much, I do, but the two of you...nothing came close to that.
Damien: I know, Mother. I hate that I’ve become such a disappointment to you. God, it’s been three years and I can’t stop thinking of her...!
Henriette: Your sister?
Damien: Yes. I don’t know why it was her instead of me. She was so good...she always had time for everyone. Me and Evangeline would fight like cats and dogs, but she’d never take sides. The world took so much from her, and she never stopped smiling. She was a marvel. I lied and sinned and hurt people, and here I am while she’s dead and buried. It’s not fair.
Henriette: Yes, she suffered more than anyone else I’ve ever known, and yet she was the happiest. She wouldn’t want you to dwell, and neither do I.
