I’m pleased to announce the launching of Tony Riches’ second book in his historical fiction trilogy series, Jasper.
Following the best-selling historical fiction novel OWEN – Book One of The Tudor Trilogy, this is the story, based on actual events, of Owen’s son Jasper Tudor, who changes the history of England forever.
England 1461: The young King Edward of York takes the country by force from King Henry VI of Lancaster. Sir Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, flees the massacre of his Welsh army at the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross and plans a rebellion to return his half-brother King Henry to the throne.
When King Henry is imprisoned by Edward in the Tower of London and murdered, Jasper escapes to Brittany with his young nephew, Henry Tudor. After the sudden death of King Edward and the mysterious disappearance of his sons, a new king, Edward’s brother Richard III takes the English Throne. With nothing but his wits and charm, Jasper sees his chance to make young Henry Tudor king with a daring and reckless invasion of England.
Set in the often brutal world of fifteenth century England, Wales, Scotland, France, Burgundy and Brittany, during the Wars of the Roses, this fast-paced story is one of courage and adventure, love and belief in the destiny of the Tudors.
“Without the heroic Jasper Tudor there could have been no Tudor dynasty.” Terry Breverton, author, historian and Television Presenter.
“Jasper Tudor was the greatest survivor of the Wars of the Roses. Whilst almost all his contemporaries suffered often brutal and bloody deaths, Jasper persevered against all the odds. That’s not to say it was easy, as you will discover.” Nathen Amin, Author of Tudor Wales
The book is available on Amazon UK, US and AU.
About the Author
Tony Riches is a full time author of best-selling fiction and non-fiction books. He lives by the sea in Pembrokeshire, West Wales with his wife and enjoys sea and river kayaking in his spare time.
For more information about Tony’s other books please visit his popular blog, The Writing Desk and his WordPress website and find him on Facebook and Twitter @tonyriches.
Whilst everyone assumes that I am into the ‘Tudors subject’ as a whole, 1485 to 1603 is a substantial period of time covering many aspects. I find myself drawn to the early period of the Tudors and in particular the reign of Henry VII and the Wars of the Roses that preceded his rise. Henry VIII interests me, his multiple wives and successors less so.
Therefore I was expecting to be intrigued by this new offering from Morris and Greuninger, just not overly so. With books like this, focusing on parts of the Tudor reign that I normally choose to overlook as matter of preference, I tend to try and focus on any information relating to Henry VII that I didn’t previously know. Any concerns I may have had about being bored by the subject matter at hand however, was dispelled as soon as I saw the contents page. Castle after Castle and Palace after Palace, including some oddly unfamiliar ones.
This book follows on the heels of the pairs’ much-lauded book In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn, a release that has become a must-have for those stimulated by the charismatic enigma that was Henry VIII’s second queen. Casting the net wider, this new offering seeks to, self-explanatory, follow in the footsteps of not only Anne, but also her five other fellow queens of Henry VIII.
Guide books like this are a particular favourite of mine. I not only enjoy reading history, I enjoy visiting history and judging from the continued survival of many of Britain’s historic treasures, this seems to be a widely held sentiment. Being able to picture a location from words alone can be rewarding, but to physically visit a site is even better. For those unable to, due to time, distance or otherwise, books like this are an invaluable aid in furthering ones knowledge. But do not be mistaken, this is not a basic guide book light on historical content.
The book is split into seven sections, with one covering the principal royal residences known to all, followed by an individual section dedicated to each queen. In total we are provided eighty locations, with a detailed history of each along with information on any interesting artefacts or features still extant. This is bolstered by over 130 pictures of the sites for those unable to physically visit. A welcome inclusion is the plethora of family trees, maps and timelines that augment the text. Each entry has also been visited by the authors, which is evident in their narrative as they paint a vivid mental picture with their words. Furthermore each queen is introduced with a short biography so even if you have no prior knowledge of the personalities involved, you are catered for. It’s information-overload in the best sense of the word.
The old favourites are here; Hampton Court Palace, Whitehall Palace and Windsor Castle. But where this book stands on its own is the inclusion of the lesser known sites which once hosted queens of England. Acton Court near Bristol has a room where Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII dined in whilst for the first time that I’m aware of we are introduced to the various locations in Germany and Spain with Tudor connections. Dusseldorf features prominently in reference to Anne of Cleves with Spanish sites such as the Royal Palace of Medina del Campo, Alcazar of Seville or the Santiago de Compostela Cathedral providing a thorough account of the early life of Katherine of Aragon. An example of the detailed narrative can be found in the entry for the Archbishop’s Palace, Alcala de Henares in Madrid, where Katherine was born. The authors describe the palace as;
“a vast complex of buildings, gardens and courtyards, more than double the size of the original fortress. It comprised several patios (courtyards), towers, galleries and chambers, including la sala de la Reyna, the queen’s chamber, elaborately decorated in Gothic-Mudejar style, and on the floor above, el Salon de Concilios, or Council Wing”.
Elsewhere, I hadn’t heard of the Echateau d’Amboise or the Schloss Dusselforf for example, so these were fascinating to discover. Closer to home, I hadn’t come across places such as Beddington Place, the Manor of Bletchingley or Thornton Abbey before. The research cannot be faulted.
In the introduction to the book, the authors note that In the Footsteps… takes the reader ‘from the sun-baked plains of Spain in the south, through the lush mountains of the Rhine Valley in Germany to the east, via the great abbeys of England’s West Country to the medieval cities of northern England’. They’re not wrong. Thoroughly enjoyable read, that can be used as and when you need it as a handy reference guide. I’ll certainly be taking it out and about next time I’m visiting any Tudor sites.
Sarah Morris runs the website http://www.anneboleynbook.com, dedicated to her non-fiction and fiction writing about England’s most famous queen consort.
Natalie Grueninger is a researcher, writer and educator, and founder of http://www.onthetudortrail.com, a site about Anne Boleyn and Tudor England. She is the co-author, with Sarah Morris, of In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn.
January 28th is a very special birthday. On that date in the year 1457 a baby was born in Pembroke Castle, a baby destined to become King of England and the founder of the brilliant Tudor dynasty. How do we intend to celebrate this? With a stunning bronze statue to King Henry VII which will, in the near future, stand proud on the Mill Bridge to greet visitors to our historic town. The maquette of the statue, which has been commissioned by Pembroke Town Council, was unveiled last week at a fundraising event organised by Pembroke & Monkton Local History Society in Pembroke Town Hall. Chair of the History Society Cllr Linda Asman, who is also leading the Statue Project, commented
“What better way to celebrated Henry’s birthday than a present of a cheque to start the Statue Appeal rolling? The History Society has so far raised £500 for the project and is presenting this to Pembroke Town Council in the hope that it will inspire other organisations in the town to follow suite. This is a project for the whole community to get behind; a celebration of Pembroke’s heritage”.
The bronze maquette is now displayed in the foyer of Pembroke Town Hall for all to see. The statue will cost in the region of £40,000 and Pembroke Town Council is extremely grateful to Pembrokeshire County Council for the allocation of £20,000 regeneration money as part of their Town Centre Support programme. The remainder has to be raised to match fund that amount.
Ideas for fundraising as well as donations will be appreciated, Please ccontact Suzie Thomas ‘Henry VII Statue Appeal’ Pembroke Town Hall, Main Street, Pembroke 01646 683092 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO HELP FUND THE STATUE AND WANT TO DONATE; then please make cheque donations out to –
‘Henry VII Statue Fund’ and addressed to Henry VII Statue Fund, c/o Pembroke Town Clerk, Pembroke Town Hall, Main Street, Pembroke, SA71 4JS
Following in the footsteps of Henry and Jasper Tudor – Author Tony Riches goes down the secret tunnels.
There is an often repeated legend that on June 2nd, 1471, the fourteen year old Henry and Jasper Tudor went into hiding below the streets of the seaside town of Tenby in Pembrokeshire before fleeing to Brittany.
It is certainly likely that they could have hidden in the cellars of Jasper’s good friend Thomas White’s house in the high street, where Boots the chemist now stands. It is also said that they later escaped to the harbour through underground tunnels which run towards the harbour, and sailed to Brittany on one of Thomas White’s boats.
Today I was lucky enough to be shown the cellars and tunnels by Fiona Bousie, the Manager of Boots in Tenby, as part of the research for my new novel ‘Henry ~ Book Three of The Tudor Trilogy’.
Reassured to learn there are no rats living down there, we started in the extensive basement cellars, now used as store-rooms by Boots, and it is easy to see how Jasper and Henry could have remained there out of sight for as long as they needed to.
As we entered the tunnels we were plunged into darkness and had to rely on torches. I could see that the roof of the tunnel closest to the entrance had been rebuilt with bricks and the remains of a fireplace complete with chimney. This seemed a strange thing to have in a tunnel and could be further evidence for its use to hide people, who could need a fire for warmth.
Further down the tunnel the roof was roughly hewn through bedrock, with several other exits bricked up. This looked to have been done centuries ago, as there was calcification of the surface, which takes a long time to form.
After emerging back into the winter sun of Tenby I went to pay my respects to Thomas White, who rests with his son in St Mary’s church across the road. We may never know if the story is true but I am now convinced it was at least possible.
Tony Riches is a UK historical fiction author living in Pembrokeshire, Wales. You can find out more on Tony’s blog ‘The Writing Desk’ at http://www.tonyriches.co.uk and find him on Twitter @tonyriches. His best-selling book Owen ~ Book One of the Tudor Trilogy is available in eBook and paperback on Amazon. Jasper ~ Book Two of The Tudor Trilogy will be published at Easter and the final book in the trilogy in 2017.
A recent campaign has been initiated in Pembroke to see the production of a statue dedicated to Henry VII, the King of England who was born in the Welsh town. You can see the details of the campaign from this previous article by clicking HERE
On Saturday 16th January a second public meeting was held where a maquette was unveiled displaying what the final statue would look like. Tony Riches, author of Owen: Book One of the Tudor Trilogy, was present and reported the following, along with some photographs;
The maquette for the proposed new statue of Henry VII was unveiled by the sculptor Harriet Addyman. This is the start of the fundraising campaign to bring a statue of Henry VII to the town of his birth.
Harriet Addyman said, ‘it has been fascinating to learn about the life of Henry VII during the research phase of developing the work.’
It is hoped the statue will be placed in front of Pembroke Castle, and it was announced that progress has been made towards raising the £40,000 needed for the statue, and Pembrokeshire County Council has agreed to ‘match fund’ the costs.
The event was well attended and also screened ‘Years of the Tudors’ – A local film taken in Pembroke Castle to mark the 500th anniversary of Henry’s victory at Bosworth.
It has become standard practice for history enthusiasts to be an unquestioning supporter of either Henry VII or Richard III, naming the other as the worst villain of their age. Is this a fair assessment? The fact that we cannot agree on which man is the evil one should be enough to make one wonder if they weren’t both something between demon and angel.
Historical fiction has been particularly unkind to Henry Tudor. He is expected by readers to be cold, calculating, and a little too much of a mama’s boy. One bestselling author even paints him as a rapist, while others simply have him treat his wife, Elizabeth of York, with contempt and disdain. Primary records demonstrate that this picture of Henry is almost completely false.
In Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England, Thomas Penn establishes that Henry was an intelligent ruler who unified England after decades of bloodshed in the Wars of the Roses. He was also devout, as is evinced by the fact that his few money-spending occasions were those that took place within the church and before God: coronations, weddings, and funerals. Known as a penny-pincher, Henry was willing to outlay cash when he felt it was worth it, but he also worked to correct the state of the royal coffers that he had taken over.
Even before his surprising success, Henry Tudor had looked to unite the kingdom he hoped to rule. On Christmas 1483, he pledged to marry the oldest daughter of the late king, Edward IV. Elizabeth was undoubtedly a prize, but one can see the thought for the future in Henry making this vow. It is also worth noting that the Plantagenet princess married him and supported Henry in his goals for improving and unifying England.
Henry was described by contemporaries as ‘spare’ with ‘high cheek bones’ and ‘dark hair faintly greying around the temples.’ Although they called him ‘grave,’ those presented to the first Tudor king also referred to him as ‘gracious’ and a ‘wonderful presence.’ This does not sound like the awful person we have been trained to believe Henry Tudor was.
However, Henry was also not the savior of England. In a cruel move as soon as his predecessor was dead, Henry had his reign dated beginning August 21, 1485. This was the day before his troops had killed Richard III in battle. Every man who had fought for their anointed king could then be named a traitor.
Henry’s reputation is also soiled by his execution of Edward of Warwick to appease Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain during negotiations for the marriage between Prince Arthur and Catherine of Aragon. Edward, nephew of Edward IV and Richard III, was almost certainly innocent of any charges against him and had spent the entirety of Henry’s reign within Tower walls based on no charges whatsoever.
What we can say of Henry is that he left England a better place than he had found it. Financial security, internal peace, and a plan for the succession are more than Edward IV and Richard III had managed. Despite his faults, Henry VII had a positive impact on the land he had taken by conquest.
This brings us to Richard III. Unlike Henry Tudor, Richard brings different visions to the minds of those who study his history. On one side is the Shakespearean character, almost ridiculous in his abundance of evil that leaves him twisted in spirit and physical form. Opposing this, we have the Richard of more recent authors’ creation that make him a romantic leading man, caught up in circumstances that were beyond him and underestimating the ambitions of others. What is difficult with Richard III is taking middle ground, where the truth likely lies.
We will probably never know the complete truth about when Richard decided to take his nephew’s throne or whether or not he had his brother’s children murdered. Unsolved mysteries do not constitute evidence, so let us consider what we do know. Documentation of Richard’s life and character takes a unique form. Centuries after the last change in dynasty, contemporary historians had to determine what was truth and what should be written to please the new Tudor king. Contemporary accounts vary almost as much as modern opinions.
Before Richard’s death, historian John Rous described him as, ‘a mighty prince’ known for ‘commendably punishing offenders of the laws’ and ‘cherishing those that were virtuous.’ Once Henry Tudor was in power, Rous painted a different picture of Richard, more suited to Tudor taste. Polydore Virgil, who believed that Richard had killed his nephews, nonetheless admitted, ‘he had a sharp wit’ and ‘his courage also high and fierce.’
Richard III attempted to rule in a more prudent way than his brother had. Edward IV was charismatic and an unbeatable soldier. He had also been impetuous and short-sighted, leading to division over his choice of wife and handling of foreign relations. Richard was an upright, serious presence next to his boisterous brother. Dependable enough to carry out a wide variety of duties as Duke of Gloucester, Constable of England, and an impressive list of other titles given to him by his brother, Richard proved himself reliable and loyal throughout Edward IV’s reign, but scandal and rebellion make it difficult to discern whether he could have ruled the kingdom as well as he had managed other responsibilities.
With a reign of just over two years, Richard gives us less evidence to judge him by than Henry Tudor does. He was pious and devout as his brother had been pleasure-seeking, supporting several religious houses, churches, and King’s College at Cambridge. For a man accused of many illegal acts, Richard’s actions show that he was ‘much concerned that justice should be done,’ according to biographer Charles Ross. Born and raised in a time of war, Richard was particularly driven to ensure peace and justice were available to all Englishmen, rich and poor. He had served as Constable of England under Edward IV and earned a reputation for fairness only challenged after Edward’s death.
Like Henry, Richard has marks against him. The executions of Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey, and William Hastings are often the first points brought up (after accusing Richard of ridding himself of his nephews). Was Richard acting legally as Constable of England and Protector of the Realm when he ordered these executions? Certainly. Was he acting prudently? The fact that we continue to discuss it today indicates that he was not. Even if one believes these acts were judicial murder, they are no different than Tudor’s actions against Edward of Warwick. In fact, I challenge any student of history to name a medieval monarch who did not execute at least one person on charges that would never stand up to modern standards. Each Plantagenet and Tudor ruler is certainly guilty of this. While this does not make Richard innocent, it fails to make him stand out as a villain.
Richard had managed an area of England that had been plagued by border wars for years. The ongoing battles with Scotland would continue even after Henry VII negotiated a treaty that made his own daughter the wife of Scotland’s King James IV. During this time, Richard was not accused of wrongdoing but was beloved in the north and especially in York. One wonders if it is true, as some biographers have suggested, that the responsibilities of kingship were simply too much for him and he was not given time to find his way. This characterization indicates that Richard was inept but not evil.
Dare I suggest that neither Henry VII nor Richard III was the devil incarnate, attempting to make England his domain on Earth? Both men made mistakes and purposely took actions that would be unacceptable for a 21st century ruler. They both attracted supporters and made positive changes in the lives of those under their authority. If we remove the lens of romanticism and the need to have a ‘bad guy’ to blame for occurrences in history, I believe we will find two men who believed they were doing what was right, boosted by personal ambition for gain and glory much like any other nobleman of their era.
Rather than joining Team Richard or Team Henry, we can gain much by learning about both of these dynamic kings and appreciating their history for what it is. This change of power ended a three century long dynasty and began one of the most well-known dynasties in English history. The fact that we are still talking about it 500 years later is proof in itself that there is more going on here than good versus evil.
Samantha Wilcoxson is a writer with a passion for history. Her most recent novel, Plantagenet Princess, Tudor Queen: The Story of Elizabeth of York, is a Kindle best seller in the US and UK. For more information, visit her blog at SamanthaWilcoxson.blogspot.com.
The Wars of the Roses: The Key Players in the Struggle for Supremacy by Matthew Lewis
Winter King: Henry VII and the Dawn of Tudor England by Thomas Penn
Richard III by Charles Ross
The Last White Rose: The Secret Wars of the Tudors by Desmond Seward
The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors by Dan Jones
When Henry Tudor won the crown of England at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, he acceded to the throne as the first sovereign of the House of Tudor, a cadet branch of the House of Lancaster.
Henry had wrested the crown from Richard III and claimed kingship through right of conquest – God had granted him victory through battle. Nonetheless it was prudent to put forward a blood claim to the throne which Henry duly did, emphasising his descent from Edward III through his mother Margaret Beaufort. For good measure Henry also ensured the people were aware of his descent from the ancient Welsh princes who had ruled the island before the arrival of the Norman Plantagenets and his close-kin to his uncle Henry VI (although he shared no blood ties to English royalty through this connection).
Traditionally it has been understood and accepted that Henry’s direct lineage was as the son of Margaret Beaufort, herself the daughter of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset and Margaret Beauchamp, and Edmund Tudor, the son of Owen Tudor and Katherine de Valois. Lately however a theory has been put forward that Henry’s father Edmund was in fact the son of Edmund Beaufort and not Owen Tudor, thus casting the entire Tudor ‘myth’ into disarray.
So should Henry Tudor, first king of the Tudor Dynasty…have in fact been Henry Beaufort?
Edmund Beaufort and the Queen
So who was Edmund Beaufort? Edmund was born in 1406 and was the son of John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset and an illegitimate son of John of Gaunt. Although dynastically very powerful through his Lancastrian connection, Edmund was not blessed with a great inheritance and was often given many well-paid offices by his cousin Henry VI. This method of overt favouritism did not sit well with Richard, Duke of York, who not unfairly viewed Beaufort as a rival for power. This quarrel turned deadly rivalry would form the foundation of what eventually became known as the Wars of the Roses.
In 1422 Henry V died of dysentery in France and left a young, beautiful widow, Katherine de Valois. The council which governed in the name of her new-born son Henry VI were presented with the unusual scenario of a dowager queen still young enough to remarry – a potential situation which was a political issue. This was compounded by rumours that she already had an admirer – the brash and ambitious young Edmund Beaufort.
It is often alleged that an affair was already in commencement by 1427 between the roughly 21-year-old Edmund and 26-year-old Katherine. This was possibly the catalyst for an unusual parliamentary statue passed that year which expressly forbid the remarriage of any dowager queen without the consent of the king. Although evidence of the act no longer exists it was referenced by later historians, including mention by the seventeenth century writer Edward Coke who stated the act stipulated ‘no man should contract with, or marry himself to any Queen of England, without special licence or assent of the King, on pain to lose all his goods and lands’. In 1427 the king was only six years old, with the expectation he would not be able to grant his assent for another decade. It is assumed this act persuaded Edmund Beaufort to cease his relationship, real or otherwise, with Katherine de Valois, who would shortly become involved with Owen Tudor, a Welshman of no lands and no goods.
From around 1430 until her death in 1437 it has commonly been accepted that Katherine de Valois and Owen Tudor were secretly cohabiting and together had four children – Edmund, Jasper, Owen and a daughter. If their marriage was not known to the Council before her death, it certainly became so after she passed away in January 1437. Owen was rapidly arrested by the council and accused of breaching the aforementioned act. He eventually won his pardon from the king, his step-son, in November 1439; his sons Edmund and Jasper were taken into the care of their half-brother Henry VI whilst Owen was embraced by the monks of Westminster Abbey.
Edmund Beaufort became an English army commander in 1431 and named Earl of Dorset in 1442 and promoted to Marquess a year later. He was Lieutenant of France for five years and in 1448 inherited his brother’s dukedom of Somerset. By 1451 Edmund Beaufort was arguably the most powerful man in England, entirely created by his cousin Henry VI. After the king’s gradual ceasing of rule following various catatonic breakdowns, a rival powerbase began to be developed by Richard of York, a mortal enemy of Beaufort. In May 1455 hostilities erupted into war and the Duke of York, together with his kinsmen and allies the Neville earls of Warwick and Salisbury permanently removed Beaufort from power by targeting and killing him in St Albans.
Father of the Tudors?
The Tudor ‘myth’ is a recent phenomenon that has caught the imagination of a group of revisionists of late who are eager to destroy the reputation of the Tudor dynasty in a misguided attempt to ‘redeem’ the maligned Richard III. The paternity of the Tudors is a key tactic in this cause and it centres on the paternity of Edmund Tudor, thought to have been born around 1430.
There are a few circumstantial reasons which have led rise to this theory, which I will attempt to refute below. As always with the fifteenth century, and particularly around ‘hot topics’ like Richard III and the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower, we cannot know the answers for certain, we can only deliberate and discuss based on the small amount of information present.
Coat of Arms
A major part of the theory that Edmund Beaufort fathered Edmund Tudor centres on the coats of arms that both men bore; they are allegedly of such similarity that one must have derived from the other, that is, the son’s from the father’s.
The coat of arms of Owen Tudor have never been uncovered but he is often credited with those of his ancestors of North Wales, a red background with three helmets and a Hermine chevron. Quite frankly this looks nothing like the coats of arms which were accorded to his sons, Edmund and Jasper.
Edmund Tudor was made an Earl of Richmond by King Henry VI in 1452 and together with his brother Jasper, the new Earl of Pembroke, was granted the right to bear arms. The centre of Edmund’s shield featured the coat of arms of the King of England whilst the bordure was blue and gold littered with the Fleur de Lis of France (and Katherine de Valois) and martlets. Comparatively the coat of arms of Edmund Beaufort also featured the coat of arms of England, bordered by the Beaufort livery colours of blue and white. The allegation is that the bordure of Tudor is clearly designed to reflect his descent from Beaufort. This doesn’t seem to be the case.
It seems more likely the reason Edmund Tudor received a coat of arms that included the insignia of the Kings of England, to which he had no ancestral right to unless he was the son of say, a Beaufort, is that he was granted the right to do so by his half-brother, King Henry VI. We must put this into the context of the time – Henry VI had little to no close family members and the House of Lancaster had been severely depleted through the deaths of Henry’s uncles and the lack of any heirs. Henry had adopted his young half-brothers and was determined to integrate them into his family unit. The granting to them of coat of arms that featured his own royal insignia is undoubtedly a public indicator of this desire. The Tudor boys are no longer merely the sons of Owen Tudor and Katherine de Valois…they are the brothers of the King of England. There was a precedent for this – Richard II issued his older Holland half-brothers coats of arms that had his own royal arms as the centrepiece with differentiated borders. It is clear to anybody who casts their eye upon the coats of arms of Edmunds Tudor and Beaufort that the borders share no similarity and it is disingenuous to suggest they are connected.
The Act of Parliament in 1452 which announced Edmund’s ascension to the earldom was effusive in its praise of his qualities, both of character and of kinship to the king as his ‘uterine brother’ through Katherine de Valois. It also accords Edmund with the right to bear ‘emblems of illustrious dignity’. Part of the text is as follows;
“…our sincerely beloved Edmund de Hadham, our uterine brother, to be distinguished, and among other things [considering] the nobility of birth and proximity in blood by which he is related to us as someone who is descended by right line from the illustrious royal house; and, moved by his foregoing merits, honouring him with singular grace, favour and benevolence, and thinking it right that, as he every day produces better examples of virtue and probity, our affection towards him should at the same time expand and grow according to the increase of his virtues, and that we also should adorn him, whom the nature of virtue and the royal blood have ennobled, with a title of civil nobility, the sign of a special honour, and the emblems of illustrious dignity”
Tombs and the Dissolution
The Dissolution of the Monasteries in the late 1530s was an upheaval in English society arguably unseen since the Norman Conquest 500 years earlier. Initiated at the command of Henry VIII, the grandson of Edmund Tudor, it was a wide-scale destruction of church property and reallocation of lands and wealth. A natural if wretched by-product of such a movement was the ruin or discarding of a hundreds of years’ worth of tombs and memorials that had been interned in the abbeys and monasteries. Some were salvaged and relocated; many were lost.
A further allegation aimed at the paternity of Edmund Tudor can be connected with events that would happen over eighty years after his death. Of Henry VIII’s paternal ancestors, it appears only one tomb was salvaged from destruction – that of Edmund Tudor. The tomb had been placed in the Grey Friars Monastery of Carmarthen after his death in 1456 but after the dissolution was moved to St David’s Cathedral, where it still stands next to the altar. The tomb of Owen Tudor, also interned in a Grey Friars in Hereford, was not saved and was lost. This must therefore suggest that Henry accepted Edmund as his grandfather but not Owen as his great-grandfather? Not really.
There is no evidence to suggest that it was Henry VIII himself who commanded the tomb of Edmund Tudor to be salvaged. It could be just as likely it was removed and saved by local Welsh gentry, who paid great reverence to the Tudors who had risen from amongst their stock.
If Henry VIII did not command the tomb of his grandfather Edmund Tudor to be saved, then why would he salvage the tomb of his great-grandfather Owen Tudor? If he did save Edmund’s tomb, perhaps there were logistical reasons for not saving Owen’s. Perhaps it was merely a generation too far back for him to care? Is it prudent to salvage all ancestors’ tombs? Where does one draw the line?
It should be noted that one tomb not saved, which perhaps had cause more than most to be safely guarded, was that of Jasper Tudor. He died in 1495 and his tomb and body was interned at Keynsham Abbey near Bath. Jasper was arguably the single foremost reason the Tudor dynasty came to the throne and he died during Henry VIII’s childhood. This great-uncle of the king must have been a figure of some considerable standing in Henry’s mind yet he was not saved. Astonishingly, considering Henry’s apparent closeness to his illegitimate son, Henry himself it seems did not actually intervene to save the tomb of Henry Fitzroy. This was left to the Dukes of Norfolk who handled the movement from Thetford Priory. Nevertheless, the remains of Edmund Beaufort, deposited in St Albans Abbey after his death at the Battle of St Albans in 1455, never received preferential treatment from either Henry VII or Henry VIII therefore no credence can be given to this theory.
No Contemporary Recognition of Edmund Beaufort
There was no contemporary recognition of Edmund Beaufort as the father of Edmund Tudor. This is a modern invention, or discovery based on your viewpoint, not based on any sourced material. Arguably the best source to counter any claim of Beaufort parentage of Edmund Tudor comes from an unlikely source – Richard III.
During the preparation for invasion in 1484, both Richard and Henry Tudor engaged in a war of propaganda designed to secure support and influence from England’s population. There were elements of mistruths from both parties, eager to stain the reputation of the other. That being said, at no point did Richard, who had lambasted Henry’s maternal Beaufort line as bastards, level the same accusation at his paternal line. Richard used the Beaufort connection that Henry Tudor had through his mother Margaret to belittle his enemy but surely if he had any suspicion or information that Edmund Tudor’s father was possibly Edmund Beaufort, surely this would have increased Richard’s attack ten-fold.
Richard himself referred to the Tudor lineage as ‘one Henry Tydder, son of Edmund Tydder, son of Owen Tydder’. The thought of even lying about his Beaufort ancestry, in the interests of propaganda, did not cross the mind of Richard III. To castigate Henry Tudor’s parents as close cousins who married without any dispensation could have been a crippling blow to Henry’s cause. Furthermore Richard referred to Henry’s ancestry as ‘bastard blood both of father and of mother side, for the said Owen the grandfather was bastard born, and his mother was daughter unto John, Duke of Somerset, son unto John, Earl of Somerset, son unto Dame Katherine Swynford’. There is no evidence Owen Tudor was bastard born, but nonetheless no reference to Edmund Beaufort. The fact is Richard III had no doubts over the father of Edmund Tudor – it was Owen.
The name Edmund for Katherine de Valois’ son has always been a curious one and ostensibly helps confirm the theory that he was named for his true father, Edmund Beaufort. This overlooks another possibility – that Edmund, although son of Owen Tudor, was named for Edmund Beaufort as he was his godfather. Perhaps Katherine truly did love Edmund Beaufort and although the son was Owen’s, she named him in honour of her previous love. A difficult pill to swallow for Owen perhaps, but a possibility. Perhaps the child was named for Edmund the Martyr or St Edmund; we do not have Edmund Tudor’s date of birth but if he was born on a date related to a saint, then it is not unheard of for the child to be named in honour of that saint. Edmund Tudor was born in Much Hadham Palace, in the ownership of the Bishop of London, and possibly his birth had a high level of clerical involvement. St Edmund was also considered a Patron Saint of England during the Middle Ages, based around Bury St Edmunds where the saint’s remains were sited. This was under 50miles away from Much Hadham. Personally it does likely that there is some connection between Edmund Beaufort and the naming of Katherine’s son, but this does not automatically extend to parentage.
As explained elsewhere, based on the limited information we have, very little of it informal or personal, it is difficult to make any concrete claims on historical persons. Consider yourself – if we take the facts about your life as we know them, dates of birth, marriage dates, where you have lived and your shopping receipts, we could build up a basic picture of you and what you purchase but nonetheless that will only be a percentage of who you are as a person. The same principle needs to be remembered when considering historical figures.
We do not know when Edmund Tudor was born for exact, and we also do not know who his father was for definite. We do not know why he was named Edmund. To put forward a definitive theory based on a coat of arms, a name or the salvaging of tombs and claiming it as fact is unfair and does not necessarily mean the answer has been discovered. I have refuted each point of this theory with plausible explanations even though I must also acknowledge they are not definitive answers as we quite simply do not possess the full picture of a bygone era. I can confidently state however I have yet to be presented with an acceptable case that they Tudor Dynasty are not the Tudors. It suggests to me that this is modern propaganda designed to inflict damage on a family who ruled 500 years ago.
Nathen Amin grew up in the heart of Carmarthenshire, West Wales, and has long had an interest in Welsh history, the Wars of the Roses and the early Tudor period. His first book Tudor Waleswas released in 2014 and was well-received, followed by a second book called York Pubs in 2016. His third book, the first, full-length biography of the Beaufort family, the House of Beaufort, is scheduled for release in the summer of 2017. He is the founder of the Henry Tudor Society and has featured discussing the Tudors on BBC radio and television, as well as in print and online media across the UK. He has a degree in Business and Journalism and now lives in York, where he works as a Technical Writer.
The Tudor Tales by Dave Tonge is a recent release by the History Press that is a welcome addition to an admittedly bulging sixteenth century genre. This however is a book with a twist – part-fact, part-fiction. Essentially Tudor Tales is a book of two halves, and that’s not necessarily a problem. In fact, it’s part of its charm.
Tonge is a notable storyteller and has been operating as such since 1999, utilising his degree in English History and a penchant for re-enactment by taking his show on the road and entertaining scores of adults and children across the country. His public speaking work has now been transferred to book format, and it crosses over well.
The book itself is a handy size, capable of being carried around with ease in a pocket. The cover is a wonderful red affair with gold typeface and is impeccably smooth. Physically, this is as beautiful a book as it’s possible to get. The blurb on the back of the book declares that ‘the common sort were no different from us’ whilst the book promises ‘a sometimes coarse but often comic telling of the everyday ups and downs in Tudor life’. This is exactly what we get.
The book is separated into 8 chapters with a total of 33 tales; each chapter has a different theme covering such matters as silver-tongued tricksters, lusty knaves, naughty wives and horny monks. The overriding argument seems to be that the Tudors as a people weren’t that different from us – essentially different era but similar problems.
Tonge begins each tale with some academic background on the theme he is covering, introducing real-life scenarios from the sixteenth century supported by sourced information from court records and the cheap print. The research is detailed and produces some interesting insights into Tudor life amongst the general populace, particularly in matters of the male/female relationship.
For example a woman named Margaret Cock appeared in court charged with slander for accusing Lionel Wade of being an ‘old whoremasterly knave’ whilst the parson Robert Serton was brought before the church courts of Norwich accused of going to a lady’s house on daily basis under the premise of buying eggs but instead approaching her servants ‘to fetch a kiss from them and did by these lewd practices endeavour to abuse them’. There was also the accusation levelled at one Benjamin Wright by Martha Cambridge in a consistory court that he was ‘a saucy knave and a cunning knave who did come drunk or drunker into her house with his bobble hanging from his breeches like a horse’.
Where Tonge’s book differs from traditional work of the period is in the second part of each entry. After introducing the topic with some historical background Tonge recounts his ‘tale’, adapted from the spoken word tradition which he now embodies and used for the entertainment of the reader. Tonge notes in his introduction that many of the tales were printed as simple anecdotes and jests in the sixteenth century but once they were picked up by the storytellers, they were padded out for further entertainment. Here we are introduced to clever wives and devious monks, troublesome youths and shrewd villagers. Each tale ends with the protagonist or antagonist receiving their comeuppance with an underlining moral conveyed.
Tudor Tales is an entertaining read, part fact, part fiction, but all interesting. My only grievance about Tonge’s book, if in fact it can be considered a grievance, is that the tales themselves almost yearn to be read aloud and acted with enthusiasm. The words almost jump off the page and you can find yourself mentally picturing a storyteller recounting the tale to an enthused audience. I have yet to see Mr Tonge in action but if his book is anything to go by, I’m sure it would be an amusing and pleasurable experience.
The book is available directly from History Press by clicking HERE or Amazon by clicking HERE
DAVE TONGE is a professional storyteller who travels the whole of England telling his entertaining versions of Medieval and Tudor folk tales. He works at schools, museums and heritage sites as well as literary, folk and story-telling festivals. The old tales allow him to draw on his historical knowledge and material gleaned from his MA and PhD research.
Prior to becoming a storyteller Dave studied sixteenth and seventeenth-century court records focusing on popular culture and social control, and he often uses the records alongside folk tales performances. He lives in Norwich and runs a very popular attracts an audience from all over East Anglia.
Master goldsmith Jean Dassier was born in Geneva in 1676. He studied in Paris and became an assistant to his father, who was the official Mint Engraver for the Canton of Geneva. In 1720 he succeeded his father as the official engraver for Geneva and built a reputation as one of the most celebrated engravers of the eighteenth century.
Between 1731 and 1732 Dassier moved to London and engraved the dies for a series of the Kings and Queens of England, a continuous series of English sovereigns, from William I to George II. His work was sometimes criticised for being taken from unauthentic sources and some of the dates on the inscriptions being incorrect.
One set was presented to King George II, to whom the series was dedicated. He liked the medals and requested a special medal for his wife Queen Caroline to be added, so when the series sold in 1731 it consisted of thirty-four medals. Sir Edward Thomason of Birmingham issued copper medals from the dies around 1830.
The rendering of King Henry VII is considered one of the better portraits and one is displayed in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York:
Tony Riches was born in Pembrokeshire, West Wales, and spent part of his childhood in Kenya. He gained a BA degree in Psychology and an MBA from Cardiff University and worked as a Management Consultant, followed by senior roles in the Welsh NHS and Local Government.
After writing several successful non-fiction books, Tony decided to turn to novel writing and wrote ‘Queen Sacrifice’, set in 10th century Wales, followed by ‘The Shell’, a thriller set in present day Kenya. His real interest is in the history of the fifteenth century, and now his focus is on writing historical fiction about the lives of key figures of the period.
His novels ‘Warwick ~ The Man Behind the Wars of the Roses’ and ‘The Secret Diary of Eleanor Cobham’ have both become Amazon best sellers. He is now working on The Tudor Trilogy, book one of which is about Owen Tudor, the Welsh servant who married Queen Catherine of Valois and founded the Tudor Dynasty.
A new campaign for a statue and visitor centre for Henry VII in Pembroke is underway, led by the town council in close conjunction with the Pembroke and Monckton Local History Society.
In November 2014 Pembroke Town Council agreed to commission a marquette and public consultation is now ongoing as to the details of the project. A site has been earmarked on the bridge which crosses the picturesque Mill Pond towards the rear of the castle. It is certain that should a statue be sited on this bridge, the backdrop of the castle would ensure this monument’s location would be one of the most spectacular in the country.
On 3 October 2015 the Pembroke and Monckton Local History Society hosted a coffee morning to invite discussion over the plans and to seek public opinion. A well-received talk on ‘Pembroke and the Tudors’ was given by prolific Welsh author Terry Breverton and also present was Tudor historical fiction author and Pembrokeshire native Tony Riches. A brief introduction was given by town Mayor Pauline Waters who stressed the importance of the statue to Pembroke and underlining the support of the town council for the project. A presentation was then given by Linda Asman of the local history society who has been responsible for the organisation of the campaign thus far.
It was announced that the town council had commissioned a small model of the proposed statue by local sculptor Harriet Addyman which was praised by those present. The model depicts Henry Tudor in his traditional full length robe and black cap whilst a greyhound stands loyally to his side, indicative of not only the earldom of Richmond but also the tradition of greyhounds in the local area. It was also further announced that Pembrokeshire County Council had agreed to match fund from their Town Centre Support Programme although the majority of the funds would still need to be raised.
In addition to the statue, those involved in the campaign also spoke passionately about their ultimate aim of opening a dedicated Henry Tudor Visitor Centre in Pembroke. A national appeal will be conducted to help fundraise and the hope is that the centre will serve as a must-visit location in the study of England’s Welsh king.
Why Does Pembroke need a Henry Tudor statue?
The Tudor Dynasty is without doubt one of the Europe’s most infamous families; their story has been told and retold across the centuries and remains today a massive, multi-million pound industry centred around the key figures who once ruled England – Henry VIII and Elizabeth I to name but two. ‘Tudor England’ in itself has become a well-known phrase that covers many aspects of the era, particularly architecture, arts and the lifestyle. What is often overlooked however is that the Tudors, whilst coming to encompass all that is considered great about England, were a Welsh dynasty with their roots firmly entrenched in the hills across Offa’s Dyke.
A descendant of Welsh royalty through his paternal family, Henry Tudor was born in Pembroke Castle on the night of 28 January 1457. It was alleged by a later chronicler that Henry’s birth took place in one of the outer gatehouse towers, marked today by a wonderful exhibition featuring his young mother Margaret Beaufort. Henry it appears stayed at Pembroke until he was around four years old when he became the ward of William Herbert and relocated to Raglan Castle in Monmouthshire.
Nonetheless, this precocious young child was a son of Pembroke and a son of Pembroke he remained. With this in mind it is somewhat disappointing to note the lack of celebration towards the birth and subsequent life of Henry Tudor in West Wales. This isn’t merely a location with a tenuous link to the Tudors, it’s an integral part of the Tudor story as the birthplace of Henry VII, Father of the Tudor Dynasty. With the plethora of Tudor related places in the region it is very surprising and almost unacceptable to learn that this wonderful historical occurrence hasn’t been capitalised upon. There is a large and lucrative Tudor market in England which has proved to be provide a consistent income from tourism and it is galling that Pembrokeshire has yet to adopt such measures.
If people are willing to travel hundreds of miles, sometimes thousands, to visit Tudor locations throughout England then surely Pembroke and indeed Pembrokeshire should be marketing itself as the “Birthplace of the Tudor Dynasty”. It is difficult to overstate the financial benefits the Tudors bring to the UK touristy industry, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans alone regularly visiting the many palaces and castles in England to place themselves in the very spot history happened. Hampton Court. Windsor. Kenilworth Castle. Ludlow Castle. Even Stratford-Upon-Avon with its Shakespeare links. York has built an entire tourism industry by capitalising on its, admittedly unique, heritage. The list is endless.
I have previously campaigned for a statue to be erected of Henry Tudor in Pembroke, supported by the castle and the town council. It would give an overt and obvious indication of the importance of the castle to the Tudor story and could prove to be a lucrative marketing aspect for Tudor addicts. It is all very well having exhibitions inside, but the key is attracting people to the area in the first place, and a statue would certainly do that. As a comparison, the small North Welsh village of Corwen has a magnificent statue of Owain Glyndwr and as a result has been able to attract scores of Welshmen from all over to view it. Imagine tapping into only a mere percentage of the gigantic Tudor Tourism Industry and persuading them to come to Pembroke for a similar pilgrimage to the one they already make to many different locales throughout England.
The castle itself, under the managerialship of Jon Williams, has certainly done all it can financially do to increase tourism although their ambitions are drastically reduced by the economic issues of running such an enterprise without any outside funding. Jon once stated to me “we are gradually adding to and modernising our interpretation here and although we don’t lack ambition and ideas unfortunately it takes money to make things happen on a major scale“. Indeed Pembroke Castle itself is a small independent charitable trust “that needs to spend a lot of resources to simply maintain the castle as a visitor attraction“. Jon further stated “it would make perfect sense to have a statue although my opinion is that it would benefit Pembroke more if it were at the opposite end of the main street to the Castle. Firstly this would encourage Castle visitors to wander the town and secondly it would act as a good welcome to people arriving at East End Square“.
A statue or visitor centre of Henry Tudor would certainly benefit Pembroke and it would benefit Wales. Pembrokeshire’s most famous son deserves more than a couple of mere plaques and in an age of austerity any attempt to bring in tourism to boost the stuttering economy must be seriously looked at. Pembroke is the home of the world famous Tudor Dynasty and deserves recognition that would certainly place it on the global scale alongside other famous Tudor locations in England.