In 1507, King Henry VII fell ill. This was hardly the first illness of the King and indeed hardly the first illness the King had endured during his reign, but as the weeks turned to months and the pages of the calendar flipped it became clear that this illness was not one that would disappear without a trace. Indeed, it lingered through 1507 and into 1508. By July of 1508 the King had already become quite frail and after July he would lose his ability to walk unaided. Already having revised his last will and testament during his initial bout of illness in 1507 it was deemed unnecessary to have the Prince of Wales return to London before the conclusion of his Royal Tour throughout France and Burgundy.
This, however, does not mean there were not close calls. In August, the King officially moved his residence to Richmond Palace and would not, from this point on, take foreign dignitaries. The trip from London to Surrey was one that proved difficult for the King and in mid-August, he would collapse even with the help of his aides and remain bedridden until February of 1509.
By the end of February, some clouds seemed to break for the King. He was once more coherent and well enough to at least hold conversation (though still too weak for dignitaries) and it is at this point that the Prince of Wales would spend the most time with his father before his death. His cough lingered and his already frail constitution was further exacerbated by the sheer amount of weight he’d lost since the beginning of his illness, but he could sit up and listen as well as participate in conversation with his son.
The King remained in this state until the 20th of March when the signs of disease once more began to show, but this time something had begun to arise that concerned all of the councilors. A harsh cough.
On March 24th, the King once more collapsed while on a stroll in the gardens with his aides. For the last time, the King would be carried to his bed and for the rest of his life, he would remain there.
20th April, 1509
The Prince of Wales looked upon his fathers frail figure with a hanging brow. For all the problems they’d had with each other - Arthur, responsibility, trust - this was still his father. His father who’s body shook violently, blood dripping from the corners of
... keep reading on reddit ➡
[NOV-DEC 1508]
The office of the Justice of the Peace is one with a peculiar history in England. Finding its origin in 1195 with the assignment of certain knights to unruly areas with the very broad goal of 'preserving the King's peace', the office has found itself virtually unchanged since the 14th century. Though it began to garner some additional responsibilities and duties during the 15th century, the accession of Henry Tudor to the throne of England and the turn of the 16th century as well as its duration heralded a significant increase in both the number of Justices as well as a significant increase in their responsibilities, duties, and statutes to their keeping.
Indeed, under Henry VII the Justices of the Peace (from this point referred to as JP, or JPs) numbered 17-18 per county and would see that number increase by thirty to forty men per commission at the end of (the alleged) Elizabeth I's reign and the (alleged) end of the Tudor Period. Though their wealth of responsibilities continued to increase under the later Stuarts, that's not real history and is fake fake fake very bad and fake and thus will not be discussed in this post.
The justification for the vast expansion of the office of JP and its eventual ascension from a mere peacekeeper to a primary institution of Tudor local government is complex and multi-faceted as you might expect. The Tudor Monarchy saw the need for an office that was effective, local, and could be relied upon to affect honest judgement and administrative services to the counties the JPs were assigned as well which coincided nicely with the rise of the local gentry and their own desire to participate in local and national government from a more influential stance than they'd previously been allowed.
Delving into current and real history, England in the wake of the War of the Roses found itself to be a poorly managed and war weary land with a high noble class that had been all but exterminated by the time of Henry Tudor's ascension to the throne in 1485.
This sense of lawlessness is perhaps best exemplified by the constant and consistent rebellion that plagued the early reign of the new King - in 1486, the Stafford Brothers rebelled aided by the Viscount Lovell.
In 1487, Yorkists in Ireland proclaimed Lambert Simnel to be Edward of Warwick.
In 1490, a young Fleming by the name of [Perkin Warbeck](https
... keep reading on reddit ➡
1st January, 1509
In 1503, Henry VII allocated £14,000 pounds to the creation of a new chapel on the far eastern end of Westminster Abbey to replace an older lady chapel built in the 12th century by Henry III. There were a few reasons for the creation of this new chapel; firstly, discussions in Rome were expected to result in the canonization of the late King Henry VI, a man to whom many miracles had been attributed despite his own ill health. Secondly, Henry VII simply wished to build a better chapel than what was there - an older, smaller structure. Thirdly, he wanted the Chapel to function as a royal mausoleum for him, his family, and his heirs. Fourth and finally, the King himself believed in the efficacy of 'mediacions and prayers' in his progress through purgatory being crucial to his purpose.
The final reason for the construction of the chapel was in fact the salvation of the King's own soul.
In 1509, the Chapel finished construction. It had some impressive and ambitious architectural features and indeed found itself suitable for its intended purpose of a pilgrimage spot, though Henry VI would not be canonized, in the end.
After the King's death, Henry VII would find himself buried here in a chapel of his own creation. One of the many lasting legacies of the King's century-defining reign.
No moderation, the historical amount of 100,000 florins has already been set aside. Give me prestige, tho.
He was looking for a Lancaster House with a Tudor garage.
The Lords and the Commons have convened in Westminster for the Seventh Parliament in the reign of the King Henry VII.
The Commons sits first as is by now some form of tradition - Edmund Dudley has been appointed Parlour by the King and sits at the head of the chamber.
Among the various clerks and assistants sits thirteen MPs, whom shall be listed;
MP of Canterbury, Kent - Thomas Atwode
MP of Ipswich, Suffolk - Thomas Baldry
MP of Rye, Sussex - [Richard Berkeley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berkeley_(Sussex_MP))
MP of Stamford, Lincolnshire - [David Cecil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cecil_(courtier))
MP of Yarmouth - Thomas More
MP of Exeter - John Orenge
Recorder of London - MP of North London - This seat is taken by Robert Sheffield, as the previous holder Sir John Shaa regrettably passed.
MP of South London - [John Tate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tate_(Lord_Mayor_of_London))
MP of Reading, Berkshire - [Richard Smith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smith_(died_1516))
MP of Salisbury, Wiltshire - William Webbe
MP of Leicester - William Wyggeston
The King himself steps to the center of the chamber, and speaks to the assembled Commons.
"Sir Parlour, we perceive by you, to whome we did entrust the mouth of oure Lower House, howe with even consent they are fallen into the due consideration of the precious gift of thankefulnesse, moost usually least esteemed, where it is best deserved."
Murmurs of approval come from the benches before silence one again befalls the Chamber. "And therefoore we charge you tell theyme how acceptable such sacrifice is woorthily received of a loving Kinge, who doubteth much whether the given thanks can be of more poise then the owed is to theyme: and suppose that they have done more for us, then they theymeselves beleeve. And this is oure reason: Who keepes their moost Gallant Sovereigne from the lapse of error, in which, by ignorance, and not by intent, they might have fallen; what thankes they deserve, we know, though you may gesse."
"And as n
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I mean I understand that it was all done for political theater because Henry wanted to get her out of the way. And I understand that she would never have used this argument because she would not have wanted to say that her marriage was invalid.
But legally COULD she have argued (or did anyone point out) that an illegitimate marriage would mean that any affairs she was accused of having had weren't technically treason, as she wasn't technically married?
Henry VII used right by conquest to claim the throne, but another bolster was that his marriage to Elizabeth of York united the Lancaster and York branches. However, this already happened with the marriage of the Duke of York and Cecily Neville (Elizabeth of York’s grandparents).
Cecily Neville was a Beaufort on her mother Joan’s side. While Margaret Beaufort descended from the eldest surviving Beaufort son of John of Gaunt, Joan was John’s youngest surviving Beaufort child. Cecily’s descendants could claim Beaufort descent like Henry VII, and they had legitimate descent through the Mortimer/Clarence and York lines. Descent through the eldest male Beaufort line favors Margaret, but since claimants played with the rules of descent and female/male inheritance since Henry IV, was this a huge advantage?
Does anyone else think Henry VII was lucky people weren’t open to female rulers at the time, and that other potential male claimants were children or had recently died? I find it ironic Catherine of Aragon, his future daughter-in-law, descended from the legitimate Lancaster line through Catherine of Lancaster (John of Gaunt’s child with his second wife). Henry VII’s bloodline was better for the French throne than the English throne (and even that’s dodgy given the Catherine of Valois/Owen Tudor dubious union).
Does anyone else think Henry VII was a hypocrite in waiting to marry/crown his wife and claiming he was king on his own merits when it was it obvious had Elizabeth of York married anyone else, her children’s claims would’ve been far superior to his? Even the legitimacy angle wouldn't have been as effective compared to when Richard III used it since Henry's descent was full of illegitimacy, even if he himself was legitimate.
I know Henry VII founded the church of England as he believed a king is equal (or there abouts) to god which conflicted with the the beliefs of Rome, ultimately leading to the founding of the CoE and the great cattholic/protestant divide.
But what if Henry VII wasn't religious, and focused purely on science, arts and sports. Would England (or Britain) be the power it is today? Would we even be a country any more? And if we were to remain a major power in the world how would it affect the rest of the world?
If the future Henry 8th died just like his brother Prince Arthur.
