Jump to content

Talk:House of Tudor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Tudor dynasty)

Question

[edit]

Is the man on the left of the picture Philip II of Spain ? --Imran 00:12 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Yes, the only husband of Queen Mary I of England. User: Dimadick
Its him, I recognize the face from other pictures. Muriel Victoria

Formatting problem

[edit]

From the page:

There's a formatting problem here - if you look at the wives of Henry VII, for example, each one after the first has a bullet-point next to them to keep the lists correctly formatted. That point shouldn't really be there, because it looks as though they are daughters rather than daughters-in-law of Henry VII. Try to ignore it. The same happens with other multiple marriages.

This problem is now somewhat solved with a new format. Multiple marriages still aren't entirely clear, though. Onebyone 17:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Arthur's marriage to Catherine is not disputed: it was the basis for the request of annulment that Henry VIII cited to the pope. (Since he wanted to marry Anne Boleyn) he argued that Catherine was his sister and therefore the whole union was incestuous. The pope refuse this argument, probably because men marrying his brothers widows was common practice. Henry didn't like that and said: pope no more! The rest of the story everybody knows... Muriel Victoria 15:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's more to it than that, though - in order to marry Catherine in the first place Henry had to get papal approval. It was this approval which disputes the marriage, since it was against church law at the time to marry your brother's widow (or your sister's widower - when Elizabeth was considering marriage to Philip of Spain this was again an issue). So saying that the marriage wasn't even disputed is taking Henry's side, since it was indeed disputed, by Henry, when it suited hs purposes... Onebyone 15:39, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It was disputed, by Catherine of Aragon herself. Whether the first marriage was valid or not is an historical argument. But it was disputed, and that dispute was the substance of the legal proceedings around Henry VIII's first divorce Indisciplined (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree

[edit]

The picture of the Tudor family tree has Margaret Beaufort's birth as 1433 whilst the wiki article has 1443. Who's right?--Johnbull 02:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret was born in 1443, not 1433. See ODNB: Michael K. Jones and Malcolm G. Underwood, ‘Beaufort, Margaret , countess of Richmond and Derby (1443–1509)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 28 Aug 2007 PeterSymonds 10:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

[edit]

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To call them Protestant royal anscestors is incorrect as the English royal family didnt become protestant until the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth I and possibly beforehand arguably in Henry VIII's reign though he saw himself as a Catholic just not in league with the pope Penrithguy 21:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both kings are survived only in the female line. Their descendants include the modern British Royal Family, many noble families, and far more people who are just plain old 'Mr', Mrs' or 'Miss', and probably have no idea of their family connection. The 16th Century was a LONG time ago. Indisciplined (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward IV

[edit]

In the table of The Tudor House (right top corner) the first king is named Eduard IV and, if I am not mistaken it should be Henry VII. Am I right or wrong.

You are right, it should be Henry VII.--Johnbull 18:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revision Needed

[edit]

At the moment, this page is awful. We need to decide what it should be (an analysis of how England changed between 1485-1603, perhaps?), since at the moment it's just a ramble of historical trivia and errors... Hackloon 00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. I've no specialist knowledge of this topic so can't comment on the factual accuracy but it seems disjointed, confusing and is full of non-sequitors.Mutt Lunker 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pretty bad article. Too much trivial detail about the marriages without any context. The "Feudal Circumstances" is at the very least poorly named. The War of the Roses pretty much ended "medieval feudalism" in England. If there was a common theme throughout the Tudor era it was reformation and the politics between nobility at the court.
This article doesn't have to try to be too much. All it really needs is a simple list of monarchs, the origin of the Tudor family, and what ended the dynasty. Then perhaps a simple bulleted list linking to articles containing highlights of the era (reformation, spanish armada, Shakespeare, renaissance, etc). (None of these highlights really need to be spelled out here unless they deal specifically with the Tudor family). DavidRF 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read this article and agree it's awful and in need of revision. Whilst I'm not a specialist, I think the 'Feudal Circumstances' section could be replaced with two shorter sections about the origins of the Tudor/Tewdwr family going back to Owain Tudor, and back further perhaps to The Lord Rhys and the eponymous Welsh ancestor Tewdwr. The second section could be about the rise of the Tudor family during the Wars of the Roses. Then a list of monarchs and a brief biography with links to the main pages for each. This would improve the article much - at the moment it's a disjointed list of advanced academic minutiae with no context whatsoever. firstfox 09:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above comments. There are major errors that need to be fixed. The grammar is bad and some of the facts are wrong. I will begin a major revision today. PeterSymonds 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision complete. PeterSymonds 10:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember people this is a discussion of the Tudor Dynasty and NOT the Tudor Period, which has it's own article. In line with the other articles on Royal houses, this article should be primarily concerned with the dynasty, and not the age in which it reigned. The article is still far too long and contains too much that is off-topic. Indisciplined (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh connection?

[edit]

The article doesn't mentiowas born in Pembroke and I was under the impression that the family (or part of it) came from Anglesey, so what's the connection? --Oldak Quill 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about the Tudor's Welsh descent from the Welsh Prince Rhys ap Gruffydd. This is the link to Wales. PeterSymonds 10:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne of Cleves was a foreign princess. I don't think it's accurate to call her "Yorkist." Also, what this about Henry's only loving Jane Seymour? Granted, he probably loved her best since she was meek and produced a son, but he does seem to have "loved" all his wives except Anne of Cleves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.37.23.182 (talk)

Yes, it is likely that Henry only loved her because she produced a son. The fact that he was buried with her means little; he couldn't be buried with Catherine of Aragon, because he was technically never married to her; Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were traitors and buried at the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London; Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr were still alive at his death. Jane was the only wife who died while she was technically still married to Henry, and the mother of his son. PeterSymonds 10:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Royal House template

[edit]

As the House of York is a cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet, and the Yorkist took the surname Plantagenet, is it correct to describe it separately to the House of Plantagenet, in the "Royal Houses" succession template?

The Yorkists are listed as part of the House of Plantagenet in the List of monarchs of England page, not separately to it, and included in the list of Plantagenet Kings in the House of Plantagenet page.

Equivalent, related comments also raised for the House of Plantagenet, House of Lancaster, and House of York "Royal Houses" succession templates.

Hey, Does the House of Grey count as a cadet branch of the House of Tudor? I mean, Jane Grey was a Tudor by her mother, But her mother married into the house of Grey... Also, what about the house of Dudley? She married Guildford Dudley, so doesn't she become a member of his house? Just a thought... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.84.166 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drojem (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit speculation

[edit]

I have removed this text re: Anne Boleyn: "It is supposed that perhaps Anne was Rh- and after her first child all successive pregnancies were at risk." The item is not sourced, is in any case supposition, and does not belong in an encyclopedic article, unless one wants to go into all of the various theories as to why Henry produced so few viable children; his conjectural syphilis is a favorite. And if we do that, we need to source the theories so readers can decide for themselves whether any particular one is by an M.D. or whatever. - PKM (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalization?

[edit]

"The Tudor dynasty or House of Tudor (Welsh: Tudur) is an English royal dynasty that lasted 118 years, beginning in 1485. Founded by Henry Tudor, Henry was grandson of the Welsh courtier Owen Tudor.Owen Tudor was a nobody before his marrage to the Queen. Without him the Tudor dynasty would have never started!"

i think whoever wrote the above, wasn't serious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.124.236 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the Owen Tudor was a nobody before his marrage to the Queen. Without him the Tudor dynasty would have never started! part as vandalism. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Tudor

[edit]

It is unclear whether Owen Tudor and Katherine of Valois were married, and this point reamins a topic of much debate amongst historians. The article state unambiguously that there were married -despite the fact that there is no clear historical evidence one way or the other. I've amneded the article to reflect this. Indisciplined (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh royal dynasty?

[edit]

Just because Henry Tudor was of Welsh descent, can we really say that this was a Welsh royal dynasty? There's no precedent for it that I can see. I think perhaps we should change it back to "English royal dynasty" or perhaps, "an English royal dynasty of Welsh origin" as in the Brittanica Online Encyclopedia. Tolkien Geek (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any reputable source that treats the Tudors as a Welsh royal dynasty. Even the descriptor "of Welsh orgin" is deceptive because it might infer a connection to the Welsh royal house. N.B., Owen Tudor was Welsh, and high-born, but he was not royal; and his direct line to Henry Tudor was via a marriage that was not legally recognized at the time, if ever.[--Jbeans (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]
I suspect you mean 'imply, not 'infer'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.160 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Owen Tudor a direct decent (via the male line) from the House of Dinefwr which was a Welsh Royal House.81.111.119.98 (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't believe so. Their direct male-line ancestors did belong to the Welsh nobility and appear to have been notable warlords, but theirs was not a royal house of early historical times. However, this does not exclude prehistoric royal ancestors, who are likely given what we know of Celtic society and see also in early medieval Ireland. A surviving Tudor family would today today be classed as Immemorial nobility in any case. Later they did marry a daughter of the royal family of Deheubarth, the House of Dinefwr, which indicates they were powerful. Later still the Tudors believed themselves descendants of King Arthur somehow but I have never seen this imaginitive pedigree. DinDraithou (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, through "The Deheubarth Connection", the Tudors were distant cousins to the palatine FitzGerald dynasty of Ireland. It probably explains some part of the career of Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare. DinDraithou (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Dinefwr vs. Category:House of Tudor

[edit]

Category:House of Tudor is itself a category within Category:House of Dinefwr. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions Needed: Mary I and Wyatt's rebellion

[edit]

The section on Mary I: A Troubled queen's reign doesn't square with the standalone articles about Mary I or Wyatt's rebellion. In the latter, Mary was supposed to have assented to the execution of Lady Jane Grey only after Wyatt's rebellion, which itself was precipitated in part by a desire by some factions to restore a Protestant to the throne. In response to Wyatt's rebellion, Mary's advisors pushed her to kill Jane, saying that she was a focal point for Protestant ire. However, in this article, the implication is that Lady Jane was executed prior to Wyatt's rebellion, and in response to the fact that Mary failed to convert Jane. Also, the statment that Jane was executed after the Duke of Suffolk attempted to depose Mary fails to state that that attempt was part of Wyatt's rebellion, of which the Duke of Suffolk was a leader. Indeed, these paragraphs seem to imply that the Duke of Suffolk's attempt to depose Mary came before Wyatt's (they were the same attempt), that Jane was executed because she did not convert (perhaps, but not the primary factor), and that Wyatt's rebellion came after Jane's execution (it did not). Major revisions seem to be needed. 170.135.241.45 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)John[reply]

Oh Dear!!

[edit]

This page is dreadfully badly written and incoherent - it smacks of an old fashioned history text book most inexpertly and clumsily summarised by a non-native speaker of English with incomplete comprehension of the text. I have patched a few obvious examples of this - but it patently needs to be rewritten. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

[edit]

Can someone please explain this to me?
"After Henry led troops during the Siege of Boulogne in 1544–an attempt to take French territory for England–he died on 28 January 1547. His will had reinstated his daughters by his annulled marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn to the line of succession, but did not legitimize them. (Because his marriages had been annulled, they legally never occurred, so his children by those marriages were illegitimate.) In the event that all 3 of his children died without heir, the will stipulated that the descendant of his younger sister Mary would take precedence over the descendants of his elder sister, Margaret, Queen of Scotland. Edward, his nine-year old son by Jane Seymour, succeeded as Edward VI of England."
Some of the words were misspelled and I'm not sure I understand the whole reinstatement to the line of succession but that did not legitimize them. So Mary was really illegitimate, but they gave more grief to Elizabeth? Also, after this was made didn't they have the right to call themselves Princess again?? On Elizabeth's wiki page they have her being called Lady Elizabeth up until she became Queen. They don't mention it on Mary's page as far as I can see, but they do call her the Lady Mary Tudor in the box at the bottom of Elizabeth's page where the predecessor entry for the heir is. Where did this information come from? There is NO source for this whole paragraph.
Lady Meg (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was and wasn't "legitimate" was of course very confused by this time. Strictly, and from the Catholic viewpoint, Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was of course never annulled - so that the marriage to Anne Boleyn was never legal, and Elizabeth was illegitimate from birth. From Henry's own point of view (a not inconsiderable one, since he was after all the King) and, by his order, the Church of England (in his lifetime not actually Protestant as yet) the marriage to Catherine of Aragon was never legal - (she was, technically at least, his brother Prince Arthur's widow and hence his sister-in-law - he had only been able to marry her in the first place by special papal dispensation). Henry's own final position seems basically to have been that all three of his children born to one of his queens (he had other children who were definitely illegitimate) should take their normal precedence so far as succession to the throne was concerned - regardless of their technical legitimacy. This contempt for any inconvenient legal nitpicking was of course typical of Henry. It's no wonder there as a fair bit of huffing and puffing over it all after his death however! I agree the article is not well written, or adequately referenced - there are of course many books on the period, several of which are scholarly enough to make good sources. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to House of Tudor

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was move to House of Tudor. OCNative (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that this article is located at Tudor dynasty while the other English royal houses are named House of Plantagenet, House of Lancaster, and House of York, plus the British royal houses are House of Stuart, House of Hanover, House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and House of Windsor. I will note there is a Category:House of Tudor but no Category:Tudor dynasty. I propose that this article be moved from Tudor dynasty to House of Tudor. OCNative (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. There is significant, evidence-based opposition to the move below, and based on the arguments I've read, I can't say that there's a consensus to move the page at this time. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) GTBacchus(talk) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tudor dynasty → House of Tudor –

  • It is a process based objection. I fail to see why you would want to discuss a rename, close it in a week, and then file a speedy rename, when you could have opened a proper renaming discussion through WP:RM. As royalty is likely to be a popular topic lately, it will get a wider audience who may wish to give input, other than those who watchlist this talk page. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Tudor dynasty is much clearer and easier to understand than House of Tudor. As for the argument that other articles are called House of..., maybe they should be renamed ... Dynasty.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to more common form of name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This was a Royal House so should be at House of Tudor. Opera hat (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: "House of Tudor" is by analogy easier to find; and "dynasty" has a less specific meaning for ordinary people. However, I don't agree with a recent trend to open and close Move discussions (in a variety of fields) within the space of a week, even though the recent results are ones I've agreed with (see. e.g., Talk:Yankee Stadium (1923)#Requested move (April 2011)). Almost every move or move-back requires not only a change in editors' minds, but changes and redirects in many other pages. Now that the move's been made, I suppose, I'd be arguing that any move back to "Tudor dynasty" should take more time and notice, as happened with the last move-back at Talk:The Bronx/Name.—— Shakescene (talk)
  • Oppose. Never been a fan of these 'House of X' neologisms. They sound too much like a pretentious antique dealer. This clan is most commonly called simply the Tudors. If that is too ambiguous, then I would prefer Tudors (dynasty), then the current name, before House of T. Agricolae (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Tudor (so named) came before the antique dealers. Would you demolish Westminster Abbey because the Albert Memorial is an eyesore? Opera hat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly House of Tudor has more precedent than an abomination like the House of Jimenez, or House of Aragon referring to any member of any of the three families that held Aragon at different times, or even House of Plantagenet for which I have the same reaction (like the Tudors, they were always simply the Plantagenets to me, as opposed to, say, the House of Valois or House of Savoy or House of York or Lancaster, which is equally likely to be a hotel or furniture store, but is what I am used to calling them, so it doesn't elicit the same reaction). I see no need to rename for uniformity when uniformity has never been the practice and can result in some really bad outcomes. I would rather they just be called the Tudors. (Now, about Westminster Abbey . . . .) Agricolae (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Dynasty tend to refer to a line of ruling monarchs with little or no inclusion of their families, like the dynasties of the Roman and Byzantine Empires. House of Tudor is fine. Moving it to Tudor or the Tudors would be confusing considering the show by the same name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there's a reason they gave the show that name . . . . Agricolae (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a distinct difference between a house and a dynasty. The Dynasty is only the period in which a House rules, the House must exist prior to the establishment of the Dynasty, since the first ruler was not born on the day of the establishment of the Dynasty. Whether the House is notable enough to be separated from its Dyansty is a separate matter... this particular house doesn't seem to exist much outside its dynasty though... 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Welsh genealogies they are the House (or however you want to render it) of Ednyfed Fychan, or even the House of Marchudd, tracing back to the 9th century and before, one of the so-called '15 noble tribes' of Gwynedd. Agricolae (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on reflection, I feel we are confusing two different things here: the "royal" House of Tudor, ie. the Tudor family, and the dynasty that ruled England between 1485 and 1603 (which is what this article was originally intended to include). I think there is room for two separate articles. Deb (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a non-specialist, I think that's a very good point. The House of York and the House of Lancaster (the two immediate predecessors of Henry VII's line) are referred to (and usually understood) all the time, but not the Lancastrian or Yorkist dynasty. Henry VII is occasionally seen, if anything, as a continuation of the Lancastrian dynasty, and I think that he would sometimes present himself that way to affirm his legitimacy and continuity in the line of English kings. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it'd be a good idea to show how the terms appear on GoogleBooks. We all know published sources tend to be better sources of information than unpublished ones. The terms are almost dead even at about 25,000 hits apiece. But if you limit the search to books published in the last 100 years, "Tudor dynasty" gets the nod with 13,600 hits to 8,910. If you further limit the results to the last 50 years, "Tudor dynasty" gets almost twice as many hits as "House of Tudor" (11,300 to 6,510). GoogleScholar also shows that "Tudor dynasty" is more common. So I think it's clear that modern sources (the ones we should using for this article) tend to use the term "Tudor dynasty" more often than "House of Tudor". Oppose.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In support of the consistency argument, I will note the ngrams do show that "House of X" is generally more common than "X dynasty" for the English/British royal family lines:
On a straight Google search:
Google Books and Google Scholar show similar results. OCNative (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about the Tudors, the other dynasties/houses are almost irrelevant. I agree the data does show that to be the case for others but it doesn't for the Tudors.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This was a Royal House so should be at House of Tudor. I would also argue that a royal succession that only spans three generations is hardly a dynasty. Eric Cable  |  Talk  11:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. While I agree with the above user's comment, I would prefer to remain neutral in this argument, though I may choose to support or oppose later on. In the books I have read regarding the Tudors, "The Tudors" appears most often - it remains ambiguous as to whether we are to call it a House or a Dynasty; should we decide one over another simply because other articles are in that style? I would also like to point out to Eric that I have a problem with how there were only three generations as the English head of state - there just aren't that many people with other titles. Excluding those that became King or Queen, there's pretty much just the odd duke here and there who dies in infancy. There's no line of dukes or earls diverging from this house it just ends after it fails to have enough surviving heirs (of the Tudor name, of course).-- OsirisV (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Fall' of the House of Lancaster

[edit]

I've deleted a sentence that read, 'when the House of Lancaster fell from power the Tudors followed'. Followed by falling, or followed into power? The Tudor taking of power followed not the 'fall' of Lancaster but the death of Richard of York, and their own 'fall' didn't happen till much later. If this refers to something prior to H.VII it needs fuller explanation.

New article: The Tudors of Penmynydd

[edit]

I've started to create a new article on this important family from Penmynydd, North Wales - the male linage of Henry VII: Tudors of Penmynydd as it is practically ignored in this article. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tudor war ship.JPG Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Tudor war ship.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tudor war ship.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdwr vs. Tudur

[edit]

I couldn't find in any article so far a proper explanation what the Welsh words "Tewdwr / Tudur" actually mean. An explanation is also missing why the Welsh spelling switches between "Tewdwr" and "Tudur", given the two variants are pronounced in Welsh quite differently.

Wiktionary (Tudor) explains the name "Tewdwr" as the Welsh form of the given name "Theodore", whereas this article states that "Tewdur or Tudor is derived from the words tud "territory" and rhi "king".

Which explanation is the correct one?

I personally favour the explanation provided by Wiktionary, since the patronymic name "ap Tudur" i.e. "son of Theodore" implies that Tudur is a given name. However, this doesn't explain why "Tewdwr / Tudur" was anglicised as Tudor instead of Theodore. Can someone explain this, please?--Td222 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, the "tud" and "rhi" ("land" and "king") theory strikes me as plain silly, as the name came into the family as the Christian name of Tudur Hen, from whom it was ultimately adopted as an English-style surname by Owen Tudor. "Tewdwr", or Tudor, however spelt, is plainly a personal name, not a territorial one. It's hard to find a reliable source for any derivation, and in a sense one is not really needed, as by now it could be little more than speculation. However, the "Theodore" theory is supported by Elizabeth Caldwell Hirschman and‎ Donald N. Yates in 'Enter the Tudors 1450–1550', chapter 10 of The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales (McFarland, North Carolina, 2014); and Samuel Rudder's A New History of Gloucestershire (1986) at p. 93 says "Rhees ap Tudor, or Theodore". If no one objects here, we could perhaps add the "Theodore" explanation with those sources. You ask why "Tewdwr/Tudur" was anglicized as Tudor instead of Theodore? In adopting the "Theodore" theory, Hirschman and‎ Yates note that a man named Tudor Walensis appears in the Domesday Book, and also that there were equivalents of "Theodore" in several languages (Thierry in French, Dietrich in German, Theodoric and Theodore in English, and so forth). So the name which Owen Tudor decided to use as a surname had been around for some time in a Welsh or Anglo-Welsh form. No doubt it would have been rather odd to reinvent it in a non-Welsh form, especially when the English form was rather different. Moonraker (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Hirschman and‎ Yates are reliable sources at all judging from what I've seen from their ridiculous When Scotland Was Jewish: DNA Evidence, Archeology, Analysis of Migrations, and Public and Family Records Show Twelfth Century Semitic Roots on GoogleBooks. Anyway, we're talking about a word's origin, but the second source you quoted is just a raw example of the Welsh name being Anglicized "Theodore". Also, I think it's wrong to assume that, since a name is derived from a word element meaning "land" it thus negated from being a personal name.
Here's a quote from an article on the Tudors by Geraint H. Jenkins:

The name Tudor, Modern Welsh Tudur, is of Celtic derivation. It is attested in the spelling Tutir as the name of the witness to charter 143 of the Book of Llandaf, a charter whose original dated to c. AD 660. This compound name Touto~rīx is in fact attested, as a divine name, in Gaulish (see TEUTATES; D. Ellis Evans, BBCS 24.420) and is made up of elements signifying 'tribe' and 'king' (see KINGSHIP); cf. Old Irish TUATH and rí.

— Jenkins, GT (2006). "Tudur (Tudor) dynasty". In Koch, JT (ed.). Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. Vol. 5. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 1696–1697. ISBN 1-85109-445-8. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
Here's a relevant blurb from Dictionary of American Family Names published by Oxford University Press:

Welsh: from the personal name Tudur, which is of ancient Celtic origin and unexplained etymology. It has sometimes been erroneously taken as a Welsh equivalent of Latin Theodorus, Greek Theodōros (see Theodore), for which the usual Welsh form is Tewdwr.

— "Tudor Family History". Ancestry.com. n.d. Retrieved 20 October 2014., and "Tudor". Answers.com. n.d. Retrieved 20 October 2014.
Here's all I can see from a snippet on GoogleBooks from a book by Bart Jaski:

... rhi, Gaulish rix and Latin rex, and túath with Welsh and Breton tud, Gothic thiuda, Anglo-Saxon theod and Italic tota. Both form elements in personal names such as Welsh Tudur, Gaulish Toutiorix and German Theoderic. Although a phonetic correspondence does not imply a semantic correspondence, the basic meaning of ri and túath and their close are fairly obvious.

— Jaski, B (2000). Early Irish Kingship and Succession. Dublin: Four Courts Press. p. 38.
Here's some bits from a article by Edgar C. Polomé and J.P. Mallory:

*teutéha- 'the people (?under arms)'. IEW 1084-1085 (*teuta); Wat 71 (*teuta-); GI 652 (*theu-th-); Buck19.22]. OIr tūath 'a people, nation; (common) people as opposed to king or clergy', Wels tud 'country'. .... In early Ireland, the tuath is inextricably associated with the concept of the 'king' (niba tūath ... cen rīg 'a tūath is not a tūath without a king') and this concept may extend back at least into Proto-Celtic, cf. Wels Tudur (< *Teuto-rīks 'teuto-king'), Gaul Toutio-rix "Tribal"-king.

— Polomé, EC; Mallory, JP (1997). "People". In Mallory, JP; Adams, DQ (eds.). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. pp. 416–417. ISBN 1-884964-98-2.

Here's the blurb on the name Tudur by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges:

Welsh: traditional name derived from the Old Celtic form Teutorix, composed of elements meaning 'people, tribe' + 'ruler, king'. The name has been widely believed to be a Welsh form of THEODORE, but there is in fact no connection between the two names. Variants: Tudyr (an earlier spelling); Tudor (an Anglicized spelling).

— Hanks, P; Hodges, F (2003). A Dictionary of First Names (MOBI). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198606052.
Anyway, it seems to me that reliable sources regard the name Tudur as unrelated to Theodore, a name derived from Latin and Greek (from Greek theos 'god' and dōron 'gift'). Apparently Theodore is represented in Welsh as Tewdwr. Tudur, on the other hand, is somewhat similar in origin to the German Theodric (that doesn't mean it's derived from Theodric though).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am coming to this late, but I am a little concerned with the conclusion reached here (as presented in the article text). I am not at all convinced by this spray of references that in medieval Welsh a Tudor/Tewdwr distinction actually existed. While these quotes provide a solid basis for the name Tudor being derived from the Gaulish root, distinct from the Greek root of Theodore, the only one that mentions Tewdwr in this context is the Ancestry.com one. I know a little bit about how those Ancestry blurbs were compiled, and the process was much more one of high-output to get something on a lot of pages than a process of exacting scholarly rigor, and even then it isn't clear it is not just talking about modern usage rather than origin. That Tewdwr has been used or is used now for Theodore need not imply that Tewdwr derives from Theodore - an analogy: Íñigo derives from the Basque Enneco, yet the entirely distinct but superficially similar Ignatius was often used as a familiar substitute for Íñigo in medieval Latin (see St. Ignatius, i.e. Íñigo de Loyola); you will frequently see it said that Íñigo is the Basque form of Ignatius, but that is mistaking convenient substitution for derivation. As a specific example from the period, Owen Tudor had first cousin named Tudor ap Goronwy, whose son would likewise adopt a surname and be another Owen Tudor, but in the next generation, his son would be called Richard Theodore.(from Dict Welsh Bio, TUDOR family of Penmynydd) While I am perfectly satisfied with the derivation of Tudor, and even saying that its origin is distinct from the similarly-sounding Theodore, I just don't think we have the goods to declare as we do that Tudor is an entirely distinct name from Tewdwr, nor do I think we need even answer that question. Agricolae (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed, article already moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Tudor dynasty → House of Tudor – See discussion on talk page Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page move to "House of Tudor"

[edit]

I am reigniting this discussion in hopes that a page move will result.

Page move: Tudor dynasty → House of Tudor

  1. This article is the only one located at "_____ dynasty" whereas all other articles for British (and by extension English and Scottish) royal houses are located at "House of _____".
  2. There is a category named "Category:House of Tudor", but no such category named "Category:Tudor dynasty".
  3. When you search for the topic in Google, there are about 8,670,000 results for "House of Tudor", but only about 432,000 results for "Tudor dynasty". This trait is shared with other royal house search results with about 36,000,000 results for "House of Windsor" but only about 592,000 results for "Windsor dynasty"; also there are about 4,730,000 results for "House of Normabdy", but only about 406,000 results for "Normandy dynasty". Consequently, many results for "_____ dynasty" are titled "House of _____" anyway.
  4. Encyclopedia Britannica uses "House of Tudor" as do many history websites.
  5. There is a distinct difference between the terms House and Dynasty: a House is generally synonymous with a family and can exist long before or long after that house's rule begins or ends (House of Tudor ruled from 1066-1135 but existed from 911 C.E.), whereas a Dynasty is a term generally associated with Asian culture used to describe the ruling period of a family or house (e.g. Qing dynasty was the ruling period of the House of Aisin Gioro). Even the Wikipedia article for Dynasty states that: "A dynasty is a sequence of rulers from the same family" and that "The dynastic family or lineage may be known as a 'house'" with "the term "dynasty" may be used to delimit the era during which the family reigned".
  6. Using the name "House of Tudor" also reduces confusion with modern pieces related to the ruling period of the house such as books and television series named "The Tudors" or "Tudors", as "House of Tudor" related specifically to the royal house itself.
  7. Renaming the page allows for ancestral history of the house, currently in the small Tudors of Penmynydd article, to be integrated into the new article. Consequently, many ancestors of the ruling line of Tudors possess the surname "Tudor". This can also be seen in the article House of Normandy where it was founded for the Dukes of Normandy in 911 C.E. by Rollo, while they came to power as Kings of England in 1066 C.E. under William I.
  8. There was unanimous support for a page move at Talk:Tudor dynasty#Move to House of Tudor. But for some unknown reason, the move was never carried out.

Consequently, there is a valid argument to move the page to House of Tudor. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The proposer copied and pasted the Support !votes, but not the Oppose !votes, from an earlier RM. This gave the misleading impression that there is unanimous support for a page move. I have redacted them. Also, opening an RM while leaving the RfC open makes no sense. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Scolaire: In my defense I did not copy/paste past support votes into my argument, I simply borrowed the format only and listed my own points in my own section for a clear, easy to read format. I was not intending to make it appear as though unanimous support existed, I just laid out my argument in a clear, easy to read format. Please keep in mind that this was created ages ago as one of my first page move proposals and I was inexperienced in using the correct format. I have corrected this error and have re-added my points in a new format.
      As there have been no rejections for this proposal, and my support points were valid, is it possible for this page to finally be moved? Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Tudor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of Tudor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit the page but someone should get rid of this nonsense: "Elizabeth was a bull, strong and hard-headed who kept the target in sight. Elizabeth's primary target: providing the best for her people and proving those wrong who doubted her while maintaining a straight composure." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:7402:A900:D08D:C3E6:2F2A:DADC (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Elizabeth?

[edit]

This sentence

She was both a man and woman; a king and a queen; but one Elizabeth.

sounds more like poetry than like a sentence from an encyclopedia. And what does it mean? -- 212.183.92.174 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mojoworker (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not well done. I think the poetry is a quote, possibly from her first address to parliament, or possibly first written in her obituaries. The whole paragraph is much the same, not just the last sentence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a quote, it should be cited. And yes, the entire paragraph is written in an unencyclopedic style. I copyedited it a bit, but it's still not as good as it should be – have at it. Mojoworker (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section about Elizabeth seems to have been written by a breathless 14-year old. Precocious, without a doubt, but completely unqualified to write encyclopaedia articles (which is the fundamental failure of Wikipedia and why it will never be an encyclopaedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.160 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether it should be turned to a study of the eulogising / romanticising of Elizabeth's reign, and when this happened. Something should be done, yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on House of Tudor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used seem to be reliable, up to date, and not biased. One concern is that it takes a few paragraphs to get to the second example of a citation. In our editing tutorial, it specified that a good article should have at least one citation per paragraph. —Taylorshipley1325 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After clicking on a few of the links used for citations, it would appear that they work. —Taylorshipley1325 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Rose

[edit]

The Tudor Badges section states that "the Tudor Rose... was used by every British Monarch since Henry VII as a Royal Badge". Presumably not by any Scottish monarch prior to the Union of the Crowns? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Henry VII

[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the portrait labeled as Henry VII in the section about his reign is actually a portrait of Henry VIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.51.179.254 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sodacan (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tudors are ethnically celtic aren't they?

[edit]

Are the tudor's an ethnic celtic family? Would the tudor's taking power in england mark the end of the germanic monarchy of england? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.50.141 (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I say this not to be rude but this question is wrong on all levels. Firstly, the Tudors were originally Welsh, yes, however Owen Tudor, the founder, was married to a French princess Catherine de Valois, who, like all European royalty was a genetic soup with, by my reckoning, 3 French, 3 Italian and 2 German great grandparents. These great grandparents would themselves have been an equal mix, so it’s not even accurate to say she was 3/8 French, for example. Thus, the first generation of our (not yet on the throne) Tudors were half Welsh, half ‘royal soup’. Our next generation’s Tudor, Edmund, married Margaret Beaufort, who, though less ‘soupy’ and more English, was still not Celtic, her blood bringing Henry VII (our first monarch) to only 1/4 Welsh. A thoroughly, culturally, Anglo-French individual who had 1/4 Welsh blood, though it was in the direct male line, was hardly some Celtic takeover of England by any stretch, as if Owen Glendower had conquered England with a Welsh army. Henry VII, in fact, was married to Elizabeth of York, the legitimate heir to the previous ruling family, so this was no wholesale replacement. Thus by the time we reach our Henry VIII, and his four reigning children, including Elizabeth I, we are at a mere 1/8 and 1/16 Celtic respectively. Fairly unimpressive. They had virtually the same genetic makeup as whoever had been on the throne had the Tudors not overthrown Richard III. More importantly however, is the reality that all the Celtic ancestry in the world could not make these culturally Anglo-French royals Celtic in their culture or outlook. They were, in this regard, no different to their predecessors. Thirdly, the entire premise of your question is off. Even if we accept that the Tudors were as Welsh as they come, and thus could replace a Germanic monarchy with a Celtic one, then we must also (rightly) assume that the William the Conquerer replaced a Germanic monarchy with a Franco-Norman one. The Germanic monarchy of England ended in 1066, not 1485. The Tudors simply changed which family which was presently occupying William I’s thoroughly Anglo-Norman throne. FJDEACKB (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree again

[edit]

The current version of the family tree shows Edward III's sons in the wrong order (i.e. 3rd before 2nd), in order to clearly show Anne de Mortimer's marriage to Richard Earl of Cambridge, and show how their two branches of the family were united. However, that somewhat obscures the Mortimer family's claim to the throne, which was usurped by Henry IV, because the tree puts John of Gaunt's branch of the family ahead of his older brother Lionel's. Would it be better to have Edward III's sons in order of age? Here is what it would look like in my sandbox. The only drawback is that Richard Earl of Cambridge has to appear twice if we do that. Richard75 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the chart is fine how it is now. It's clearly showing who is the first son, the second and so on. There is no need to complicate this. --Daduxing (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Jane Grey

[edit]

Surely Jane is not a Tudor monarch, anymore than James VI & I is. She derived her claim through a female Tudor, as did James, but was a Grey, just as he was Stuart. She was, of course, a monarch of the Tudor period, but this is quite a different thing. FJDEACKB (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, she was as Tudor as they come. Who was her dad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.160 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For all intents and purposes, I’d like to point out that the infobox and succession box at Lady Jane Grey both give her as a member of the House of Grey. Keriluamox (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Why was John of Gaunt able to be a prince even though he was an illegitimate child? Mia1199 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John of Gaunt was not illegitimate. Are you confusing him with his Beaufort children? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Tudor&oldid=1241670639"