Henry VII - A new perspective

Luigie

Banned
Hi All
I have written a Romantic Historical Novel about Henry VII. To do so I had to do a considerable amount of research.
In my rearch I proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he has been much maligned by historians purely for political reasons. Starting with John Milton who was under personal pressure to advance the English cause. [Google John Milton Wiki].
Please read my web page on Henry VII "Y Gwr Darogan" The man of Prophecy. http://www.tudor.vc/tudor/harritudur.html
I would welcome an informative discussion on the subject.
Luigie
 
Last edited:

Luigie

Banned
Hi
I forgot to mention that the book is called "King of Princes"
I am hoping to have it published in July this year after my editor has finished with it.
 
Last edited:
Hi
I forgot to mention that the book is called "King of Princes"
I am hoping to have it published in July this year after my editor has finished with it.


Problem is that Brits prefer their leader to be a bit of a rogue - Henry VIII, Charles II, Disraeli, Lloyd George and such others as you care to name.

If they can't have a rogue, the next best thing is a nonentity. A solid, hard working type like Henry VII, William III or Margaret Thatcher is apt to be thoroughly disliked. It's no accident that Henry VII is the only adult king between Edward II and Henry VIII about whom nobody wrote a play.
 

Luigie

Banned
Point taken Milkstone8
There are umteen dozen books about all the other Tudors, Henry VIII being the biggest rogue of the lot.
I am hoping that I can uncover more information about Henry VII through discussion.
e.g. Sometime ago a descendant of the man that did kill Richard III drew my attention to the folklore within his family.
The ancester, a commoner, was knighted and was given the hand of Jasper Tudur in marriage.
 

Luigie

Banned
Isn't anyone interested to have a discussion about Henry VII. The man who changed history.
 
Isn't anyone interested to have a discussion about Henry VII. The man who changed history.

That's a bit anglocentric don't you think? Henry VII: the man, who changed English history, would be more accurate;).

Anyway Henry VII did end the war of the Roses, and IIRC his claim to the throne was more by right of conquest and not because he had inherited a strong claim to the throne. But I'd like to read this discussion, to improve my knowledge on this subject.
 

Luigie

Banned
Hi Janprimus
That's a bit anglocentric don't you think? Henry VII: the man, who changed English history, would be more accurate
Point taken. :)
However, it is probably more Welshcentric if you read my Web Page.
It would really be nice to discuss with someone who is unbiased.
The Richard III enthuisiasts do not like my web page at all. But I have conducted a lot of in depth study on the subject and proved them wrong. Instead of trying to agrue their case like gentlemen they prefer to attack me personally simply because their case is weak.
I invite you to read my web page and discuss.
 
I've taken a cursory look.
Seem interesting in enough. Though I would point out that your tone seems a little Anti-English Pro-Welsh. It is possible to be pro Welsh without being anti English :D
 

Sior

Banned
I've taken a cursory look.
Seem interesting in enough. Though I would point out that your tone seems a little Anti-English Pro-Welsh. It is possible to be pro Welsh without being anti English :D

Not really, how would you feel if a bunch of foreigners snuck into your country and stole your jobs, your homes and raped your women! Sorry I forgot, that's happening to the English now, payback is a bitch!
We have long memories!
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Not really, how would you feel if a bunch of foreigners snuck into your country and stole your jobs, your homes and raped your women! Sorry I forgot, that's happening to the English now, payback is a bitch!
We have long memories!

That's trolling. Grow up and cut it out.
 

Luigie

Banned
Hello The Professor
Thanks for your post.
I think on a cursory glance it may appear Welsh biased. But I'm flying in the face of "accepted" history that is very English biased.
So just trying to correct the bias - so to speak. :)
What I really want is the Truth. I'm not interested in any Welsh/English bashing.
 
Last edited:

Luigie

Banned
Hi MNPundit
I was taken aback by your post. Nothing could be further from my mind.
What I am more interested in is improving my Web Page.
 
Last edited:
Hello The Professor
Thanks for your post.
I think on a cursory glance it may appear Welsh biased. But I'm flying in the face of "accepted" history that I is very English biased.
So just trying to correct the bias - so to speak. :)
What I really want is the Truth. I'm not interested in any Welsh/English bashing.

No worries.
Just be aware that people get quite emotional if they feel their personal history is being attacked ;).
I am a bit surprised about the Richard III debate. I thought everyone had got over the Lancastrian "RIII was a bastard" vs Yorkist "RIII wasn't" debate :D
 

Luigie

Banned
No worries.
Just be aware that people get quite emotional if they feel their personal history is being attacked ;).
Unfortunately i have come across hostility.:( But I have had some very interesting informative discussions as well.
It is amazing what can be dug up by things like family folklore.
 
No worries.
Just be aware that people get quite emotional if they feel their personal history is being attacked ;).
I am a bit surprised about the Richard III debate. I thought everyone had got over the Lancastrian "RIII was a bastard" vs Yorkist "RIII wasn't" debate :D


Try "History Hub" on the BBC History Message Board. You'd soon learn different.

What amuses me is that those who curse "Lord Stanley" [1] for tipping the scales against Richard at Bosworth also seem to hate the Tudors, whose "smack of firm government" made it impossible for future over-mighty subjects to behave as the Stanleys had. If they can't be logical, they might at least be consistent.

[1] It was actually his brother, Sir William Stanley, who did so. Lord Stanley intervened only when the battle was already won. But amateur historians regularly get this wrong.
 
Certainly interesting - that Frenchman you talk about i think i'll have to read his stuff.

Got to agree with the Anti-English Pro-Welsh bias though.
 

Luigie

Banned
Mikestone8
One thing I have realised is that Richard III was not stupid. He became aware on the 17th Agust (5 days before the battle) that the Welsh. enblock, had sided with Henry. Henry could never have got to Shrewsbury in 10 days without massive support from the Welsh. So from the outset he would not have depended on the Stanleys who were both from the West country, as a fair proportion of their troops would have been Welsh.
In those days there was an East West divide and a North South divide.
Richard's power was in the North and East.
He must have had a thrombie on the 17th August when he found out that Tudor was in Shrewsbury.
Richard would have known that Henry had sailed from France on the 31st of July or 1st August. That is why he was in the process of gathering his troops to Nottingham in the middle of England. Not knowing where or when Henry would arrive on the Island.
Henry's amazing march 240 miles in 15 days threw Richard 'big time'. Richard was left with two options. Allow Henry to get to London and take his time amassing his forces or hurriedly getting them together and stopping Henry getting to London where Henry was sure of additional support.
He took the first option and was not sufficiently prepared to fight Henry's professional warriors.
Although Richard had many more troops at his disposal they were mainly conscripts with little or no military experience.
Read my Web Page and feel free to raise any questions. I am happy to make changes if there are weaknesses in my version of events.
 

Luigie

Banned
Hi vitemajoren
Henry's troops marched 240 miles in just 15 days in an era when armies marched at no more than 4 or 5 miles a day.
He was a brave man and his army was well trained and professional.
 
Top