WI: Edward Tudor, Son of Henry VII

The usual listing of Henry VII's sons runs as follows:
Arthur, prince of Wales
Henry, duke of York
Edmund, duke of Somerset
However, there seems to be a third son (born between Henry and Edmund, apparently, although a birth year isn't listed): Edward, who died in 1499 (same year EDMUND was born) and was buried with his mom and sisters, Elizabeth and Katherine, their tombs moved when construction began on the Henry VII Chapel in 1503.

As to WHEN Edward Tudor was born, there are some that posit it was AFTER Arthur and BEFORE Henry. And there was a whole down-the-rabbit hole argument due to reading a "vix" in a document as a "xiv" (vix being the Latin word for "barely" as opposed to 14) which then suggests Edward WAS older than Henry or even Arthur (14yo in 1499 would posit a birthdate of 1484/1485*). And since Henry is NEVER AFAIK referred to as anything BUT the second son or a younger son, I believe this is unlikely.

Which pushes Ned Tudor to third place. Some sources posit him between Elizabeth/Mary and Edmund by mere dint of there not being much about him. Which is possible, I suppose. Others dismiss Edward as a typo or a conflation with Edmund (I even saw one person arguing that he was named Edmund but CALLED Edward).

But what if there WAS a bona fide third son of Henry VII. When is it likely he would've come along? (The 1490s seem to be more fruitful for Henry-Elizabeth than the 1480s). What if he had lived past 1499 (but still predecease Henry VII)?

*I'm actually surprised that fiction writers (*coughs* Philippa *splutters* Gregory) haven't made more of it - arguing that an Edward (who is older than Arthur) is actually the love child Elizabeth and Richard III
 
The usual listing of Henry VII's sons runs as follows:
Arthur, prince of Wales
Henry, duke of York
Edmund, duke of Somerset
However, there seems to be a third son (born between Henry and Edmund, apparently, although a birth year isn't listed): Edward, who died in 1499 (same year EDMUND was born) and was buried with his mom and sisters, Elizabeth and Katherine, their tombs moved when construction began on the Henry VII Chapel in 1503.

As to WHEN Edward Tudor was born, there are some that posit it was AFTER Arthur and BEFORE Henry. And there was a whole down-the-rabbit hole argument due to reading a "vix" in a document as a "xiv" (vix being the Latin word for "barely" as opposed to 14) which then suggests Edward WAS older than Henry or even Arthur (14yo in 1499 would posit a birthdate of 1484/1485*). And since Henry is NEVER AFAIK referred to as anything BUT the second son or a younger son, I believe this is unlikely.

Which pushes Ned Tudor to third place. Some sources posit him between Elizabeth/Mary and Edmund by mere dint of there not being much about him. Which is possible, I suppose. Others dismiss Edward as a typo or a conflation with Edmund (I even saw one person arguing that he was named Edmund but CALLED Edward).

But what if there WAS a bona fide third son of Henry VII. When is it likely he would've come along? (The 1490s seem to be more fruitful for Henry-Elizabeth than the 1480s). What if he had lived past 1499 (but still predecease Henry VII)?

*I'm actually surprised that fiction writers (*coughs* Philippa *splutters* Gregory) haven't made more of it - arguing that an Edward (who is older than Arthur) is actually the love child Elizabeth and Richard III

I have thoughts, but would it be necessary for him to predecease Henry VII?
 
Well, no. But I didn't want this to turn into ANOTHER Tudor survival thread.

Aha that's fair.

I do imagine that Edward could've been born perhaps in 1493/94, if we'rre being generous and giving Liz the chance to survive a series of births so quickly after one another
 
*I'm actually surprised that fiction writers (*coughs* Philippa *splutters* Gregory) haven't made more of it - arguing that an Edward (who is older than Arthur) is actually the love child Elizabeth and Richard III

I apoke too soon. Apparently there is mention that Elizabeth of York was deflowered by her uncle BEFORE Richard left for the north in 1483 (still during Edward IV's lifetime), and it was her revelation which "broke" Edward IV's health essentially killing him. The baby was born during Elizabeth Wydeville and her daughters' time in sanctuary (hence the Yorkist name "Edward" - as opposed to all Henry VII's OTL boys who had Lancastrian names), and it was with this in mind that Elizabeth Wydeville required Richard III to swear the oath that he would arrange good marriages blah-blah etc for his nieces. The supposed proof comes from a mention of this by Elizabeth Wydeville's confessor who was pensioned off by the Yorkist queen (by hush money?) in 1495. However the child is presumed to have died young or was stillborn/miscarried.
 
Aha that's fair.

I do imagine that Edward could've been born perhaps in 1493/94, if we'rre being generous and giving Liz the chance to survive a series of births so quickly after one another

Well, her mom didn't do too badly with rapid succession pregnancies:
Elizabeth was born in February 1466, Mary would've been conceived about October-December 1466 (born in August 1467), Cecily in June 1468 and Edward V in January/February 1470.
So it's not unthinkable that a few months was enough time for EoY to recover and fall pregnant again.
 
Well, her mom didn't do too badly with rapid succession pregnancies:
Elizabeth was born in February 1466, Mary would've been conceived about October-December 1466 (born in August 1467), Cecily in June 1468 and Edward V in January/February 1470.
So it's not unthinkable that a few months was enough time for EoY to recover and fall pregnant again.

Very true, Henry VII might well breathe easioer as well
 
Very true, Henry VII might well breathe easioer as well

And Edward dying before he himself fathers offspring will probably intensify Henry VIII's belief that he is cursed if KoA still struggles to produce a live son TTL (Edward IV had three sons, all died; King Henry VI and King Richard had one, he died; my father had four sons, three are dead; I NEED a son).

So you can pick any year for the boy to be born, but to stay true to the "vix/xiv" mistake, let's say Edward dies as a teenager (of his nephews OTL, James V was the only one to survive beyond his teens - I'm not counting the numerous other bastards Henry VIII supposedly fathered).
 
Interestingly, I read Starkey's "The Virtuous Prince" recently and finally found out where alt-history's favourite young Henry VIII chesnut (going into the church) comes from. However, I will admit it seems like a hip-bone to the thigh-bone type story.

Starkey traces the story (first mentioned by Herbert of Cherbury) back to a book by Paolo Sarpi on the Council of Trent. Sarpi seems to have come by his information based on a pediction by an Italian astrologer at Henry VII's court which referred to Henry VIII as "ecclesiasticus". At the time when this prediction was made, Edmund de la Pole had just done a runner to the bosom of the diabolical duchess in Burgundy, and Henry VII was worried that by setting his second son up as a rival (Mordred) to the future King Arthur, hence the idea, which seems to have been discarded almost as quickly as it emerged.

I doubt that even a third son would be sent into an ecclesiastical career. Although as far as titles etc are concerned, Edward would probably be created "duke of Bedford" since OTL Henry inherited much of his great-uncle, Jasper Tudor, duke of Bedford's estate in the absence of a third son.
 
It'd be interesting to see what the sibling dynamic is between Henry (VIII) and Edward. He seemed to be indifferent/at odds with older sister, Margaret, but he and Mary got along well. Likewise, where Arthur's education was basically all-male, Henry's (and presumably Edward's) was surrounded by various females - mom, grandma, sisters, nanny - spoilt and indulged. (Starkey actually draws some interesting (admittedly tenuous) parallels between Henry (VIII) and Richard of Shrewsbury, including that the fact that Henry had a more Yorkist appearance/temperament probably endeared him to his mother as a reminder of "happier times" and her own brother").
 
Starkey speaking of Edmund's birth (but equally applicable to Edward, I guess) "a younger brother would have had a much greater impact on Henry's life than the arrival of another sister. He would have a rival for attention in the nursery; he might be a political rival when they grew up."

Now, Jasper Tudor and Richard, duke of Gloucester seemed to be pretty dog-loyal. Jasper refusing to return to be pardonned unless Henry VII was granted the same privilege IIRC and Richard seemingly only moving against his nephew when he felt he had no other choice. So I don't know if Edward would be the sort of treacherous little brother (here's looking at you, George of Clarence). Plus, they'd probably be brought up together (Henry IV's sons rather than Edward IV-Clarence), so while sibling rivalry is to be expected, the oneupmanship is not necessarily "me want crown". Princess Margaret summed it up pretty well when she said "its this common conception that when there are two sisters, one a queen, the other not, that there must be some sort of rivalry for the crown" and called it all a load of hogwash. Now, times are obviously different 1490-1510, but I don't think a child's temper tantrums or brotherly squabbles about sharing toys/bullying etc could give enough insight to say that they would definitely be like this when they got older
 
Top