Talk:House of Tudor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Formatting problem

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Family tree

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edward IV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Welsh connection? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal House template 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edit speculation

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalization? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Owen Tudor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I suspect you mean 'imply, not 'infer'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.160 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Welsh royal dynasty?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions Needed: Mary I and Wyatt's rebellion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oh Dear!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please explain

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move to House of Tudor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New article: The Tudors of Penmynydd 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title: File:Tudor war ship.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605024015/http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheTudors/EdwardVI.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheTudors/EdwardVI.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509112412/http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/ep/planning/conservation/scheduledmonuments/scheduledmonumentslist/leicesterabbey/theleicesterabbeystory/history-cardinalwolsey/ to http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/ep/planning/conservation/scheduledmonuments/scheduledmonumentslist/leicesterabbey/theleicesterabbeystory/history-cardinalwolsey/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Mojoworker (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  One Elizabeth? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113090856/http://lwlmc.worldcat.org/isbn/0807110051 to http://lwlmc.worldcat.org/isbn/0807110051
*Added  tag to http://www.tudors.org/tudors.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826004458/http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor_england.htm to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor_england.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tudor Rose 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture of Henry VII 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tudors are ethnically celtic aren't they? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Family tree again 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lady Jane Grey 

message: 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)
replies: text: John of Gaunt was not illegitimate.  Are you confusing him with his Beaufort children? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question