The New Murrey and Blue blog

Henry VII was an “unexpected” ruler….?

,
, , , , , , , ,

 

Henry VII

The following list deals with fifteen unexpected rulers. Well, these things are in the eye of the beholder, of course, but (for readers of this blog) the salient name on the list is Henry VII, who apparently won at Bosworth “largely by chance”. Hmm…. How, pray, can deliberate desertion and treachery be regarded as chance? More like malice aforethought, methinks If some of the so-called supporters of Richard III turned on that unfortunate monarch and murdered him, I simply cannot regard Henry’s “victory” as being by chance. He was on the throne because of conspiracy and regicide. Period.

And I’m delighted that in the years after Bosworth, Henry himself turned upon one of those conspirators and regicides, one Sir William Stanley. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Oh yes, Stanley got his just deserts, but that sly, undeserving creep Tudor stayed on the throne and inflicted his bloodline upon us.

What a pity no one managed to turn upon Henry successfully. And terminally. That would have been perfect.

Subscribe to my newsletter

  1. H.J. Hill Avatar
    H.J. Hill

    Isn’t it funny how many usurpers show up “unexpectedly”?

    Like

    Reply
  2. Myrna Smith Avatar
    Myrna Smith

    But isn/t the current monarch of England of Henry’s “bloodline?” The family name is ‘Windsor,’ but King Charles III is a direct descendant.

    >

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. viscountessw Avatar
      viscountessw

      They are all crowned, anointed monarchs and therefore rightfully on the throne. As was Henry VII, of course, but that doesn’t make him Richard III’s true heir. Henry took the throne through conflict and treachery, and if it weren’t for the latter he’d have died on the field at Bosworth. But once the crown was on his head at Westminster, the holy oil administered and the oaths had been uttered etc., he WAS the king. As was the boy in Dublin, of course.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. myrna smith Avatar
        myrna smith

        So are you making a distinction between The Anointed King and The True King? Who was Richard III’s true heir?

        For that matter, who was Henry VII’s true heir? And why should we hate him?

        Like

      2. super blue Avatar
        super blue

        To Richard III: the Earl of Lincoln then the Earl of Suffolk, as Warwick was disbarred by attainder. To Henry VII: Arthur then Henry VIII.

        Like

      3. myrna smith Avatar
        myrna smith

        What about the Earl of Warwick, George Plantagenet’s son? Wasn’t he Richard’s true heir by blood? In fact, wasn’t he Edward IV’s legitimate heir as well?

        Like

      4. super blue Avatar
        super blue

        The Clarence attainder disbarred his children and has never been reversed.

        Like

  3. mry4441 Avatar
    mry4441

    I absolutely agree viscountessw. Henry VII was an evil usurper. He didn’t even fight at Bosworth where a good King was treacherously slaughtered.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  4. A RED ROSE FOR CHELSEA – murreyandblue

    […] Elizabeth Talbot didn’t hold Chelsea for very long. After Richard was killed at Bosworth and Henry Tudor became King, she was persuaded by Margaret Beaufort to give up Chelsea to her famous (or infamous) […]

    Like

    Reply
  5. Medieval Castles were NOT romantic….! – murreyandblue

    […] and ready. Or him to be either, come to that! Perish the thought. But when it comes to the likes of Henry Tudor, I confess to being quite capable of imagining fifty ways of disposing of him! None of them […]

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to viscountessw Cancel reply