The Carey Children

[Eric_Lowe]

I believe Lettice was her full niece, and therefore her son had a claim to the throne. That made his uprising teason and unpardonable. Like the Duke of Monmouth years later...

[Prince_Lieven]

Lettice couldn't have been her full niece - to be Elizabeth's full niece she would've had to have been the daughter of Elizabeth's full sister, which Catherine Carey was not, as Anne Boleyn was not her mother. I'm sure Elizabeth saw any uprising by a subject treasonabe and unpardonable, particularly if they were high born.

[jehan]

I believe Lettice was her full niece, and therefore her son had a claim to the throne. That made his uprising teason and unpardonable. Like the Duke of Monmouth years later...

She wasn't.  And even if she was- how could she claim the throne, when the relationship was on the Boleyn and not the Tudor side.  And IF the Careys were the illegitimate children of Henry- well they were illegitimate and had no claim to the throne.  They were never even recognized by Henry as his children, and there was never a claim that he had married Mary Boleyn at any point.

[Eric_Lowe]

Nor was the Duke of Monmouth as you would remember. He was Henry VIII's natural grandson by Mary Boleyn.

[Prince_Lieven]

Nor was the Duke of Monmouth as you would remember. He was Henry VIII's natural grandson by Mary Boleyn.

I'm guessing you don't mean that Monmouth was Henry VIII's grandson by Mary Boleyn? Anyway, you can't compare the case of an illegitimate son of Charles II to that of a (possible) illegitimate son to Henry VIII - Charles acknowleged Monmouth, it was common knowlege that he was the king's bastard son. Henry did not acknowlege the Careys. Therefore, from a legal and official point of view, they remained the children of Mary Boleyn and William Carey, with no more claim to the throne than anyone else.

[Kimberly]

Eric, I think you mean EARL of Monmouth.
Robert Carey 1st EARL of Monmouth was Elizabeth's cousin. The title became extinct on the death of his son who had no male heirs.

[Eric_Lowe]

No Prince Lieven was right. I did mean Charles II's bastard. In history bastardy does not always debar one from the throne or succession. The Beauforts were legitimized bastards, but Henry VII's weak claim to the throne came from his mother Margaret Beaufort. That Elizabeth I must brought into mind, when she refused to pardon Essex. Also William the Conquerer was a bastard too. Now is actually easier, a strand of the Carey's children 's hair or DNA and compared that to Henry VIII or Mary I can solve the mystery.

[Kimberly]

The DUKE of Monmouth was NOT Henry VIII's natural grandson by Mary Boleyn.

[Prince_Lieven]

No Prince Lieven was right. I did mean Charles II's bastard. In history bastardy does not always debar one from the throne or succession. The Beauforts were legitimized bastards, but Henry VII's weak claim to the throne came from his mother Margaret Beaufort. That Elizabeth I must brought into mind, when she refused to pardon Essex. Also William the Conquerer was a bastard too. Now is actually easier, a strand of the Carey's children 's hair or DNA and compared that to Henry VIII or Mary I can solve the mystery.

Eric, it's just my opinon, but I don't think Elizabeth executing Essex had anything to do with any possible claim to the throne he may or may not have had. Elizabeth was known to be ruthless where her own security was concerned, even with people who'd formerly been part of her circle - like the duke of Norfolk. Even assuming that Essex was indeed the great-grandson of Henry VIII, any claim to the throne this entailed would've been extremely weak. Henry VII's claim to the throne was always more about his marriage to Elizabeth of York, heirss to Edward IV, and even more so through 'right of conquest', just like William the Conqueror. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Essex's kinship with Elizabeth was much remarked upon at the time. He was a distant descendant of Edward III, through both his parents, but I don't think that was ever talked about either.

[mcdnab]

Couple of points:
Henry VII claimed the throne by right of conquest - he won at Bosworth and was with the death of Richard III de facto King. He deliberately delayed marrying Elizabeth of York so that parliament wouldn't imply he owed his throne to either his own dubious genetic claim or his future wife's rather stronger one.
Secondly The Earl of Essex didn't need a spurious claim through the Carey line - he was like numerous members of the nobility descended legitimately from the Royal house of Plantagenet - most directly through Isabella of York sister of Richard Duke of York.
Thirdly bastardy was widely held to mean that you couldn't inherit real property from your putative father - it had been standard practice within the peerage that bastardy didn't necessarily mean you couldn't be helped up in the world but it did mean you wouldn't inherit your fathers styles or titles.  No bastard has ever sat on the English or later British Throne since William the 1st with the exception of Mary I and Elizabeth I who arguably had been born legitimate in the eyes of the law at the point of their birth.
Fourthly it has always struck me that if Henry Carey was Henry VIII's son he would have been likely to acknowledge him as further proof that his lack of a male heir was not his fault as he did with the Duke of Richmond. His relationship with Mary was well known hence his request for a dispensation to cover his marriage to someone who'se relation he'd had sexual relations with.

[Eric_Lowe]

Interestingly is the time line. By the time Henry Carey was born, Henry VIII was already tired of Mary Boleyn, and entered into a relationship with Mary's sister Anne. By declaring Henry his "natural son" would not help matters in his divorce of Katherine of Aragon and complicated whatever chances he have with legitimising his future relationship with Anne Boleyn. So Henry Carey was a victim of circumstance. With the birth of Richmond, Henry VIII did not need another "natural son" to prove he is capable of having sons. Catherine & Henry Carey were the extra proof Henry pscholgocially needed to discard Katherine of Aragon, since she could no longer breed any more children. The fact that Mary (who was fertile) added attractions for Anne, her sister.

[mcdnab]

I take your point but would add that the issue was already complicated given that the his relationship with Mary was known and proveable and that in itself would have presented an impediment to any subsequent marriage with any close relative of Mary Boleyn (which is why his emmisaries to Rome were required to get not only an annulment of his marriage but to also gain him a dispensation in order to marry a woman who was technically related to him on the grounds of his sexual relationship with a close relative - a huge bare faced cheek given that was essentially the same grounds upon which he was calling for his marriage to Katherine of Aragon to be annulled).
Incidentally I don't think he needed any psychological proof to discard Katherine - i tend to agree with his cousin Cardinal Pole and with a number of recent writers that he was largely motivated by desire for Anne..though concerns over his lack of an heir and Mary's legitimacy (raised as early as 1521) were a significant additional fact.
Given that he took great pride in all his children's achievements even after discarding their mothers and even when he was seeing little of them I still find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have acknowledged Henry or Katherine as his if they were despite his new relationship with their aunt after all it was already something of a court joke that he'd moved from one sister to the other. He continued to treat Richmond well even when he was widely expecting Anne to deliver him his long awaited legitimate son.

[Eric_Lowe]

In the new bio about Richmond. He sort of died after Edward VI was born. It was even suggested that he was poisoned.

Yes. It is interesting that Mary was fertile while Anne had such difficulty in having a child. That came to an end (finding an heir) when Edward was born, even though he was sickly. To think about it, all Henry VIII's children had some sort of aliment. From Richmond, Mary I, Edward VI to even Elizabeth I. That is not a healthy family, his sister Margaret Tudor's line was more robust in health.

[alixaannencova]

Eric I am confused as you seem to be implying that Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond died after October 1537, but I understood that he died in July 1536? Or are you talking about someone else who 'sort of died' after the future Edward VI was born? I am very confused..... please explain! How can one 'sort' of die anyway?

In the new bio about Richmond. He sort of died after Edward VI was born. It was even suggested that he was poisoned.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Perhaps it goes along with"being a little bit pregnant"!!!

Larry