Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Bittersteel

Henry Tudor Parallel (it's not Jon Snow)

Recommended Posts

Keep seeing posts about this so I thought I'd make a thread about it instead. A number of posters seem to equate Jon Snow with Henry Tudor and I'd like to show why I disagree and why Aegon (if a blackfyre) makes a far better parallel.


Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne derived from his descent from John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward the III as was the claim of House Lancaster. However, while Henry V and Henry VI derive their claims from the legitimate son of John, Henry IV, Henry Tudor claimed his through John of Gaunt’s bastard son John Beaufort. The Beauforts were specifically barred by law to claim the throne of England by Henry IV, to prevent rival claimants to the throne on the Lancastrian side. In light of this information Henry Tudor had no legal claim to the throne at all, certainly not stronger than Richard III’s. His rationale was that with all the legitimate Lancastrian heirs gone he had ‘inherited’ their claim but it’s clear from any study of his character and execution of Yorkists in later life that this was an insecurity until his death. His children gain a far stronger claim through that of their mother, Elizabeth of York who was the daughter of Yorkist King Edward IV.



In light of this information I believe Aegon’s possible bastard claim from a fairly distant king and arrival with a mercenary force would nicely mirror Henry Tudor, unlike Jon Snow who if R+L=J (and they were married) would have a far stronger claim than Henry ever did.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember posting on here in my greener days about how I saw Aegon as henry Toudor and that he would win in the end and got a lot of shit for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep seeing posts about this so I thought I'd make a thread about it instead. A number of posters seem to equate Jon Snow with Henry Tudor and I'd like to show why I disagree and why Aegon (if a blackfyre) makes a far better parallel.

Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne derived from his descent from John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward the III as was the claim of House Lancaster. However, while Henry V and Henry VI derive their claims from the legitimate son of John, Henry IV, Henry Tudor claimed his through John of Gaunt’s bastard son John Beaufort. The Beauforts were specifically barred by law to claim the throne of England by Henry IV, to prevent rival claimants to the throne on the Lancastrian side. In light of this information Henry Tudor had no legal claim to the throne at all, certainly not stronger than Richard III’s. His rationale was that with all the legitimate Lancastrian heirs gone he had ‘inherited’ their claim but it’s clear from any study of his character and execution of Yorkists in later life that this was an insecurity until his death. His children gain a far stronger claim through that of their mother, Elizabeth of York who was the daughter of Yorkist King Edward IV.

In light of this information I believe Aegon’s possible bastard claim from a fairly distant king and arrival with a mercenary force would nicely mirror Henry Tudor, unlike Jon Snow who if R+L=J (and they were married) would have a far stronger claim than Henry ever did.

No, I would agree with that. He also fills the hybrid, historical parallel of not only Henry but of Perkin Warbeck a pretender.

Aegon is both of bastard line and is pretending to be Rhaegars son. I also think that Septa Lemore is really Serra and a Blackfyre. And how cheeky of Martin to turn the very devout Margaret into a former Courtesan, but with just the same drive and ambition to see her son the rightful king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember posting on here in my greener days about how I saw Aegon as henry Toudor and that he would win in the end and got a lot of shit for it

You shouldn't have, I don't think he'll win but there couldn't be a clearer inspiration for his character in relation to the Wars of the Roses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I would agree with that. He also fills the hybrid, historical parallel of not only Henry but of Perkin Warbeck a pretender.

Aegon is both of bastard line and is pretending to be Rhaegars son. I also think that Septa Lemore is really Serra and a Blackfyre. And how cheeky of Martin to turn the very devout Margaret into a former Courtesan, but with just the same drive and ambition to see her son the rightful king.

This would be a great extension to this parallel theory if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet you are forgetting that Elizabeth of York may have been the daughter of Edward IV if her brother's the princes from the tower were bastards then so was she.



It was the pope that barred them from the throne because under Henry VI, he recognized his brother's Japers and Owen as legit because their mother may or may not have married Tudor. It was the Yorks that proclaimed them as bastards and barred them from the throne.



Henry had to marry Elizabeth because there were still Yorkist claims out there.



Then there is this Edward III had six sons. The first dies and he's sucessed by Richard, the second son dies also, The third and 5 son combine their claims becoming the Yorkist claim, the fourth son became the Lancaster claim and the six son Woodstock whom the dukes of Buckingham are from that line and truly have to rightful claim to the throne.



The true male line Yorkiest claim dies with Richard III while the Lancaster's true claim dies with Henry VI



The battle of Bosworth should have been fought between Woodstock line and Richard's line


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet you are forgetting that Elizabeth of York may have been the daughter of Edward IV if her brother's the princes from the tower were bastards then so was she.

It was the pope that barred them from the throne because under Henry VI, he recognized his brother's Japers and Owen as legit because their mother may or may not have married Tudor. It was the Yorks that proclaimed them as bastards and barred them from the throne.

Henry had to marry Elizabeth because there were still Yorkist claims out there.

Then there is this Edward III had six sons. The first dies and he's sucessed by Richard, the second son dies also, The third and 5 son combine their claims becoming the Yorkist claim, the fourth son became the Lancaster claim and the six son Woodstock whom the dukes of Buckingham are from that line and truly have to rightful claim to the throne.

The true male line Yorkiest claim dies with Richard III while the Lancaster's true claim dies with Henry VI

The battle of Bosworth should have been fought between Woodstock line and Richard's line

Sorry this post is a bit off I'm afraid. The Yorkist claim wasn't derived from the third and fifth sons but the second and fourth legitimate surviving ones. Lionel of Antwerp (number 2's) daughter and Edward Langley 1st duke of York (number 4). I think generally the person whose claim to the throne is called into question most is actually Edward IV's himself (because he might have been a bastard) which would make all his children illegitimate. The rightful heirs to the throne then would be Edward's eldest brother, George Duke of Clarence's children as the Tudors would be illegitimate on both sides. George's descendents who would hold the Yorkist claim now live in Australia and could in fact be the rightful Kings of England. The BBC did a programme on it years ago and it's quite a well known theory.

Thank you for taking the time all the same, the history is really interesting

Edit: I realise now you must have been including William Hatfield in you son count, sorry about that. I didn't bother for obvious reasons. It is odd though your right that Stafford and the other Woodstock descendants fought for Henry and didn't press their own, better claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne derived from his descent from John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward the III as was the claim of House Lancaster. However, while Henry V and Henry VI derive their claims from the legitimate son of John, Henry IV, Henry Tudor claimed his through John of Gaunt’s bastard son John Beaufort. The Beauforts were specifically barred by law to claim the throne of England by Henry IV, to prevent rival claimants to the throne on the Lancastrian side. In light of this information Henry Tudor had no legal claim to the throne at all, certainly not stronger than Richard III’s.

John Beaufort was John of Gaunt's bastard son by his long time mistress, Catherine Swynford. After his second wife died, John married Catherine and had his children by her legitimized. This happened when Richard II was king. It was a triple act. Richard issued Letters Patent (similar to an Executive Order in modern US), Parliment passed an Act, and the pope issued a Bull. All these methods contained no exclusion from the throne. About 10 years later, after Henry Bolingbroke (John of Gaunt's firstborn legitimate son) had usurped the throne and become Henry IV, he reissued the Letters Patent with the exclusion. Many considered this action to be insufficient, since Parliment did not confirm it.

The closest thing that Westeros might see to a Henry Tudor would be a legitimized Edric Storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Beaufort was John of Gaunt's bastard son by his long time mistress, Catherine Swynford. After his second wife died, John married Catherine and had his children by her legitimized. This happened when Richard II was king. It was a triple act. Richard issued Letters Patent (similar to an Executive Order in modern US), Parliment passed an Act, and the pope issued a Bull. All these methods contained no exclusion from the throne. About 10 years later, after Henry Bolingbroke (John of Gaunt's firstborn legitimate son) had usurped the throne and become Henry IV, he reissued the Letters Patent with the exclusion. Many considered this action to be insufficient, since Parliment did not confirm it.

The closest thing that Westeros might see to a Henry Tudor would be a legitimized Edric Storm.

But Gendry is the elder of Robert's living bastard sons -- though I can't see an armourer's apprentice son of a tavern wench really being king material. But I think both Gendry and Edric Storm need to be legitimised in order for the Baratheon line to continue, as Shireen is the only legitimate Baratheon left after Stannis. And if Gendry is legitimised, then his claim would eclipse Edric's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRRM did say that the person who ends up on the Iron Throne will be surprise. So it is possible it is Aegon.

The thing is, I can't see Aegon ending up on the throne as a 'surprise' per se. Look at his situation: He was a well equipped army and he is surrounded my Lords who are not exactly loyal to the Iron Throne which in itself is made up of an extremely strenuous alliance between the Lannisters and Tyrells. Storms End, imo, could be the only thing separating him from the Iron Throne.

Surprise candidates would include Stannis, Shireen, Jon Snow, etc because their circumstances aren't exactly the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Beaufort was John of Gaunt's bastard son by his long time mistress, Catherine Swynford. After his second wife died, John married Catherine and had his children by her legitimized. This happened when Richard II was king. It was a triple act. Richard issued Letters Patent (similar to an Executive Order in modern US), Parliment passed an Act, and the pope issued a Bull. All these methods contained no exclusion from the throne. About 10 years later, after Henry Bolingbroke (John of Gaunt's firstborn legitimate son) had usurped the throne and become Henry IV, he reissued the Letters Patent with the exclusion. Many considered this action to be insufficient, since Parliment did not confirm it.

The closest thing that Westeros might see to a Henry Tudor would be a legitimized Edric Storm.

Legitimisation and being barred from the succession are two separate issues in this case I believe. I do not believe Henry Tudor himself wanted to risk any investigation into the legality of the matter as the parliament bill of 1485 that first recognised him as King did not do so under recognition of his descent through the Lancastrian Line. Officially it was by right of conquest not birth. So no a parallel would not be a legitimised Edric Storm.

Edit: I'd like to add while the papal bull and parliament act did legitimise them it also made no mention of inheriting the throne either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually see more Perkin Warbeck in Aegon, myself. But if he is Blackfyre then he's sort of part Henry, part Perkin.

Obviously if he's completely fake or the real deal this is also a good parallel but I think the Henry one fits better if he turns out to be a blackfyre as theorised. I'm not expecting any of them will ever fit perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep seeing posts about this so I thought I'd make a thread about it instead. A number of posters seem to equate Jon Snow with Henry Tudor and I'd like to show why I disagree and why Aegon (if a blackfyre) makes a far better parallel.

Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne derived from his descent from John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward the III as was the claim of House Lancaster. However, while Henry V and Henry VI derive their claims from the legitimate son of John, Henry IV, Henry Tudor claimed his through John of Gaunt’s bastard son John Beaufort. The Beauforts were specifically barred by law to claim the throne of England by Henry IV, to prevent rival claimants to the throne on the Lancastrian side. In light of this information Henry Tudor had no legal claim to the throne at all, certainly not stronger than Richard III’s. His rationale was that with all the legitimate Lancastrian heirs gone he had ‘inherited’ their claim but it’s clear from any study of his character and execution of Yorkists in later life that this was an insecurity until his death. His children gain a far stronger claim through that of their mother, Elizabeth of York who was the daughter of Yorkist King Edward IV.

In light of this information I believe Aegon’s possible bastard claim from a fairly distant king and arrival with a mercenary force would nicely mirror Henry Tudor, unlike Jon Snow who if R+L=J (and they were married) would have a far stronger claim than Henry ever did.

I've been a proponent of this theory for sometime. I agree the Blackfyres are very similar to the Beaufort's and many of Aegon's particular's are similar to Henry Tudor's; living in exile across the sea with a warrior for a guardian (JonCon/Jasper Tudor), invading with an army of mercenaries to reclaim his throne and bringing an epidemic with them (greyscale/sweating sickness). I also agree with Alia that Aegon's an amalgam of both Henry Tudor and Perkin Warbeck. It will be interesting to see whose fate Aegon's will ultimately resemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously if he's completely fake or the real deal this is also a good parallel but I think the Henry one fits better if he turns out to be a blackfyre as theorised. I'm not expecting any of them will ever fit perfectly.

At this point I'm expecting a hybrid. Like Henry, he's from a legitimized bastard branch, descended through the female line (Henry's claim was through his mother). Like Perkin, he's pretending to be a dead prince. And yes, JonCon resembles Jasper Tudor down to the red hair, probably. :P

ETA: It's worth noting that Henry VII was the "last man standing" of the Wars of the Roses, while Warbeck ended up being executed. If Aegon's fate hews more toward Warbeck's than Henry's, then this story will be without an obvious historical parallel "victor," making its ending even harder to guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'm expecting a hybrid. Like Henry, he's from a legitimized bastard branch, descended through the female line (Henry's claim was through his mother). Like Perkin, he's pretending to be a dead prince.

What about Alia's theory above about septa Lemore=Margaret?, almost seems too perfect. The Perkin hybrid is a nice touch, the clearest contrast between Henry and Aegon is clearly their opinion of their own claims. Aegon genuinely believes he is the rightful heir to Westeros, whereas I'm of the mind Henry's haunted him to the end of his days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'm expecting a hybrid. Like Henry, he's from a legitimized bastard branch, descended through the female line (Henry's claim was through his mother). Like Perkin, he's pretending to be a dead prince. And yes, JonCon resembles Jasper Tudor down to the red hair, probably. :P

ETA: It's worth noting that Henry VII was the "last man standing" of the Wars of the Roses, while Warbeck ended up being executed. If Aegon's fate hews more toward Warbeck's than Henry's, then this story will be without an obvious historical parallel "victor," making its ending even harder to guess.

Perhaps it hints to a victory not truly victory, like say Aegon's son winning while is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×