Henry Tudor Parallel (it's not Jon Snow)

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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.

Didn't Henry more or less fall back to right of conquest? Because if he let the York dynasty stay intact, then Elizabeth of York should have been the queen in her own right, once her legitimacy was reinforced. Similarly, going on the Lancastrian claim, it should have actually been Henry's own mother, who was still alive after Bosworth. So the formal rationale was conquest.

I think the Serra = Lemore theory is perfectly decent.

[The Bittersteel]

Didn't Henry more or less fall back to right of conquest? Because if he let the York dynasty stay intact, then Elizabeth of York should have been the queen in her own right, once her legitimacy was reinforced. Similarly, going on the Lancastrian claim, it should have actually been Henry's own mother, who was still alive after Bosworth. So the formal rationale was conquest.

I think the Serra = Lemore theory is perfectly decent.

I mentioned this above in reply to someone else, the 1485 parliament bill all but confirms it yes, no mention of it being his by any genealogical right whatsoever which if he really believed I'm sure he'd be emphasising. As for Elizabeth's own claim I think instances like Matilda and the Anarchy help display that the medieval-renaissance English were slightly less enlightened than the Westerosi when it came to female claimants. Having an independent queen seems to have been an absolute last resort when all male claimants had been extinguished. Mary I and Elizabeth I for example, although I think Elizabeth's reign did a great deal to change that. A parallel in Westeros however would of course be the Dance of Dragons which sort of revolved around the issue.

[Wmarshal]

Didn't Henry more or less fall back to right of conquest? Because if he let the York dynasty stay intact, then Elizabeth of York should have been the queen in her own right, once her legitimacy was reinforced. Similarly, going on the Lancastrian claim, it should have actually been Henry's own mother, who was still alive after Bosworth. So the formal rationale was conquest.

I think the Serra = Lemore theory is perfectly decent.

He did, in fact he declared himself king in his own right before marriage Elizabeth. Henry had no real claim other then conquest in truth, his line was disinherited by the Henry the IV when legitimized. His right and claim comes purely from conquest. Him being somewhat related to the Lancastrians was just icing really.

[Alia of the knife]

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.

It did.

I just finished two books on Elizabeth of York and while she and Henry grew to love each other, she was very much controlled by both Henry and Margaret with Henry's treatment of her sometimes questionable.

It suggests that he was very much aware that he was not as much loved as she was, and had his claim validated by the marriage alone.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I mentioned this above in reply to someone else, the 1485 parliament bill all but confirms it yes, no mention of it being his by any genealogical right whatsoever which if he really believed I'm sure he'd be emphasising. As for Elizabeth's own claim I think instances like Matilda and the Anarchy help display that the medieval-renaissance English were slightly less enlightened than the Westerosi when it came to female claimants. Having an independent queen seems to have been an absolute last resort when all male claimants had been extinguished. Mary I and Elizabeth I for example, although I think Elizabeth's reign did a great deal to change that. A parallel in Westeros however would of course be the Dance of Dragons which sort of revolved around the issue.

Well the Dance of the Dragons was basically Stephen and Matilda with dragons and as siblings. Matilda even lost out in much the same way that Rhaenyra did, by just not being in town when the succession crisis hit. I'm not sure how relevant that is to Elizabeth of York, who was kept from being queen by 1. having her legitimacy challenged and then 2. having Henry make his claim via conquest. Her gender is kind of beside the point in both cases.

[lareine]

Well the Dance of the Dragons was basically Stephen and Matilda with dragons and as siblings. Matilda even lost out in much the same way that Rhaenyra did, by just not being in town when the succession crisis hit. I'm not sure how relevant that is to Elizabeth of York, who was kept from being queen by 1. having her legitimacy challenged and then 2. having Henry make his claim via conquest. Her gender is kind of beside the point in both cases.

Henry did make his claim via right of conquest and was always very insistent on that fact. He did not even allow Elizabeth to be crowned queen consort until after the birth of their first son, so anxious was he not to be seen taking his claim through his wife. The reality of course was that to the rest of England, his marriage to Elizabeth solidified his claim in a way his conquest alone couldn't have.

[The Bittersteel]

Well the Dance of the Dragons was basically Stephen and Matilda with dragons and as siblings. Matilda even lost out in much the same way that Rhaenyra did, by just not being in town when the succession crisis hit. I'm not sure how relevant that is to Elizabeth of York, who was kept from being queen by 1. having her legitimacy challenged and then 2. having Henry make his claim via conquest. Her gender is kind of beside the point in both cases.

Having her legitimacy challenged was an instrument of Richard III in an attempt to help justify his usurpation of the throne from his nephew Edward V, in this case I believe she was bundled in for convenience with her brother Richard also, to tie up loose ends. I believe when it comes to Henry's claim over hers it was likely seen as more acceptable to have a man on the throne, having a Queen of England sustained by her claim in her own right would be unprecedented at this time in England and it was as I stated probably seen as more stable for the new regime to use Henry's conquest claim. I believe Henry personally wouldn't have been pleased playing second fiddle to his wife after having won the throne. It's a good point though and I'm sure was much debated at the time too.

Edit: lareine seems to conclude, giving up personal power to his wife wasn't the Henry we know and love.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Having her legitimacy challenged was an instrument of Richard III in an attempt to help justify his usurpation of the throne from his nephew Edward V, in this case I believe she was bundled in for convenience with her brother Richard also, to tie up loose ends. I believe when it comes to Henry's claim over hers it was likely seen as more acceptable to have a man on the throne, having a Queen of England sustained by her claim in her own right would be unprecedented at this time in England and it was as I stated probably seen as more stable for the new regime to use Henry's conquest claim. I believe Henry personally wouldn't have been pleased playing second fiddle to his wife after having won the throne. It's a good point though and I'm sure was much debated at the time too.

Edit: lareine seems to conclude, giving up personal power to his wife wasn't the Henry we know and love.

My point is that Henry was going to be the king via conquest whether Elizabeth was a woman or not. Her being a woman just meant he could marry her to further cement his claim.

Believe it or not, I've been to the War of the Roses rodeo before. You don't need to explain it to me; I'm very well aware of what exactly happened and who did what. Just so you're aware. ;)

[Alia of the knife]

Henry did make his claim via right of conquest and was always very insistent on that fact. He did not even allow Elizabeth to be crowned queen consort until after the birth of their first son, so anxious was he not to be seen taking his claim through his wife. The reality of course was that to the rest of England, his marriage to Elizabeth solidified his claim in a way his conquest alone couldn't have.

And while he also delayed his marriage to her to ensure she wasn't carrying Richard's child, he certainly knew the probability of keeping the peace without her validtion wasn't possible either.

[The Bittersteel]

My point is that Henry was going to be the king via conquest whether Elizabeth was a woman or not. Her being a woman just meant he could marry her to further cement his claim.

Believe it or not, I've been to the War of the Roses rodeo before. You don't need to explain it to me; I'm very well aware of what exactly happened and who did what. Just so you're aware. ;)

Sorry didn't mean to offend you, I'm a bit tired and probably misread. All sounds very familiar though doesn't it? Warrior King prone to excess in later years has his three children (two boys and a girl no less!) declared bastards by their uncle so he can seize the throne... GRRM you sly dog

Edit: I've only been here a few days by the way so I have absolutely no idea who knows what, tend not to presume when it comes to history its surprising how many people are uninterested.

[Lord Damian]

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.

Yes, Huge Tudor hater in me. The problem with young Griff is that he and his people around him claim him to be Aegon but after Tyrion's pov with Illyrio, it is quite clear that this is not Aegon and he is most likely a Blackfyre and or Brightfire decendent. Everyone know who and what Henry Tudor was and the only reason he lived to be as old as he was before invading England was his "claim" while iritating to Edward Iv was really a "joke". His mother was a fanatic who was viewed the same way and no one took him seriously until it was too late. Young Griff, if he really was Aegon, will have all the blood right he needs and not have to execute others with superior claims such as Henry Tudor and his successor Henry VIII did.

[The Bittersteel]

Yes, Huge Tudor hater in me. The problem with young Griff is that he and his people around him claim him to be Aegon but after Tyrion's pov with Illyrio, it is quite clear that this is not Aegon and he is most likely a Blackfyre and or Brightfire decendent. Everyone know who and what Henry Tudor was and the only reason he lived to be as old as he was before invading England was his "claim" while iritating to Edward Iv was really a "joke". His mother was a fanatic who was viewed the same way and no one took him seriously until it was too late. Young Griff, if he really was Aegon, will have all the blood right he needs and not have to execute others with superior claims such as Henry Tudor and his successor Henry VIII did.

Aegon seems a nicer person, never liked Henry Tudor really. Respected his talents but he comes off as greedy and paranoid most of the time. I think most of the nobility recognised his claim was bogus but there wasn't a great deal of other candidates to choose for on the Lancastrian side if that's who you supported. I guess a bit like the Golden Company with Maelys the Monstrous, you do the best with what you've got.

[Lord Damian]

Aegon seems a nicer person, never liked Henry Tudor really. Respected his talents but he comes off as greedy and paranoid most of the time. I think most of the nobility recognised his claim was bogus but they're wasn't a great deal of other candidates to choose for on the Lancastrian side if that's who you supported. I guess a bit like the Golden Company with Maelys the Monstrous, you do the best with what you've got.

Henry tudor paid off corrupt lords who backstabbed Richard. Notably his own stepfather, the notorious turncloak, Lord Stanley, whose men charged Richard from behind when he himself heroically led his own men in a charge toward the coward Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor claimed conquest his whole life but it was really just spin. His marriage and production of children to and from Elizabeth kept him from being overthrown. I do think (this was even before the White Queen) that Henry Tudor had far more reasons to have the princes killed then Richard every did. Titilus Regilus pretty much establishes that. In Regards to the Blackfyres, Daemon basically pulled a Renly but actually could fight and battles took place. He never had the legit claim. Had Aegon IV legitimized his bastards earlier and directled the council and sent ravens declaring Daemon his heir, it would have been different. He did not.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Sorry didn't mean to offend you, I'm a bit tired and probably misread. All sounds very familiar though doesn't it? Warrior King prone to excess in later years has his three children (two boys and a girl no less!) declared bastards by their uncle so he can seize the throne... GRRM you sly dog

Edit: I've only been here a few days by the way so I have absolutely no idea who knows what, tend not to presume when it comes to history its surprising how many people are uninterested.

Hey, no worries. Just saving you the time of having to give me the full rundown. :)

[The Bittersteel]

Henry tudor paid off corrupt lords who backstabbed Richard. Notably his own stepfather, the notorious turncloak, Lord Stanley, whose men charged Richard from behind when he himself heroically led his own men in a charge toward the coward Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor claimed conquest his whole life but it was really just spin. His marriage and production of children to and from Elizabeth kept him from being overthrown. I do think (this was even before the White Queen) that Henry Tudor had far more reasons to have the princes killed then Richard every did. Titilus Regilus pretty much establishes that. In Regards to the Blackfyres, Daemon basically pulled a Renly but actually could fight and battles took place. He never had the legit claim. Had Aegon IV legitimized his bastards earlier and directled the council and sent ravens declaring Daemon his heir, it would have been different. He did not.

The Princes in the tower is certainly a tricky one I think. Both sides benefit a lot and you can imagine Henry's horror if he arrived to find them inconveniently alive. I agree that legitimising and being placed in the line of succession is somewhat different, hence the thread, but it raises and interesting sub-question. In Westeros does a legitimised bastard come in the line of succession according to age? Or after all other legitimate children? So theoretically would Jon be after/before (no idea who's older) Robb or after Arya were he legitimised.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

In Westeros does a legitimised bastard come in the line of succession according to age? Or after all other legitimate children? So theoretically would Jon be after/before (no idea who's older) Robb or after Arya were he legitimised.

I think that ideally, the legitimized bastard is meant to come after everyone. In practice though, it might not always work out that way. Jon's is a situation where I could see him getting bumped to the front of the line, given that Arya and Sansa are female, Bran is a cripple and Rickon is still very young. During a war, I can see the lords preferring an adult with combat and leadership experience.

In other words, I think the situation shifts based on pragmatism and circumstance.

[Lord Damian]

The Princes in the tower is certainly a tricky one I think. Both sides benefit a lot and you can imagine Henry's horror if he arrived to find them inconveniently alive. I agree that legitimising and being placed in the line of succession is somewhat different, hence the thread, but it raises and interesting sub-question. In Westeros does a legitimised bastard come in the line of succession according to age? Or after all other legitimate children? So theoretically would Jon be after/before (no idea who's older) Robb or after Arya were he legitimised.

No, they get in the back of the line one would assume but the girls/daughters would be tricky. Jon, discussing Alys Karstark and the succession of Karhold is that daughters come before uncles. There is not statement that I can find (Apple might know though) where a daughter comes before a legitimized son bastard. Most likely a legitimized male bastard would in order to continue the male line.

[The Bittersteel]

I think that ideally, the legitimized bastard is meant to come after everyone. In practice though, it might not always work out that way. Jon's is a situation where I could see him getting bumped to the front of the line, given that Arya and Sansa are female, Bran is a cripple and Rickon is still very young. During a war, I can see the lords preferring an adult with combat and leadership experience.

In other words, I think the situation shifts based on pragmatism and circumstance.

Thought of a possible example. Roose Bolton believes that Ramsay despite being legitimised will kill any of his children via Fat Walda. I believe it's non-gender specific which would suggest normally it's back of the line?

[Fire Eater]

Also, Aegon is waving the red dragon banner of House Targaryen to win Dorne like Henry displayed the red dragon banner of the ancient Welsh king of Cadwaladr to win Wales, Dorne's political parallel.

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.

I don't think Serra was Lemore as Tyrion would have recognized her as the girl in the locket. Serra is dead. I think Lemore is more likely Wenda the White Fawn who served SImon Toyne, who was no doubt related to Myles Toyne.

[Alia of the knife]

Also, Aegon is waving the red dragon banner of House Targaryen to win Dorne like Henry displayed the red dragon banner of the ancient Welsh king of Cadwaladr to win Wales, Dorne's political parallel.

I don't think Serra was Lemore as Tyrion would have recognized her as the girl in the locket. Serra is dead. I think Lemore is more likely Wenda the White Fawn who served SImon Toyne, who was no doubt related to Myles Toyne.

Thats possible as well, but I think it also depends upon if Serra is in disguise as well, which I think very probable. If she has the traditional Valaryan looks, then dying her hair dark makes as much sense as YG doing so, and Tyrion may not make that connection, particularly if the locket is of a much younger version of herself.