Plantagenet and Tudor Lineage Question?

Question

I've know for a long time (my mom is really into genealogy) that I'm related to the Plantagenets through Sir Richard the Lion Heart, King of England in 1128 on through 1138, I believe. My mom and I are really into Tudor history and stuff. So I went online the other day to research, and realized that Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York, who was a Plantagenet.
First, is this the reason the Tudor Rose is a mix of the York and Lancaster House Roses?
Second, does this mean that the Tudors and Plantagenets became family, despite the seriously bad blood between them, due to the War of the Roses and all that? And, if so, Henry VIII killing off the remaining legitimate line of the Plantagenets meant killing his own relatives, correct? I'd love if you could shed some light! Thanks.

Answer 1

The 1st guy's right about Richard Lionheart. And yes, that's why the Tudor rose is red & white.



Henry VII and Elizabeth of York were both descended from Edward III, so they were distant cousins. It's a very tangled family tree.



Henry's mother was Margaret Beaufort, who was in turn the granddaughter of John of Gaunt, 3rd son of Edward III, and John's 3rd wife & former mistress Katherine Swynford (Read Katherine by Anya Seton for the story--she's fairly accurate; got the important details down. Great story--but I digress). Henry's father was Edmund Tudor, half-brother of the last Lancastrian king--Henry VI (their shared mother, Katherine d'Valois married 2x--Henry V & a Welshman named Owen Tudor/Owain ap Meredith ap Tudor)

Elizabeth was descended from three of Edward's sons: Lionel, Edmund, and John (through Joan Beaufort); her own father was Edward IV, and he married a relatively minor noblewoman rather than a princess.



Probably the main reason they got married was the time-honored tradition of using a marriage to end a war or seal a treaty. Have the heirs wed and ta-da! you end the war! By marrying Elizabeth, Henry linked his weaker claim to a strong one and (with her brothers missing) she was the senior heir to the Yorkists, not just the most age-appropriate unwed female. Theoretically, the children have the best claim of all. Which pretty much worked in this case.



As for killing off his own relatives, well, he's not the 1st nor the last monarch to do that. Most of the other Plantagenets he or Henry VIII killed had better claims to the throne, so they looked at it as a way of protecting themselves. And given that Henry VII spent much of his youth in exile, I can't think he had much family feeling in that sense. He always struck me as a very ruthless man.



Hope this helps!

Answer 2

Tudor Lineage

Answer 3

King Richard the Lionheart reigned from 1189 to 1199 and did not have any legitimate heirs (partly due to his supposed lack of interest in women). He did have one acknowledged illegitimate heir Philip of Cognac, but little is know of him.



Henry Tudor was not really related to Richard (of the sons of Edward III) who is where all the broken lineages come from with the war of the Roses. Edwards son John of Gaunt was the where the Lancastrians (Henry IV through VI) come from and the Yorkists come from Edmund of Langley (another son of Edward III). In truth, the House of York and Lancaster were both Plantagenets but simply had different names for their houses. There was no actual death of a dynasty that led to the renaming of the houses.

Once the Lancastrians were out of the picture Edward IV was in charge and he had several children. When he died suddenly, his young sons were put under the protection of his brother Richard. Richard (as most usually tell the tale) locked the young sons up and had them killed and then made himself King Richard III

Henry Tudor's mother was a great granddaughter of John of Gaunt and his father was of Welsh heritage ... although there was some mixing of royal blood in there too. He invaded England in 1485 under the guise of freeing England from Richard, who was a tyrant. Of course, Henry was in no way the next rightful king but once he defeated Richard he quickly married Edward IV's (the previous king) daughter Elizabeth to legitimize his position further.

The Tudors were not really involved in the War of the Roses unless you think of it as capitalizing on the weak power of the king when Richard took over.

Henry VIII didn't really kill off any remaining heirs because there was no one to challenge his power when he came to the throne. The legacy that Henry Tudor (VII) gave to his son was that he was actually a pretty good king. He reigned for a while and this made the transition easier.

So, although it is possible that you may be related to a Plantagenet line it is likely not from Richard, but it is always worth looking further into it and see how far back you can trace your family.

Answer 4

Perhaps the easiest one to look at is the Family Tree in wikipedia, which is a fairly uncluttered line that concentrates on showing all the monarchs. There are at least 2.3 million different lines of descent known from William the Conqueror to Prince William. It would take you weeks to look at all of them. I put a table in Wikipedia to show the closest cousin relationship between Queen Elizabeth II and the other monarchs in Europe. It shows their most recent common ancestor. John William Friso is the common ancestor to all the European monarchs that was the most recent to die (about 300 years ago). You can extend from QEII to Prince William. While the current royal family is descended from William the Conqueror so is virtually every other person of English ancestry with possibly only a few tens of thousands of exceptions. However, that is a mathematical calculation since records are nowhere near that detailed. The current royal family reigns by virtue of an Act of Parliament passed in 1701 that said that all future monarchs must be descended from Sophia of Hanover, a female granddaughter of James I. The rule of succession has been male preference primogeniture which means brothers before sisters, but you always advance a generation if possible.

Answer 5

First question - yes



Second question - legally,yes,they then all became related, but only through marriage, not blood.And,as they say,blood is thicker than water; Henry VIII was a ruthless tyrant who had no compunction about killing 2 of his wives, so murdering distant relatives who were only so through marriage, in order to remove potential rivals to the throne of himself and his offspring, probably didn't bother him in the slightest.