Historian claims Henry VIII had secret daughter

[Rowan]

I'm sure some of you will be angered by this, some amused, some saddened, but like any good tabloid, I have to report the sensational with the mundane. ;) Has anyone heard of this woman who has made these claims?

King Henry VIII had a secret daughter who should have taken the throne before Elizabeth I, new research has revealed.

Elizabeth Tailboys was the Tudor monarch's illegitimate lovechild who would have changed the course of British history had the King acknowledged her as his at the time.

By rights she should have taken the throne on the death of Queen Mary in 1558, making her the true Elizabeth I and not Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn.

Full Story (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083826/Henry-VIII-secret-daughter-taken-throne-Elizabeth-I-historian-claims.html)

[Misfit]

OK, I'll buy the illegitimate daughter bit, but how in the h**** does that transfer to a line in the succession?

[SGM]

OK, I'll buy the illegitimate daughter bit, but how in the h**** does that transfer to a line in the succession?

I agree with you there. Although, if Elizabeth's legitimacy was in doubt (and it's not as if this has not been suggested), I suppose there could be some point to the story. But it's just another of those 'what if's" just like Tony Robinson's programme on the "Real King of Britain" - a total waste of time to my mind.

[SonjaMarie]

Even if he had acknowledged her, it doesn't mean he would've put her in the line of succession like he did Mary and Elizabeth.

SM

[SGM]

Even if he had acknowledged her, it doesn't mean he would've put her in the line of succession like he did Mary and Elizabeth.

SM

Quite correct. The Crown was not strictly inherited at this time. The Tudor dynasty after HVIII's death followed lines laid down in Henry's will (backed by Parliament, we must not forget) and had the support of the majority of the people who counted or else Lady Jane Grey might have survived. Even Mary finally designated Elizabeth as her successor. Order of birth had very little to do with it.

[Divia]

Its an itneresting theory that she is his daughter, but I don't buy that she could have inherited the throne. Plus, how long did Henry F. live? I would assume if henry was desperate for a male heir to take the throne, and he was know as being Henry's bastard, then he would have shoehorned him in somehow, but never did, so why would he put a girl on the throne.

Still, I find this little history a ripe one for a novel. Now, one coul dhave a wild time with that one.

Are their paintings of the daughter in question?

[boswellbaxter]

We've been chatting about this over on Facebook. It's possible that Elizabeth Tailboys was Henry's daughter--she was born in 1520 and the first reference to her mother's marriage to Gilbert Tailboys is in 1522--but the succession is a different matter altogether.

Divia, Henry Fitzroy died in 1536, and the future Edward VI was born in 1537.

[LoveHistory]

With all the illegitimate children he had, why hide this one?

[Divia]

With all the illegitimate children he had, why hide this one?

Maybe he didn't hide it, but didn't care either? :confused: Why bring attention to a girl, when they aren't worth much anyway?

[annis]

Posted by Divia
I would assume if henry was desperate for a male heir to take the throne, and he was know as being Henry's bastard, then he would have shoehorned him in somehow, but never did, so why would he put a girl on the throne.

There's always been speculation that Henry VIII might have considered naming his illegitimate son by Bessie Blount as heir, but of course young Henry Fitzroy died young so it never was an option. I personally think that after all the relatively recent horrors of the Wars of the Roses King Henry would have been very conscious of choosing an heir whose legitimate claim was unimpeachable, however much he wanted a son to follow him.

[EC2]

That's the good old Daily Mail for you. Used to be not too bad (like 40 years ago) but has now become a twisted tabloid with a certain reputation.

[Mythica]

Has anyone heard of this woman who has made these claims?


Elizabeth Norton? She's written a number of biographies on the wives of Henry VIII. She also wrote the "other She Wolves book", She Wolves: The Notorious Queens of England. The more popular one, She Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth, was written by Helen Castor. Norton's "She Wolves" gets pretty poor reviews so I stayed away from it and read Castor's instead. Norton's Tudor wives bios get better reviews... but this article certainly doesn't make me want to go out and buy them. Neither do some of the summaries of her books: the one for "She Wolves" paints the queens of England as women who took part in "witchcraft, murder, adultery, and incest". Okay, adultery is sometimes true but everything else? And the blurb for her bio on Catherine Parr refers to Henry VIII's as "elderly"! Um, he was 55 when he died... I don't consider that elderly! Maybe I'm being unfair because I haven't read anything by her but I don't put a lot of stock in her work.