A Random Question about Henry VIII - Historum

**HistoryFreak1912** · January 25th, 2010, 08:42 AM

I have a small, random question about Henry VIII. This isn't for school, btw, this was something my friend asked me.

We know about his six wives and his hunt for a male heir, of course, but here's the thing, if he wanted a male heir, then why didn't he just adopt a boy and declare him the prince? Why was it SO important that he have a royal son of royal blood? So important that he had to divorce two wives and behead another two? I know he eventually had a son named Edward, but he didn't live that very long.

Now, I know about the royal blood, and obviously Henry VIII would not want to grab some random lowlife English peasant boy and put a crown on his head, and certianly, if he went after a nobleman's son, he may as well sign his name into the "Darwinism List", but surely he had relatives? Was it that impossible to arrange for one of the sons of his relatives to inherit his kingdom upon his death?

Just something I was curious about.

**Cicero** · January 25th, 2010, 08:50 AM

I don't think there was a precedent for that in English History was there?
I am not too sure that would be accepted readily by the establishment, ie other nobles.

Paulinus · January 25th, 2010, 10:03 AM

Its entirely about the legitimacy (and hence stability) of the Tudor monarchy. His father was not the one with the strongest claim to the throne but had emerged as the precariously placed victor from the period of dynastic struggle that had been the War of the Roses. Henry did not want any successor of his to be plunged back into a similar struggle and wanted the Tudor dynasty to last. He was fearful a female successr wouldn't be accepted and hence kept marrying to try and produce a legitimate male inheritor. An adopted successor would have no legitimacy nor would one out of wedlock.

**Cicero** · January 25th, 2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulinus

Its entirely about the legitimacy (and hence stability) of the Tudor monarchy. His father was not the one with the strongest claim to the throne but had emerged as the precariously placed victor from the period of dynastic struggle that had been the War of the Roses. Henry did not want any successor of his to be plunged back into a similar struggle and wanted the Tudor dynasty to last. He was fearful a female successr wouldn't be accepted and hence kept marrying to try and produce a legitimate male inheritor. An adopted successor would have no legitimacy nor would one out of wedlock.

Good point Paulinus, legitimacy was the issue that I was struggling, and failing, to bring up in my post.

They had just finished the war of the Roses and there were indeed other nobles with a strong claim.

I don't think there was a european precedent for adoption of an heir. Can some one thinks of and example?

Gary · January 25th, 2010, 10:23 AM

Just what I was about to say
He did have at least one bastard son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond 1519-1536. This young man was raised as a prince and Henry was thinking of making him King of Ireland when the Boy died.

Mark Twain The Prince and the Pauper may be a read to recommend to you friend. It is about what happens when Henry’s son Edward the VI and a peasant boy swap places

**Cicero** · January 25th, 2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary

Just what I was about to say
He did have at least one bastard son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond 1519-1536. This young man was raised as a prince and Henry was thinking of making him King of Ireland when the Boy died.

Mark Twain The Prince and the Pauper may be a read to recommend to you friend. It is about what happens when Henry’s son Edward the VI and a peasant boy swap places

I always liked that as well. I used to think that I didn't read any Twain, but forgot this was his.

David Vagamundo · January 26th, 2010, 05:54 AM

Henry VIII also had a very large ego in a era when manliness and self-respect were linked to having a male heir of the body, and I believe this also had something to do with his obsessive pursuit of same.

**Pedro** · January 26th, 2010, 06:14 AM

Nice thread you guys. Congrats you are the first recipients of the good thread award or something like that...whatever..don't get a swelled head now.

Tudor chick · January 26th, 2010, 12:46 PM

As said above, it is all about legitimacy and having ones own blood line inheriated and to live on. An adopted son, would have some one elses bloodline. Elizabeth 1 had same problem, with no heirs at all. Thus the end of the Tudor line.
Also as said here laws were about to be changed so his bastard son could get in on the act. (Much the same as many of the bastard sons of Charles 1. they all had titles)
It is for these reason that if a Queen as an affair, it is treason, as she could produce a mail line that is not from the King. I think this is still treason today, which is why there was such a big deal about the James Hewitt affair with Princess Dianna. He should have been charged with treason!

**Cicero** · January 26th, 2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedro

Nice thread you guys. Congrats you are the first recipients of the good thread award or something like that...whatever..don't get a swelled head now.

Good award. You going to make it a regular feature?