murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Was Roland de Velville the son of Henry VII….?

henry-vii-london-bridge

The following article is necessarily filled with supposition, inference and sneaking suspicion. The result of smoke and mirrors, you ask? Well, I think it is all much more substantial than that, as I hope to explain in the coming paragraphs.

Today (25th June) in 1545, died a man by the name of Roland de Velville (or Vielleville, Veleville, Vieilleville, and other variations). He crops up at regular intervals in connection with the first Tudor king, Henry VII. Why? Because of a persistent whisper that Roland was Henry’s illegitimate son. Well, his son, but no one can really categorically state he was illegitimate. All that can be claimed is that he was born sometime during Henry’s exile in Brittany between 1471 and 1485, and that when he arrived in England he was soon rumoured to be Henry’s unacknowledged child, born any time from about 1472 on, when Henry himself was only fourteen or fifteen.

It needs to be mentioned here that medieval kings usually acknowledged any offspring fathered before their official royal marriages, so there would not appear to be any reason why Henry would not admit to Roland. (I can think of at least one very good reason, but will save that until the end of this article.)

Roland was a member of the Breton nobility, an écuyer or esquire who may have accompanied Henry on the invasion of 1485. It is not known whether or not the boy fought at Bosworth, but my guess would be that he was probably too young. However, in 1489 he was certainly old enough to be in Sir John Cheyne’s retinue for the Breton expedition commanded by Sir Robert Willoughby.

1489-brittany

 The comment has been made that Roland was an ‘almost obsessive’ jouster, and was closely involved with the king’s falcons. It seems probable that he accompanied Henry VII when he went hunting and hawking. He appears to have been tolerated by English aristocrats, who must have been aware that he was favoured by the king. If that were not the case, I doubt Roland would have come even close to tournaments and the like. Roland’s life style would have been expensive, but Henry supported him, granting occasional gifts and allowing him an income from the royal revenues. Roland held no official position, he was simply there, enjoying himself, participating in royal pastimes and generally floating along. As we would all like to, given the chance.

Conjecture about him must have been rife, but that was all it amounted to. Conjecture. Because no one was party to the facts, not even Roland himself. Or so I guess, because his character was such that I doubt he’d have held his tongue and been discreet. He appears to have been of an unruly temperament, headstrong, irksome, arrogant and inclined to indulge in slander. Not at all like his subtle father. Well, rumoured father.

battle-of-roncevaux-pass-large

Might Roland have been named after the great 11th-century hero, Roland of Roncevaux? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland) If Henry Tudor really was his father, it strikes me as very much in keeping with Henry’s grand ideas concerning his legendary ancestry. After all, did he not give the name Arthur to his first son by Elizabeth of York?

It was not until the reign of his “half-brother”, Henry VIII, that Roland received any real advancement. From Henry VII he had been given this and that in the way of minor money, and had been kept at royal expense, but there was nothing worthwhile. Except, of course, for being knighted at the Battle of Blackheath in June 1497. But he was still Breton, not English. It was to be 1512 before he received that acknowledgement.

 battle-of-blackheath-1497

Battle of Blackheath

 On the death of Henry VII on 21st April 1509, the new 17-year-old king Henry VIII did not exactly shower Roland with brotherly goodies. Within weeks (3rd July 1509) Roland was appointed Constable of Beaumaris Castle on the Isle of Anglesey, and was given, during pleasure, an annuity of £20. After twenty-five years or so of luxury at court, Roland was on his way to Wales pdq, as the jargon goes. Young Henry clearly did not want his awkward kinsman around. Tudor angst required being rid of anyone of dangerous royal blood, and Roland, if he was indeed a half-sibling, would almost certainly make Henry VIII twitchy. Send him away to the sticks, and if he became a problem, an accident might befall him. At least, that is how I interpret it. Especially, perhaps, as Roland was said to greatly resemble Henry.

 

Hmm, the above portrait of Henry VIII at eighteen (right) doesn’t look like the ogre we now know and, er, love. Indeed, he looks almost identical to his father at that age (above left). But while we know how Henry VII changed as he grew older, remaining lean and almost gaunt, it has to be said that Henry VIII changed a whole lot more, becoming the odious, gross King Hal who was so obsessed with producing male heirs that he was prepared to get through six wives in the process. Did Roland change in the same way? Not the six wives part, of course, but might the Constable of Beaumaris Castle become as awful and bloated as his half-brother the king?

This latter point raises an interesting question. Let us imagine that Roland and Henry were indeed half-brothers. It is generally accepted that for looks Henry VIII took after his maternal grandfather, the Yorkist king Edward IV (who was also tall and handsome, but became gross in his later years). If this were so, how could Roland also look like Edward IV? There was no blood connection. If the resemblance between the two half-siblings were that pronounced as to cause comment, then it has to be wondered if, perhaps, similar tall, handsome, “reddish-golden” looks were also to be found on Henry VII’s side? To my eyes, the first Tudor king and his mother have “Beaufort” stamped upon them. Some of Henry VII’s portraits are interchangeable with his mother. Both have high foreheads and cheekbones, small chins, hooded eyes and a general resemblance to the weasel. Put him in a wimple, and there she is!

What we do not know, of course, is what the earlier Tudors looked like. There are no portraits of Henry’s father, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, only a reproduction tomb engraving(below left). Nor are there portraits of his father, Owen Tudor. If, indeed, Owen had anything to do with fathering Edmund, there being yet another scandalous royal whisper that Owen’s “wife” (there is no solid evidence that she and Owen ever married) Queen Catherine of Valois, widow of Henry V, had actually been enjoying some hanky-panky with another Beaufort, who for whatever reason declined to marry her. Owen stepped in to make things less embarrassing for her. Tangled webs in every shadow. But let’s suppose that the earlier Tudors were indeed Henry VII’s forebears. They might have been tall and reddish-blond. Well, they could have been, so do not wag your fingers at my screen! The Vikings did NOT steer clear of Wales.

Whatever the reason for Roland and Henry VIII sharing physical similarities—and maybe it was simply coincidence—it could have been with some relief that Roland scurried off to Beaumaris with his neck still attached to the rest of him. Better to be alive, than meet some dark Tudor death because of being regarded as an awkward presence at court. On the other hand, he may well have resented Beaumaris for taking him away from luxury. It was said in 1534 (the year before Roland’s death) that the never-completed castle had deteriorated so that “there was scarcely a single chamber in Beaumaris Castle where a man could lie dry”.

beaumaris-castle

Given Roland’s character, it will come as no surprise that he was a troublesome constable, making all the capital he could from his privileges. Twenty-five or so years at court had undoubtedly given him expensive tastes. But whether he liked it or not, the rest of his life was to be spent at Beaumaris where he began to live (scandalously, of course) with widowed Agnes Griffith, whom he would eventually make his wife. She was a member of the most powerful family in Gwynedd, and had children with Roland. Their descendants were numerous, and included his famous granddaughter, Catherine of Berain, known as the ‘Mother of Wales’. Roland de Velville certainly left his mark in his wife’s homeland.

catherine-of-berain-rolands-granddaughter

Roland died at Beaumaris Castle on 25th June 1535, and was buried at the Church of St Mary’s and St Nicholas, Beaumaris. If he was indeed buried there, I cannot find anything about his actual resting place. I have not been to the church, so it does not signify that he is no longer there, just that he’s escaped me. How intriguing it would be (the discovery of Richard III’s DNA being so fresh in the mind) to see if Roland’s DNA could be obtained. That would indeed help to ascertain if he was Henry VII’s offspring.

st-mary-and-st-nicholas-beaumaris

There is a lot of conflicting information about Roland. Was he of royal blood? Or wasn’t he? Who said what, and when? To whom? Can a Welsh elegy to him, by Daffyd Alaw (1535), be given any credence whatsoever? Well, it claims that Roland was ‘A man of kingly line and of earl’s blood’, which would certainly fit Henry VII, who had been born Henry, Earl of Richmond (he was born posthumously). So yes, Roland could well have been Henry’s son. Why else was he brought to the English court and supported in the way he was? And those who say that such bardic traditions should be ignored as highly improbable should perhaps remember that bardic tradition was how Welsh history was recorded. It was committed to memory and and passed down through the generations. The Welsh are clever enough to train their grey cells!

Historians have been rude about each other where this mysterious Breton écuyer is concerned. That is, if he was even Breton. Yes, I fear the conflicting ‘evidence’ even calls this basic fact into question. Maybe his mother’s family hailed from a corner of France. You see, we do not know her identity either.

rolands-mystery-mother

It seems that Roland was granted arms that were quartered, indicating the families from whom he was descended. They do not, of course, include Henry. But although these families can be hazarded, they cannot be identified for certain, So, who was his mother? Did she marry someone called de Velville (or other variations of the name in both French and Breton)? Maybe this man believed the boy was his. He wouldn’t be the first to have another man’s child foisted upon him. But, yet again, it’s guesswork. All is vague and uncertain.

To read an intricate account of it all, with far more small detail, go to http://www.happywarrior.org/genealogy/roland.htm

And now I will tell you why I think Henry VII did not acknowledge Roland. No, it’s not that Roland simply wasn’t his son, what a boring conclusion to come to. Far more interesting to make the two father and son. What if (ah, those words beloved of fiction writers) a teenaged Henry had fallen passionately, lustfully in love with, and impetuously married, a young, equally passionate and lustful Breton noblewoman? What if it was a secret wedding that never came to light and was soon regretted on both sides? What if Henry was moved elsewhere in Brittany (he was a prisoner under house arrest) and his bride (frightened by her important male relatives, who knew nothing of the secret marriage, was forced to bigamously marry someone “suitable”. Pregnant with Henry’s child, she allowed her new husband to believe the child was his.

Are you still with me? Right, move on to 1485. Henry is going to invade England to challenge Richard III for the throne. To be sure of much-needed Yorkist support, he vows to marry Elizabeth of York, Richard’s niece and the senior unmarried Yorkist princess. He wins at Bosworth and has to honour his vow. Sooo…knowing he is already married, he weds Elizabeth. Another bigamous match, but one that could have catastrophic consequences. Not least bloody rebellion and the chopping of Henry’s slender neck.

Then Roland enters his life much more immediately. The boy’s mother is on her deathbed and fears for his life at the hands of her second husband. She implores Henry to take Roland under his protection. And so he comes to court but cannot possibly be acknowledged by his royal father, who, understandably, doesn’t want any enemies poking around in what happened when he was a young prisoner in Brittany. Nor does Roland even know Henry is his father.

Thus history repeats itself, with Henry VII following in the footsteps of his father-in-law, Edward IV. Another secret wife, a second deceived bride, and heirs who are all illegitimate. Roland de Velville is his legitimate son. The rightful King of England? But can even Henry contemplate disposing of this inconvenient boy…? His own child?

There, is that not a half-decent plot for a historical novel? I thought so too, so I made it the main theme of the fourth book in my Cicely series. The book is called Cicely’s Sovereign Secret.

cicelys-sovereign-secret

 

 

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

18 thoughts on “Was Roland de Velville the son of Henry VII….?

  1. halfwit36 on said:

    Sorry, I am going to have to disagree. Kings at this period usually did not acknowledge their bastards, unless perhaps they had no living legitimate sons. (Richard III and later, Henry VIII.) There’s a diffrence between what ‘everybody knows’ and official acknowledgement.
    I have a lot more to say, but this site keeps kicking me out before I have it all typed, so will leave it till later, maybe.

    Like

  2. viscountessw on said:

    You’re wrong about Richard. He acknowledged his illegitimate children while Edward of Middleham was still alive.

    And I don’t kick you out, as you well know.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. halfwit36 on said:

    Didn’t say you did. I think it must be the computer, which HAS IT IN FOR ME, I don’t care what anyone says!
    Usually I have to make 2 or 3 tries before I can get an answer typed.
    May be right about Richard. Point is, that was the exception, rather than the rule.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. halfwit36 on said:

    I like to think RdeV was Henry’s son, as it humanizes him a little. But Henry hated to admit to a weakness, even a youthful one, and in some ways, he was more of a puritan than Richard was.
    Did HT actually marry his early love? It’s a possibility. See previous sentence. However,in my novel, if I ever write it, Roland’s mother is going to be a commoner – very common. Which is another reason for non-acknowledgement.
    Computer seems to have quieted down. What did I do wrong?
    Maybe sun-spots? Tropical storm? Hexes?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. In your paragraph of Henry Tyddr’s descent, you wrote: ” If, indeed, Owen had anything to do with fathering Edmund, there being yet another scandalous royal whisper that Owen’s “wife” (there is no solid evidence that she and Owen ever married) Queen Catherine of Valois, widow of Henry V, had actually been enjoying some hanky-panky with another Beaufort, who for whatever reason declined to marry her. ” The “whatever reason” was that in 1428 Parliament, fearful of Catherine’s growing relationship with Edmund Beaufort, later Duke of Somerset, passed a law that required a Queen Dowager to receive express permission from her husband’s ADULT successor before she could remarry. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment and/or forfeiture of the husband’s property. As Catherine died well before her son’s majority, she could never have received permission to remarry anyone.

    Like

    • David on said:

      As part of the evidence that Owen and Catherine actually were married is the fact that Owen was imprisoned under the relevant statute. Parliament could not prevent the marriage – that was a canon law issue – and Owen had no lands in England to lose.

      Like

      • The legislation rendered such a “marriage” illegal unless the new King had achieved his majority.
        Henry VI’s majority was reached several months AFTER his mother died.

        Like

  6. McArthur, Richard P. on said:

    That woman in the portrait (Roland’s wife?) is beautiful.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. blancsanglier on said:

    Would it have been possible though for H7 to have hanky panky and subsequently marry a lady while he was under house arrest? This would mean he either had very lax guards or there were complicit in his liaisons? If this is so one wonders what else he may have been up to?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. viscountessw on said:

    Some things never change, and if two randy teenagers wanted to get together, they would find away. And if they were stupidly in love, then a secret wedding would be on the cards as well. As I recall, Henry went hunting (animals, not girls!) and all sorts of other pursuits, so maybe he wasn’t closely supervised all the time. And if the “wife” was a young member of his guardian’s family or household, then they might even have been under the same roof.

    So yes, one does indeed wonder what else he might have been up to. He was secretive by nature. Or should that read “sneaky”?

    Like

  9. halfwit36 on said:

    Depends on your POV. I can keep a confidence, you are secretive, he is sneaky!

    Like

  10. David on said:

    I think you have the date of Roland’s death wrong on one of the occasions it is quoted. Roland could not be born between 1471 and 1485, unless he was conceived before Tewkesbury (at one end). On the other hand, too late a date makes him much too young to be sent to fight in Brittany. The linked article quotes 1474 based on no evidence at all – in fact, the writer admits that. In reality, 1474 would still make him under age, especially for a leading role in an important military expedition.

    There is no doubt about the coats of arms. The arms that Roland and the article state to represent the claimed arms of the father are those of Cozkäer de Rosanbo. The castle’s garden is centred around a statue of a boar (sanglier).

    http://www.rosanbo.net/rosanbo%20castle/pages/history.htm

    Like

  11. viscountessw on said:

    Hello again, David. Well, Roland DID have to have been born between those dates, but not even I think it was close to 1471 or 1485, so I think you’re stretching things. I have not stated anything as being carved in stone, boars or otherwise, and as I say in the article, it’s all conjecture. But there is a lot of smoke, including the claimed arms. A hastily acquired stepfather, for instance. You cannot state categorically that Roland wasn’t Henry’s offspring, any more than I can state the opposite. Until it can be proved one way or another, there is going to be curiosity on the point.

    But Henry certainly knew how to pull a fast one, as he proved by dating his reign to the day before Bosworth. Not even that could disguise the fact that Richard had been a crowned king, created so at a Westminster Abbey coronation and blessed by Holy Church. So Henry was ignoring this rather important fact. And he lived the rest of his life dreading being shafted in the same way. I hope he suffered. He was a sly little oik who was prepared to do anything to cement his backside to the throne he’d usurped. I believe he WAS Roland’s father, and that he must have had a rather tricky reason for keeping quiet about it.

    Who knows, perhaps our ‘Enery was another Edward IV, with a particular marital secret in his cupboard. Conjecture? Of course. Impossible? No.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not up to his usual standard: a dead Queen Consort addressing Parliament or “Perkin ” writing to an unborn Bishop.

      Like

      • David on said:

        You are making it up. Warbeck’s letter was written before he was Henry’s custody to Queen Isabella and still exists. The version of the story he gave the Scots comes not from an unborn bishop but from Polydore Vergil.

        However, at least I have not published a mathematical paper that was an April Fools joke.

        Like

      • You claimed that the letter was to Bishop Leslie of Ross, who was born about half a century after “Perkin”‘s 1499 death.
        You claimed that Katherine de Valois addressed Parliament, which no Queen Consort or Dowager has ever done.
        You claimed that a Roll clearly compiled after 1513 was for the benefit of the Earl of Lincoln, who died in 1487.
        You intentionally misread a word on it to bolster an unlikely conclusion about Edward IV’s sons.
        You deny that Edward and Lady Eleanor Talbot, his only legal wife, even had a relationship, whilst “Tudor” sources even confirm it.
        You deny the laws of probability, although I can understand you knowing less about it than most people.
        Every time your spurious points are disproved, you deny making them.

        Frankly, you are an April Fool 365 days a year – and February 29 when it happens.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. halfwit36 on said:

    Don’t know that he had a reason, tricky or otherwise, for keeping quiet – just no reason for revealing it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: