Sign in or
|Started By||Thread Subject||Replies||Last Post|
|Theoneoffuzz||In regards to something questionable...||7||Dec 24 2011, 6:58 AM EST by freya9|
Thread started: Dec 21 2011, 6:31 PM EST Watch
I found a bit of discrepancy that may want to be addressed in Kelly Hart's book which seems like a bit of a no brainer but regardless, the quote states: "With Henry Fitzroy, Henry VIII did nothing publicly for the boy until he was six years old, past the age at which a child was in most danger of succumbing to a childhood disease."
Two problems with this. One; Henry Fitzroy's name itself showed that the King acknowledged him since the name "Fitzroy" means "King of the Son" in Anglo-Saxon tradition. If this wasn't a public acknowledgement of his paternity, then he would have been given his mother's last name. Secondly, Henry Fitzroy had the extreme honor of having Cardinal Thomas Wolsey as his godfather. Would this honor be given to a bastard of suspected paternity? No, very clearly Henry Fitzroy was addressed from the beginning. Though he was given various titles at the age of 6, there is clearly something very wrong with this misconception.
4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?
Show Last Reply