Birth of Henry, Duke of Cornwall – New Year’s Day 1511
Posted By Claire on January 1, 2012
On this day in history, by 1.30 in the morning on the 1st January 1511, Catherine of Aragon had given birth to a son, an heir to the throne of England. He was baptised ‘Henry’ after his father and grandfather in a ceremony four days later at the Chapel of the Observant Friars at Richmond. The French King, Louis XII, was chosen to be one of his godfathers and sent a golden cup and salt as christening gifts; William Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury was the other, and Margaret of Austria was chosen as his godmother, although she did not attend.
His birth was celebrated with an extravagant tournament held at Westminster in his mother’s honour, a tournament which Thomas Boleyn participated in. Giles Tremlett points out that “contemporaries considered it the most extravagant and theatrical tournament ever seen in England” and that it was “the third most expensive spectacle of Henry’s long reign, after his father’s funeral and the deluge of ostentation that would later be known as the Field of Cloth of Gold.” Tremlett describes how the jousters dressed up as a hermit (Charles Brandon) and pilgrims and that the tournament started off with a pageant “made like a forest with rocks, hills and dales, with diverse sundry trees, flowers, hawthorns, fern and grass, with six foresters standing within the same forest, garnished in coats and hoods of green velvet. A gold castle rose from the centre, with a gentleman at the gate making a garland of roses.”
This pageant was on wheels and was drawn by “a silver antelope and a golden lion”, who hauled it in front of the new mother and queen, Catherine of Aragon. The foresters then blew their horns and the pageant opened up to reveal four knights, one of whom was the King. As he led his armed knights, Catherine would have seen the words “Cure loial” (Loyal Heart), embroidered on his skirt and his horse’s trapper, words which were meant as a profession of love for her. It was then time for the King and his knights – Bonespoir (Good Hope), Bon voloire (Good Will), Joyous panser (Happy Thoughts) and Valiaunt desire – to joust. Tremlett writes of how records show that the tournament was won by Valiant Desire but that Henry “ran twenty-five courses, far more thany anyone else”, so he was obviously in high spirits! He then treated his wife to “a series of acrobatic turns” with his horse – how wonderful!
The joust was followed by a banquet and an evening of entertainment in the White Hall of Westminster Palace, which became rather out of hand at one point when the crowd started tearing the pageant apart and even started stripping the King. The mob was calmed, the King laughed it off and the merrymaking continued, I doubt that anything could have spoiled the day for Henry.
Unfortunately, the couple’s happiness was short-lived. Henry, Duke of Cornwall, died on the 22nd February having lived just 52 days. His cause of death is unknown. It was a bitter blow for Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon and how different things would have been if little Prince Hal had lived. Catherine tried her hardest to provide her husband with a son and heir, suffering at least four miscarriages and stillbirths between 1510 and 1518, but her best – their daughter, Mary, born in 1516 – just wasn’t good enough for the King.
You can read all about Catherine of Aragon’s pregnancies in my article The Pregnancies of Anne Boleyn and Catherine of Aragon
Happy New Year!
It’s interesting to think how the whole world might be different if this child had lived—I always thought it so sad he died after close to 2 months…how attached his parents would be and hopeful…suuch a sad moment. That Henry sure did know how to celebrate, though!
[Reply]
Hey Claire, long time lurker first time poster.
My theory is that the babies who were born but didn’t live long were the effect of SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. A link is below.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/sleep/sids.html
I’d love to know your reactions, concerning my theory and if their is any evidence on any of the babies deaths, such as SIDS, illness or the possibility of foul play.
[Reply]
Baroness Von Reis Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 2:06 pm
LuLu,Not that your theory is’nt a very good one, Catherian and Anne had many sons,all born dead,except this child that I no of also Jane Seymour son Edward he died young. SIDS is when the baby stop breathing , for no reason it’s hard to say why maybe Henry was infact cursed?? Warmest Regards Baroness Von Reis
[Reply]
Claire,Happy New Year and to all the A B friends. Claire how did the child die? It seems so strange to me that all The Kings son were born died or lived a very short life? Could this perhapes been fowl play? Maybe someone didnot want the Great King to have any male heir? It just doesnot make sense to me,what are you thoughts?Also there were atempes to kill his daugther Elizabeth I.Could these heirs have been poisend,before or after birth? Warmest Wishes Baroness Von Reis
[Reply]
Poor Catherine- to think that just a few years later, she would have to relive all the pagentry again, as Henry celebrated the birth of Henry Fitzroy. I wonder if there were any signs that the little Duke of Cornwall had something wrong with him at birth that may have lead to his death, or if he suffered from SIDS. One thing is for sure, history would have been a lot different had young Prince Henry lived.
[Reply]
I’ve often wondered about both Catherine and Anne’s problems bearing live and healthy children. The “what if” possibilities are fascinating when one considers how different things would have been if either Catherine or Anne’s boys had survived. There would have been much more peaceful reign for Henry VIII and less people would have been executed.
[Reply]
Neither Catherine or Anne would have been discarded if they had supplied male heirs. The Tudor dynasty would have been secure and the threat of civil war drastically reducted. Henry may have been less keeen on executing any noble with a potential rival claim to the throne. On the other hand he might have been even eager to prevent anyone threatning his son’s inheiratance.
[Reply]
I can’t imagine the loss of a child. All this pageantry followed by the loss would have been a horrific experience for any mother. Poor Catherine.
[Reply]
What a momentous occassion this must have been, so much hope and foresight for a great future, but how utterly heartbreaking when the child died, what makes it seem worse is that we know this was the first of so many disappointments and loss for the King and Queen.
Commenting on LuLu remark, it could have been possible that he died of SIDS, but looking at all the other babies that died/miscarried or were still born to his wives I feel there was some thing more amiss.
Were babies still being swaddled in Tudor times, I think they were, tell me if I’m wrong. This means they were bound from head to foot in strips of cloth, like little mummies. Some were laid on swaddling boards first then wrapped so the baby could not move an inch. This was meant to ensure that the child grew straight limbed and healthy. They were left like this for many hours, so you can imagine how uncomfortable the poor little mites became, and how wet and smelly they were. Being wrapped like that would also have caused the baby to become far to hot, imagine being swaddled also covered in there crib, plus being in a room with a roaring fire, it must have been suffocating, plus with all this heat the baby would have been dehydrating,and I suppose if the bands were done to tight they could have restricted their breathing, all this it could have been a contributation to the death of poor Prince Henry. Although lots of babies would have survived this early care, he might not have been robust enough.
Also these royal babies were given to a wet nurse, so they would not benefit from the anti-bodies that are present in the natural mothers milk in the first few weeks, so really these little royal babies, who were born into a very privileged life, with modern hind sight, had a lot to contend with, bless them.
[Reply]
Dawn 1st Reply:
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:46 pm
P.S. A very Happy New Year to you all, may the A.B.Files continue to go from strength to strength.
[Reply]
greetings;
Can anyone please explain, precisely, what “a golden cup and salt” is?
thanks
[Reply]
Baroness Von Reis Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:37 am
Jeffrey,I think it is a token of good luck,salt over the sholder brings good luck,a golden cup full of salt would mean good luck and many more in Henrys case sons. That is just my view on what this meant.
[Reply]
jeffrey Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:43 am
well that certainly makes sense, then. Thanks for the quick response, it was truly appreciated.
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
January 3rd, 2012 at 9:42 am
I think the golden cup was a salt holder and there was a tradition in medieval times of using salt to protect babies from the Devil, as Baroness suggests, prior to their baptism, see http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/mhs/mhs38.htm for a discussion on this tradition.
[Reply]
Hi Dawn, I do jest but it would have been so romantic.On your comment of babies being swaddled ,new borns have been swaddled since the birth if the christ ,it still makes me wonder if there was fowl play as the babies were all sons? Just my theory on all the sons that died, Elizabeth I was almost killed as well. The French and Spanish hated England,I can see why one might not want Henry to have hiers, Elizabeth did kill a Queen herself, Mary Queen of Scotts was beheaded by Elizabeth I.They did’nt to lunch together they where at war. The Scotts,French,Spaniish ect .all wanted to take England.Mary of Geese was also killed she to wanted to take England with the Scotts, so why not send someone tocourt and off the future heirs? Baroness Von Reis
[Reply]
Dawn 1st Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:53 am
Hiya,
You are right babies do seem to have been swaddled for many centuries apparently from about 4000B.C. but there was a high infant morality rate too, so I just thought that this could have been a contributing factor if the little Prince was not a very strong baby, swaddling was very restrictive and the bands dont seemed to have been changed as often as maybe they should have, there are a few interesting articals on swaddling to read if you google it. It started to go out of fashion around the 17th century as doctors began to see some of the hazards to the health of babies, but on saying that I used to wrap my babies snug in a blanket, but not as tight as the bands and definately no board,
I don’t know about foul play, though anything was possible with the endless quarrelling with Scotland,France and Spain as you say, but I tend to think it was a genetic/blood type medical problems, after Katherines 2 short lived baby boys, all others a part from Mary of course, were stillbirths and miscarriages of both sexes. Same with Anne, only the daughter lived, it seems to be that it was boys that always died but that is then put into question when Jane produced Edward, also his bastard son to Bessie Blount who was born before Elizabeth, outwardly, both seemed strong healthy boys who lived into their teens. It is difficult to pinpoint medically without DNA and we will probably never know why Henry had such bad luck in the fathering a healthy son, its a tragic story really isn’t it.
[Reply]
Baroness Von Reis Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Dawn 1, That to is a very good theory as well,it would have had to be linked to the Kings genepool also back in the day they did”nt no that the the male determind the sex of the child, think about that one?They also did’nt drink water alot as it carried bacteria,there prefferecnc was wine or beer that also could have been the reason why children died so much before birth or shortly after. Edward died young he had been a sickley child, just think on this to you could of had a well sauced wet nurse breast feeding the child, what a nightmare. On the swaddling I cringe to think you but your new born on a board then rapp the baby up so tight? Sounds more like a tortuer rack to me really gets me thinking all the what if’s, But your theory is a very good one to bad we can’t get the DNA. Kind Regards Baroness Von REis
[Reply]
Dawn 1st Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Your point on drinking is a good one and could have been a contributing factor, it is not recommended we drink little during pregnancy/breastfeeding now-a-days, there was a prog on t.v. the other day about it, the doctors cannot make up their minds about how much is safe and there is no official guideline, but what I could make of it you have to be a quite a heavy drinker to cause serious damage to the uborn baby.There was also a beer called ‘small beer’ which was a very weak and low alcohol content which was drunk, they also made cordials from things like elderberry and other fruits, which were alcohol free, I think! So maybe they weren’t as ‘drunk’ as we thought them to be.
There seems to be 2 opinions on Edwards health as a child, from the things I have read, one that he was never in the best of health, and the other saying that he was an ordinary, healthy little boy, it was only in the last year or so that he became so ill, after having smallpox and measles close together, Claire would be the best one to ask. I have read Henry had very strict rules concerning the care and hygene around Edward, from the very beginning, that the walls and floors be washed of his nursery/rooms twice daily, very few people allowed in his room or near him. His wet nurse would have been chosen with great care had her food and drink monitored and scutinised, and she would have had the best of everything. Whether these hygene rules were applied to Prince Henry I don’t know, but I would have though so concerning the wetnurse. Did you know that through history it was thought that women with red hair should not be used as wetnurses as their milk was sour, how did they think these womens own babies faired…what strange ideas people had in by-gone days.
And yes I quite agree the swaddling board does sound like an instrument of torture, poor wee things.
Dawn 1st Reply:
January 7th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Made an error should have read ‘it is recommended that we drink little during pregnancy’ sorry.
I am new to this website and am sooo excited as I am an avid reader/researcher of this time in English HIstory!!! Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I ecspecially! I can’t get enough, so when I stumbled across this website I was beyond fired up!
SSC-
[Reply]
Claire Reply:
January 4th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Welcome, Shannon, I’m so glad you found us. We also have an active forum if you’d like to get involved.
[Reply]
Welcome Shannon! Hi Claire Shannon will enjoy Claires sit so much,all the A B Friends are great and you learn alot,Claire is a very smart women and knows her stuff.Aswell as all the other histroy buffs, your going to love this site . Claire What happen on the present Queens porperty, I heard on the BBC they found a girls body? Not trying to scare you shannon it’s just news . Very Happy to have another A B Friend Baroness Von Reis
[Reply]
Dawn 1,Very good points,I do so love being a History Buff/ Slooth, if we go back to all of the Kings children Elizabeth 1 ,seemed to be the strongest of any children Henry fatherd? She live and rained a long life 40 years on the throne and was the longest living child of the Kings ,She also had red hair.. there are alot of red heads in England so that there milk was sour well, not true. Strange how they thought back in those days. I want to say that Queen Anne was a mother that gave her life to insure Elizabeth would sit on the throne, a big price to pay don’t you think? Good to chat with another slooth,hope to chat with you again. Regards Baroness Von Reis
[Reply]