Was Agnes Blewitt a Mistress of Henry VIII?

http://www.geni.com/path/Iowerth+Hirvlawd+ap+Tegonwy+is+related+to+...

http://www.geni.com/path/Ralf+Ralph+de+Meri+Mary+is+related+to+Samu...

It occurs to me Justin, that if the Geni community persuaded to believe that the Good Queen Bess abstained from physical pleasures then how are so many people in the rest of the world convinced that she did have these children? Included among them are the Court Records from Sir Rudolph to Lord Cecil 9mos. after a prolonged visitation by her regular companion he posed this question?

"November 19, 1565 : IS SHE LYING IN WITH CHILD? NO, SHE IS 5 DAYS CONFINED TO HER ROOM/BED DUE TO SEASONAL ILLNESS."

The reason for the season is cold and flue I suppose? But, why the question? It's a well known fact that she commaned Sir Robert to be nearby at every possible whim. Does this behavior fit a woman disinterested in a married man? Or does it fit with a Royal fixation upon a person of such imprtance that she began her private meetings with him when they were both in the tower during the Marian years?

I included the GENI synopsis of my linkage to WALES and to the line of men who preceed the Tudors & Stewarts in their affiliation to William the Conquorer. It's my pet theory ofcourse that the both lines descend from the I-1 Haplogroup carrier which preceeds them into Scotland & Wales. DCR

Dale, Sir Francis Bacon is linked correctly to his provable parents. The little piece you are looking at is a bit added to the overview by user in December. I don't think it's exactly a monumental failing, nor by itself is it proof of anything. I'm surprised you were taken in by it. Frankly, you've added your own speculations to so many Geni profiles you should be able to recognize the signs.

Was "Virgin Queen" a sideways wink? People can decide for themselves. She was flattered with that title by courtiers and foreign ambassadors. My own reading is that people who wanted something from her probably wouldn't have been mocking her to her face. You might have a different idea. Whether it was true or not, there's no evidence except the modern opinion of armchair psychologists.

As for real behaviors of happy, healthy people, I leave it to you to judge for yourself. I don't see much that was happy or healthy about any of the Tudors. Again, you might have a different reading.

One mistake people make is to judge our ancestors by our own standards. They lived in a culture we cannot enter today except through imagination. At some periods they were more sexually restrictive than we are today, and at other periods more relaxed. In Elizabethan times they tended to take the threat of hell fire more seriously than most people today. There were certainly both celibates and libertines. I wouldn't think that that every celibate was a secret libertine, but when we wander into these speculative areas our opinions about what is normal probably tell us more about ourselves than about the people we're talking about.

I am the skeptic here Justin. Your interpretation of" no proof " being used the same as as" proved" , is missing the obvious behaviors of obscessed Royals. Henry Tudor had no bounds on him whatsoever, and he made use of his power over others on a fairly regular baisis. His actions survived in the lives of those whom he had an effect. Anne Bolyne lost her head, and Elizabeth grew up disowned, disposessed, reaffirmed, and then nearly killed by her 1/2 sister. No wonder she would seek solace in the one person who had undergone the psychological torment at the same time. You honestly think a young girl would not turn to her companion in the Tower for love and affection when the tables were turned and she became Queen?

That's simply not the world at her command. She could, and did command Sir Robert to be by her side every possible moment until he got caught up in the Spanish plan to wed her to the king of Spain or destroy her. He remained unmarried for 15 years or more waiting for his chance. She was no Virgin, but may have remained unmarried for Political reasons not related at all to her private behavior. She also had every opportunity to act upon her will.

I find your position on this curious to say the least. Especially since the DNA trail is so fresh leading to a clear and clandestine physical romance that lasted almost 17 years.

Check on the Edmund Rice 1594 of Edmund St. Bury....I think you'll find a bunch of I-1 descendents of the link I put up in and around there. They are certainly all over DEVON too. Once you locate the father of Edmund Rice, his cousin should be in hiding out in the 1/2 Siblings of the Clandestine Tudors. Im not related to EDMUND RICE except by a few links of DNA that portend the descendent line I put up, out of France. DCR

Justin: Anything I put up these days, adds a disclaimer of NOT PROVED or UNDER INVESTIGATION. My DNA link to The Ellis/Buris line was not a matter known to the investigators who questioned that linkage. Had they known that the proved Ellis line and my DNA linkage to Ellis they would have agreed that The Kings Physician was indeed a father to the Down line Bures/ Bacon union. I think you strain at gnats and swallow the camel whole on some points. Virgin Queen indeed! DCR

Catherine of Aragon, Queen consort of England

Samuel Gordon Rice

Elizabeth I of England

http://www.geni.com/path/Alfonso+IX+el+Baboso+rey+de+León+y+Galicia...

My Mt. DNA is J2a1a Centered in the IBERIAN Pennesula, with 3.2 % Neanderthal and O+ blood group. Perhaps the missing Dudley,(mentioned in the 1978 testimony is a Tudor? Disowned, Disenherited by the Spanish plot to Marry Elizabeth off to the King of Spain by her lover's spared life? Dunno. Im just a beginner in these things.

I hope you understand by now that getting John Rice 1630 to Ma. by ship, was a detail seen to by 1/2 brother Perrott ap Rice 1598-99. The community accepted the boy left behind by the care giver family: I.E. Edmund Rice & Thomasine Frost- Rice....was arranged by PURITAN leader in Wales: Sir James Perrott of Havorford West, most likely via the Allin Family per the testimony and your discovery. The story is far from over, but at least now, I hope you can see why I urged all not to make Conclusions about this until the pieces could be put into place and understood. DCR

Dale - you wrote:

"Dunno. Im just a beginner in these things."

I'm glad you said that. I'm a continual beginner at "many" things, but there is "one" thing I am fairly confident of.

Queen Elizabeth l had no children, secret or otherwise. She is one of the best studied - and known - monarchs in history, living at a time that supplies us with an extensive paper trail and 400 years of historical analysis.

Surely nothing there for a beginning family compiler go think twice about.

Go with the more obscure and undocumented for the sensational fiction. :):)

Who is arguing L3? I merely put up the pieces to MY puzzle, attested to by my father which I have resisted for 15 mos. and believed was too far fetched to be true. YET, we have the pieces of a missing and disowned son of a peron connected to the Tudors or I would not have the Tudor Affiliation in down and upline ancestors.

It is a question....nothing more. it is not even an assertion....And there is nothing more tantalizing for investigation, than a conclusion that was writ large in Stone by the Winners of a Rebellion like the Tudors, as in the characterization of a monster, Richard III....also a cousin of mine.
http://www.geni.com/path/Richard+III+of+England+is+related+to+Samue...

The mind operates like a parachute, and only functions when open. DCR

Folks, let's stay on topic. The topic of this thread is Agnes Blewitt, not every speculative connection to the Tudors. Dale, if you want to talk about immigrant John Rice or the Perrott family, let's keep it over on the John Rice thread. If you want to talk about other Tudor connections, let's start a new thread.

Incidentally, let's get something sorted about "Neanderthal DNA". To date what has been found of that nature is *autosomal* - no Y-DNA, no mtDNA - and the only reason it shows up at all is that a few genes are slightly funky.

This probably warrants a thread of its own.

Lloyd, I strongly disagree. Any Geni user is welcome to start a discussion about a search for their ancestry. Any Geni user is welcome to participate, or not.

What I would like, and many others would also like, is to have a discussion about the Tudors that doesn't get hijacked by a single user and his speculation about his ancestry.

The topic of this discussion is announced by its title, "Was Agnes Blewitt a Mistress of Henry VIII?" Some discussion about Tudor mistresses and children is probably inevitable, but Dale's many theories about his descent from the Tudors have their own dedicated thread. We don't need to turn every Tudor discussion into another forum for the same topic.

Justin, I'm not exactly sure what it is that you are saying you disagree with me about. We might not be on the same page at the moment. Dale will probably continue to say good bye without leaving, and he will also probably continue to "make the rounds" on the other Tudor discussions when one of "his threads" has ceased to please him.
If you want that to change you should probably talk to him about it.

Sorry if I misunderstood you Justin. I thought this was the thread for illegitimate Tudor sons and daughters. That's what I thought you meant by" let the discussions begin".

Well, John Rice of Dedham is an accomplished fact, I know who his parent is and now I want to know the Grand Parent's name who passed along I-1 Haplogroup which yielded my Ancestory thread to Iberian Pennesula, and Norman France. I thought that belonged here, since it was Dr. Richard Edwardes and Henry Carely along with Thomas Perrott son of Sir James Perrott, all coming in at R1b1 that caused me to yield.....as I said I would. DCR

she has proof of it, as far as I have Heard. bye

If there is proof it will be very exciting to scholars who work in this area.

Agnes Blewitt, was not low born. She was a descendent of Henry I, Edward I and Charlemagne, and she lives near Henry VIII hunting lodge, which he did a lot (hunting), so he saw a great deal of her, and it is very possible he could of been Henry VIII mistress and the mother of his child.

She lived near a hunting lodge in the West Country that Henry VIII visited only once in his lifetime, when Agnes' son was already a grown man.

Details, details... ;-)

We may have an answer to the DNA solution to prove Richard Edwards was Henry's son. Henry's suit of Armour is here in the USA. It is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, NY. He had many jousting accidents wearing that Armour. If any of his DNA is still inside it we might get the answer after 500 years.
October 16, 2016 11:14 AM - from http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org

After my son received his DNA kit results from 23andMe, they contacted him (and my Mom who had previously used their company) and informed us that we are descendants of Henry Tudor. I have since been able to trace my grandmother's (Frances Ann Edwards) lineage back - all the way to Richard Edwards.