Dale, I am having trouble with this statement from you:
“So then you know that Gruffed ap Rhys ap Thomas the son of Father Rhys ap Thomas of Bosworth was sworn to serve Prince Arthur as his liege and became more than friends? Gruffed was tapped by Henry VIII to take care of the Kings and Queens Horses, some 5,000 in all for the Field of Cloth of Gold. This is a most telling piece because it shows how deeply connected Henry VIII was to Father Rhys ap Thomas and his wife....who took BEATRICE their Laundress to the Field of Cloth of Gold. Henry VIII spotted her placed her into HIS Service always close at hand for his Lavendar Service. That's why I think the King had more in mind that his Laundry and paid for the boy William/Harry ap Rice full tution at Durham Priory according History of Parliment on line. Does that connection not read Paramour to the King? It did to me in 2012 and it still does. DCR”
Some bits of it are true. Gruffudd ap Rhys was indeed in service to Prince Arthur, and they did indeed become good friends.
Also, Gruffudd did indeed attend the Field of Cloth of Gold. And his father Rhys ap Thomas was also at the Field of Cloth of Gold.
Fair enough.
What is your evidence, however, that Rhys took his laundress Beatrice with him? Or, rather, that Beatrice, the wife of David ap Rice, was laundress to Rhys ap Thomas? Or that Henry VIII saw her there? Or that it was he who hired her as Princess Mary’s laundress? The king is highly unlikely to have been hiring laundresses tor his daughters. She was NOT close at hand as his laundress. She was Princess Mary’s laundress. These are separate households.
I gather that this conjecture is meant to be a story explaining how the King got interested in the laundress, though really if we are going to assume that the King DID get interested in a laundress it was because he saw her when he was visiting his daughter.
But even that doesn’t make much sense. Landresses worked in a different piece of the household than the one the princess was hanging out in.
At any rate.
Even if I were to accept the Beatrice Doing Laundry In A Comely Fashion At The Field Of Cloth Of Gold story, it still doesn’t explain why, in a highly examined and highly storied and highly vexed piece of history — that being the issue of who are the children of Henry VIII — there is NOT A TRACE of the illegitimate child by the laundress Beatrice story, except according to you.
That I don’t buy.
There are many many historical rumors about Henry’s illegitimate children. But this is not one of them.