No. I'll never quite understand how people recently seem to so thoroughly ignore his right of conquest. Those same people don't seem to protest against William the Conqueror, Henry IV, or even Edward IV himself, but somehow if Henry Tudor does it, suddenly that's not a legitimate claim. This at a time period when being monarch still very much meant needing to hold on to the throne and keep the peace by force of arms; a militarily weak monarch was rarely successful or prosperous. I've often seen folks who decry Tudor's right of conquest as holding up 'bloodline' as the most important 'right' in any claim... but that's nonsense. Bloodline lent a veneer of authority and was important to the family already on the throne of course, but as we know, it was no guarantee of competency, and it's rather a 'how long is a piece of string' argument - I mean, Edward IV usurped the throne from Henry VI, whose grandfather Henry IV usurped it from Richard II, Stephen usurped it from Matilda and then her son took it right back again, Henry I arguably usurped it from William Rufus, and the debate still rages as to whether William the Conqueror usurped it from Harold Godwinson or whether Harold Godwinson usurped it from William the Conqueror.
So I think, in the modern discussion of Henry Tudor, people far too often use 'bloodline' as the final word when it really wasn't, and don't give enough credit to his claim through right of conquest, which counted for a lot.
So I think, in the modern discussion of Henry Tudor, people far too often use 'bloodline' as the final word when it really wasn't, and don't give enough credit to his claim through right of conquest, which counted for a lot.