Introductions

[CF]

^ Ooh treading on thin ice there! Charles I may have been a bit of an idiot but I don't think he deserved the axe! Then again I doubt anyone did.

[Ashleigh]

Thanks, Lisa!
Ha ha, very controversial! Charles II intrigues me - the way he played the French was incredible. And didn't the Hanovarians openly prefer there province in Germany to England? George I did anyway.
Personally I like them all, even if I'm glad I never had to deal with them. I find them all so fascinating.

[Gregory]

As a monarch or a leader Charles chose to be judged above other men if only by his persistent and absolute claim of rule via divine right not grant of Parliament. Something that even Henry VIII the suppossed paragon of Tudor kingship skirted. As such it was Charles' action and only Charles' action that led his country into its worse civil war. In this he betrayed friends, sold out allies, doublecrossed those he barginned with and at every single occasion always with an unfailing instinct for disaster made the wrong choice. So as I said earlier pass me the axe I'll do it.

[Mike]

Greg: as to Henry VIII, please remember he abolished what many people saw as the only route to God, he rather thought HE WAS the Will of God, going rather further than Divine Right.
As to Charles, I rather see him as a saint and a martyr, standing firm against the Satanic and self serving biggotry of the Puritans. Did Cromwell not abolish Christmas?

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Mod #4]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Gregory]

To Susanna thank you for the encouragement.
To Mike let me phrase my rebuttal in a few stages
Henry did not at any stage abolish what people saw as the established route to God. May I point out the popularity of Lutheran and Protestant ideas at that time, that salvation lay not through the grace and favour of the Pope but by examining the bible in their common vernacular. Simon Fish’s A Supplication of Beggars makes that point very clearly. Secondly, Henry by act of Parliament removed any claims the Papacy had upon the kingdom of England, if this was so unpopular an action then why is it we did not see wide spread spontaneous rebellion such as the peasants rising in Germany against the Church. May I at this stage point out that the Pilgrimage of Grace doesn’t count, due to its local origins and the fact that it happened somewhat after the separation from the Papacy. As for Henry claims of caesaro-papism as Scarisbrick calls it, I direct you to that historian’s monumental work on Henry VIII. There are several chapters on the annulment, Henry’s legal, biblical and pseudo historical claims for the independence and separation of the English church. As well as his efforts to settle first his annulment and then when forced, the separation according to the laws of England and under the long established legal supervision of Parliament. Now I also direct you to the Act of Succession where Henry according to you was the embodiment of the Will of God, submitted for human and earthly approval the succession of his heirs. By long established precedent the monarchs of England are proclaimed king (or queen) by act of Parliament, this even goes back to William the Conqueror who after his victory at Hasting was granted the throne by the Witan. Even the usurper (?) Henry Tudor had to gain Parliamentary approval for his claim after Bosworth. Victory in battle no matter how complete did not guarantee the throne.
As for Charles standing firm, well the only and I do mean only thing he ever stood firm on was his deeply embedded idea that he was divinely appointed by God. Thus was only responsible to God for whatever action he took, or how he ruled the kingdom. So in his reasoning earthly laws did not apply to him or any of his actions. I’m not quite sure how that can be accorded saintliness considering how he treated his loyal servant Stafford.
As for banning Christmas in 1647 celebrations were curtailed in response to growing discontent and riots, that I believe was a political not a religious act though it obviously met with the approval of the hardline puritans. Though I’m not quite sure how that compares with Charles’ obsession in decreeing the changes in the protestant church services because he didn’t like it and it wasn't colourful enough or shock horror it now included the laity in the service.

Regards Greg

[Mike]

Greg, it pains me to set out what the entire World must know, yet it has to be done.
As you should have known, the religion of England was Catholic not Lutheran, for the English Luther was heretic. The way to heaven was through Saint Peter and the doctrine of Apostolic Succession gave ultimate authority to the Pope as God’s vicar on Earth – did you not know this?
Are you really suggesting that some act of a parliament serving a deranged king could remove the authority of God over his own creation?
Have you any idea how dangerous it was to say “no” to Henry? Those taking part in the Pilgrimage of Grace risked being hanged drawn and quartered. There can be no merit in your discounting the Pilgrimage as “local”.
You repeat your point so I will repeat mine; I dismiss your argument that any parliament, either in the 16th century or any other time, could touch God’s power over his own creation. For those, i.e. followers of the Catholic Church, who believed God had given his authority to the Pope, no act of Henry could have any meaning outside his authority as a secular ruler.
Since you insist on referring to Germany, it is self-evident that the secular power there was split; some princes supporting Luther (consider the origins of the Thirty Years War) and the example is irrelevant to England, since, after the death of Edward Stafford in 1521, there was NO secular power in England able to confront Henry.
By the way, but not irrelevantly, there was concern as late as Victorian times that Church of England priests lacked legitimacy under the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. The nicety of argument on that I leave, but it must be beyond doubt people in 16th and 17th century England considered that Henry VIII had cut them off from God – their numbers certainly declined and there were certainly waves of increasingly extreme Protestantism so that by the 1640s even the king had lost authority over religion.
Your original point was that Henry VIII did not claim divine right. I would affirm he did, first in his defence of Catholicism; later he went much further, in his presumption in abolishing it, of necessity claiming a higher divine authority even than the Pope. I do not see how it can be suggested Henry did not claim to speak for God and it is in his doing so that I describe him as deranged.
Obviously Henry VII came to the throne by victory in battle. Of itself that is not to a point, but there is a related relevant point however (referred to in my book) Henry’s victory was immediately visited by the onset of a previously unknown disease, “the English Sweating Sickness”, at Bosworth Henry’s soldiers started dropping like flies, as soon as King Richard was killed. The disease disappeared as miraculously as it came on the death of Henry VIII. Make of that what you like, certainly people at the time thought it was God taking an interest in kingship.
By the Reformation, Henry VIII politicised religion. In France ‘the Sun King’, Louis XIV, could say “I am the state”, and the Church backed him up. By his unhinged claim to be God’s vicar in England Henry undercut the throne by denying the Church (unlike ‘Latin’ Europe where the two held each other up). It is, to a large extent, this which so weakened Charles I. What Devine Right did was ensure lawful government – not necessarily good government. But if you look at the unlawful governments which so bedevil the modern age you see the terrible results of tyranny, as self-promoted rulers try to legitimate their own inherently unlawful rule. The killing of Charles I unleashed unlawful rule resulting in chaos, hatred suffering and ignominy.

Greg, by your piece you demonstrate that you do not believe in established churches or monarchy. With respect, that is not the point. In History people did believe in these. I am sorry not to dignify the, in my view, specious opinions you put forward – my answer is long enough as it is.
The Judgement of England, delayed until after the death of the tyrant Cromwell, was that the Regicides, who voted to kill Charles, in the ‘Rump Parliament’, were hanged drawn and quartered; if they were already dead their remains were expelled from consecrated ground (meaning their souls would have no protection as they awaited the Day of Judgement).
This was the judgement of England; Charles II had no power to impose it.
This is History judging itself from within History. I can think of no comparable example other than the trial of Hitler’s Nazis at Nuremberg.
I agree Charles was no politician, but he was a thoroughly decent, courageous man. Let me inform you as a lawyer, as ‘font of all Justice’ the King was innocent of all wrong – that is a matter of definition, not opinion. It ill becomes you to set yourself above more than eight hundred years of the English Common Law, and I cannot approve the killing of innocents.
I cannot fail to oppose the Regicides, their followers and supporters. To me the ‘Rump Parliament’ has the whiff of the Taliban about it.
You may set your modern opinion above the heart and learning of England of the times – I for one reject your opinion.

Regards, Mike

[Debye]

Hi! I'm Debye--a librarian who reads voraciously (I'm the go to person for suggestions). I have a BA in History from UTAustin and read as widely as possible, but my weakness is definitely the UK and the Tudors. I look forward to enhancing my TBR pile & all the discussions!

[Gregory]

To Debye this is a great group to check out lots of 'wholesome' Tudor entertainment. If I may make so bold as to suggest you have a quick peruse of my tudor blog or my book list. As they say feel free to ask questions.
In your History BA what was your major, if you don't mind me asking?

Regards Greg
http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot....

[Aly]

Hey, Debye!!! Welcome to the group!! I have (or rather will in two weeks) a BA in History too!! Looking forward to discussing with you!

[Ashleigh]

Welcome to the group, Debye!

[Mike]

Debye, welcome indeed. We all look forward to your opinions.

[Debye]

Hey everyone! Thanks for the warm welcome.
@Greg---I already bookmarked your site & I concentrated on Medieval hisotry & folklore. @Aly--Congrats! Maybe you can be a librarian too!! :-)
What else can you do with a history degree.... :-D

[Debye]

supposed to say HISTORY....

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Mod #4]

A lot of my friends who majored in history became lawyers.

[Aly]

I was thinking about getting my masters and becoming a professor. But I've already been in school for six years (history is my second degree that I piggybacked onto my first) so i think I need some time away before thinking about grad school. Without going to more school, I don't know what else you can do with a history degree haha!!! I concentrated on European History with leanings in Germany, France, and England. One of my favorite classes though was Intellectual European History where we read things from Freud, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Thomas Mann, and Darwin to name a few. Great class!! Sorry for the tangent....

[Mike]

Aly, for teaching and learning I think you can still do no better than A.J.P. Taylor - it's a generational thing - you can probably still get archive broadcast footage.

[Sandie]

Hi Everyone! My name is Sandie and I live a little south of Cleveland in Ohio. I have no children and am not married (though I want both) so it makes it a little easier to getting good quality reading done! I've always had an interest the Tudor era, intrigued beyond words when any story or movie or show erected concerned Henry VIII. My first "OMG" moment was when I read Phillipa Gregory's "The Other Boleynn Girl". I've been hooked on her and anything she writes ever since.

[Allison]

Hello I'm Allison. Recent inductee into the 30-something group! So far, so good! I've always been a huge history fan, especially of WWII & the American Civil War. But let me tell you, once I took Western Civ in college I was hooked on much much more. After reading The Other Boleyn Girl I became fascinated with Tudor history. I can't wait to start the book & get started on discussions!

[Gregory]

To Allison and Sandie let me extend a humble welcome to this delightful aether gathering. I always find the discussions here very interesting and have been lead to a number of facianting books. May I also humbly draw your attention to my Tudor blog, perhaps you may find it of interest or at the least amusing.

Regards Greg

http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot....

[Gregory]

To all my friends and fellow Tudor devotees at Goodreads, I most humbly announce that my first book is now available on Amazon Kindle. A Red Ned Adventure- The Liberties of London, I extend to you an invitation to visit and if you so choose down load a sample.

Your Obedient Servant Greg

http://www.amazon.com/Liberties-Londo...

[Karen]

Thalia wrote: "Tudor History Lovers, please introduce yourselves. It's so lovely to know others that share your passion/addiction :)"

When I first saw this group, I knew I had to be a part of it! I love Tudor History and I'm doing everything possible to learn more about it. I can't wait to begin reading all the old discussions and joining in when I have something to contribute.

[Gregory]

To Karen welcome to this merry throng, the discussions and suggestions here are always interesting especially the older ones, which give so much juicy Tudor info.

http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot.com

Regards Greg

[Karen]

Thank you for the welcome, Greg; nice blog!

[MaryAnne]

Hello everyone,
I'm new to the group and wanted to introduce myself. I've been a BIG Tudor fan since I was 18 years old. It all started with the PBS series Henry VIII which started my Anglophilia. Along with Henry and his many wives my favorite Tudor has to be Elizabeth I.

I'm looking forward to the group discussions and the May reading group.

regards,
Mary Anne

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Mod #4]

Hi, Mary Anne! I, too, have been a Tudor freak since The Six Wives of Henry VIII.

My mother is a saint; she let me watch it when I was six!

[Carol]

HI' I AM NEW TO THE GROUP. SAW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TUDORS AND HENRY THE VIII. MY FAVORITE IS CATHERINE OF ARAGON. HER STRENGTH, AND GRACE PUT HER ABOVE THE OTHERS

[Sandie]

I have to agree Carol. When most people in her situation would have cracked and shattered, Catherine held it together and remained regal and refined the entire time. I feel awful for her - to have had such a great life and then have Henry destroy it. What an awful thing to have to endure. Phillipa Gregory has a book about her, fiction obviously, but still very good.

[Carol]

SANDIE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO READ IT. I'VE READ MANY BOOKS ON HER AND THAT TIME PERIOD, I'VE NEVER REALLY BEEN DISAPPOINTED. THANKS

[annie]

Greg wrote: "To all my friends and fellow Tudor devotees at Goodreads, I most humbly announce that my first book is now available on Amazon Kindle. A Red Ned Adventure- The Liberties of London, I extend to you..."

Congrats on your first book, Greg! That is AWESOME!! I just hit 50,000 words in my Tudor novel - can't wait until it's actually published!

[Gregory]

Thank you Annie I look forward to hearing some more news about your work it is such a facinating period to write in.
http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot.com.

Regards Greg

The Liberties of London

[Kate]

Hello! I'm Kate and I live in the UK. I joined a few days ago and have just started to send in a few posts. I am a bit of a Shakespeareaholic (is there such a word? - if not, I'm sure the Bard would have invented it given half the chance) but also enjoy reading and learning about the Tudor background and period. I look forward to 'talking' to you all in the coming months.

[Carol]

WELCOME TO THE GROUP. I'M IN TEXAS,US THE TUDORS HAVE ALOT HAPPEN IN A SHORT TIME.

[Carol]

WELCOME ARIELLE

[Ashleigh]

Welcome to all the newcomers in the group. I look forward to learning from your wealth of knowledge about these fascinating people!

[Gregory]

To Arielle
A most hearty welcome to this group they’re a lot of fun and very interesting. As for your research I take it you reviewed Lacy Baldwin Smith’s The Mask of Royalty? He’s essentially the only historian that I’ve seen look at Henry for a psychological perspective. I have heard the theory that Henry underwent a personality change after the serious jousting accident which I also believe has been linked to Anne Boleyn’s miscarriage. I always felt that incident was too easily dismissed by historians for its contribution to the actions of Henry from then on. Dare I ask if your research papers are available anywhere? They sound absolutely fascinating and I love to read them if possible.

Regards Greg

Blogging on the Tudors at http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot....

The Liberties of London
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/...

The Liberties of London

[Aly]

I would like to read your paper concerning his narcissism. I'm kind of the Henry advocate of the group LOL. I'm curious what you came up with. I'm not sure if he actually had narcissistic personality disorder, but I'd be interested to see if you sway my opinion.

[Gregory]

To Arielle my money has always been on the jousting injury as the main cause. The action of Henry before and after are like chalk and cheese, wihtout that his abrupt and terminal treatment of Anne and the rest of her faction makes little sense. the we have the abrupt mood swings, extreme paranoia and so on. If the joust wasn't a contributing factor then why doesn't Henry continue his previous behaviour?
As for Syphilis despite rumours Henry did not sleep around suffienctly to gain the affliction nor did he in his later years exhibit the grosser symptoms.
Regards Greg
The Liberties of London- Smashwords

http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/...

Blogging on the Tudors at http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot....

The Liberties of London

[Aly]

I've never believed that he had syphilis either. People think that because he had a couple of mistresses while with Katherine of Aragon that he slept around. But Henry was much more of a romantic than that. And then he ran into the strain of women who wouldn't sleep with him until they were married.

My mother is a brain injury specialist and I have had her read things about his accident during the joust, and she agrees that he did suffer from a traumatic brain injury. I mean, he was in a coma for several hours after, how could he have not injured his brain? And his personality change afterwards really does point to this. It could have also been the reason why he so quickly gravitated to Jane Seymour. Anne was a fighter and they often had screaming rows. In my experience with people with TBI's, a lot of them gravitate towards more peaceful people.

That aside though, I do think that Cromwell had more to do with Anne's fall than Henry.

[Alison]

Hi, I'm Alison. I'm a history teacher in the UK so I get to teach about the Tudors. I haven't read a lot of Tudor fiction but I am starting to. Looking forward to taking a look at some of the recomendations!

[Mike]

Arielle wrote: "LOL! I can see that. He is very fascinating to me. My most recent paper utilized the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (Text Revision). Unfortunate..."

Arielle wrote: "LOL! I can see that. He is very fascinating to me. My most recent paper utilized the diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (Text Revision). Unfortunate..."

I very much agree with the mental health explanation. Please remember his childhood and that he was never prepared for the crown (it should have gone to his brother). It seems to me he was terrified of power, and that turned into the complexes he displayed as an adult.
As to syphilis, I am sure he was infected, but here is not the place to say why.

[Mike]

Arielle, isn't modern psychology wonderful, it tells us so much.

[Mike]

Arielle, I'm also studying counselling, tomorrow I have to do a recorded role-play, that's alright, but I have to do a transcript and commentary about use of Malan's triangles (what a chore!).
I found Bowlby so helpful in writing about abandonment, not to mention looking for the 'hidden feelings'.
I'm sure you've found the same.

[Aly]

I agree his cloistered childhood definitely shaped Henry (he married KoA partly because he "loved" her but also, I feel, because his father pretty much forbade it). Psychology is great, but it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to analyze somebody who lived so long ago. We can't truly diagnose him with anything because we just don't know. As I've mentioned before, I do believe he's suffered from a traumatic brain injury, but syphilis I think is out of the question. And again, I'm not sold on the Narcissistic Personality Disorder either.

[Mike]

Arielle, so much guesswork is asserted as fact it is refreshing that you offer less than certainty. I have no doubt the discipline you use in your university research will keep you on the right lines.

[Alex]

Arielle wrote: "Hello! I am new to the group! I am in love with Tudor History, and I have written two of my psychology papers on Henry VIII (stating that he had Narcissistic Personality Disorder that was encourage..."

Hi Arielle! Your two papers sound fascinating.

[Jennifer, Mod #5]

A huge welcome to all of the new members!!

[Jennifer, Mod #5]

Arielle, I don't think I'm alone when I say that I would love to read your papers if at some point you want to share :)

[Gregory]

To Arielle I have what I hope is a valid suggestion, publish your papers on Smashwords or Kindle, put them up for a basic price. I'm sure they will gain a signifigant amount of interest. I'm currently going through my own Tudor research to see what would be acceptable to go up as various guides.
Regards Greg
Blogging on the Tudors at http://rednedtudormysteries.blogspot....

[Melanie]

Hi I haven't gotten a chance to introduce myself but my names Melanie. I am in love with the whole of the Tudor legacy. I am especially fascinated by the women. From Elizabeth of York to Elizabeth the I. I am working on research for a historical fiction novel set in the Tudor period. I want to read up on more culture and customs of court life and the hierarchy of royalty. I also want to read about the fashions and courtly love. If anyone has good books both fictional and nonfiction and could point me in the direction I would appreciate it greatly. A good Tudor book I keep by my side all the time is called, "The Other Tudors" by Philippa Jones. It talks not only of Henry's wives and famous mistress Bessie Blount, but of the possibility of who else would be one of his mistresses showing documentation of an increase in wealth and status. Also the chance of what children may be his as well. Whether or not it's all true it's a great point to jump off and study more. (again I feel silly to ask so much when I'm so new but another book of this kind would be wonderful) I'm so excited to be a part of this and sorry if I was way too overboard in enthusiasm.