Which Tudor do you like / dislike and why ?

[CF]

^ I agree Aly, and Marlyou I also agree that Thomas More was a wicked creature, and I certainly don't agree with child beating either.

[MAP]

First: About Mary and Thomas More, you're all talking about them as if they lived in our culture, with our societal rules of what's acceptable. They didn't. Elizabeth thought Bear Baiting was the most entertaining thing on the planet. That sickens me, but dangit, she didn't grow up in the 21st century. You can't judge people by our standards. You have to judge people by their own time's standards.

Second: Mary was treated horrifically. When she refused to capitulate to her father's whims, she had her father's followers in her face screaming at her that if she were their daughter she would "have her head beaten so hard against the floor that it would be like a bruised apple." (doing from memory, so quote may not be exact.) She was terrorized and brutalized, as well as all kinds of other psychological horrors, under both her father and her brother.

Despite that, her burnings -- which no, I don't agree with, obviously!! -- were not done out of revenge or sadistic delight, but because she truly thought she was saving people's souls. Catholics (and some Protestants) at the time believed that the only way to save a heretic's soul was to let them feel the flames of hell so that they could repent. Her advisors, and Philip, didn't like it not out of any moral reasons, but because it was politically unpopular.

And in those days, being of a different religion wasn't "nothing." It's partly due to Elizabeth I that we think that way -- "We all believe in Jesus Christ our Lord; the rest is a dispute over trifles." But for the 2 or so generations before her, and for many people after her, this was simply not the case. Henry VIII, Edward, and Mary all lashed out politically at people who they felt had different religious views than they. Lady Jane Grey did as well, personally, though she never truly gained enough political power or time to follow through with it.

[CF]

^ I totally understand and agree. But I am not, and never did, judge them against todays standards. It's funny that so many of them called themselves 'humanists' at the time as well.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

I know, how can you call yourself a humanist and commit those types of acts?

[MAP]

Humanists embrace reason and logic over superstition. In their minds, "reason" probably told them that these were the most effective ways to deal with people.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

they had a warped definition of humanist then.

[MAP]

Sir Thomas More practically invented what we now think of as humanism. (Renaissance Humanism.)

So be technical, WE have warped HIS humanism.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

for the better

[Connie]

Frances Brandon Grey. What a piece of work she was!

[Cel]

Interesting reading above that someone was not judging them by the standards of today, and then calling into question their calling themselves humanists.
We are coming from a completely different place ideas wise from anyone from before the renaissance. Also anyone before Charles Darwin "Origin of Species"

MAP well said in both places above.

[Aly]

I have to say that it is almost impossible to judge someone without the lens of our current situations clouding our "judgement" if you will. Thomas More and Mary I WERE cruel. Elizabeth could be cruel. Henry VIII? Cruel. And that isn't judging them based on child beating or burnings. Mary I had a rough childhood. What was in her childhood??? Cruelty. Cruelty begets cruelty.
Mary I was burning people because of a personal vendetta against protestants. She was persecuted under her brother for her religion. Once she became queen, who was to stop her from doing the same thing??? It was politically unpopular because of the fear people were having. Not just protestants burned. Anyone who got their "facts" about the Catholic church mixed up was burned. People were questioned about their religions. Everyone in the country was required to attend mass and if they didn't, they got arrested. Mary didn't name Elizabeth as her successor (even though she was going to be whether Mary named her or not) until she knew that she was dying, because the thought of putting someone on the throne with questionable religious practices bothered her.

We haven't warped More's humanism. It has developed over the course of the centuries into something different. That always happens. Nothing stays the same. The Catholic Church of then is different than the Catholic Church of now. The Pope doesn't have political sway anymore. The Church doesn't own most of Italy. Protestantism has changed too. Protestants don't go around now adays in black and minimal jewelry. And of course, there are the different branches that both now entail (fundamentalism, methodist etc.). Things change when the times change. It happens. People now even have changed Darwin's theories, so I don't think its fair to say that WE have warped More's Humanism.

[Aly]

Connie wrote: "Frances Brandon Grey. What a piece of work she was!"

OOOO!!!! I can't stand her either!!!! Good one!!!

[Alisa]

Yes Toni, thanks for asking. Two KH books that are at the top of my personal list are
[book:A Tudor Trage..."

I loved A Tudor Tragedy - it's a great biography!

[MAP]

Aly: Saying that Mary burned people because of personal vendettas is a hypothesis. We have no proof via letters or other historical documents that those are the reasons. Generally, quite the opposite. Especially since she didn't know many (any?) of the people who were burned.

Mary's actions were hardly unique in her time period. The Spanish themselves had just come out of the Inquisition.

And no, it was politically unpopular because people's anger made them rally around Elizabeth (and early on, Jane), which weakened Mary's and Catholicism's hold on England.

2: I was not implying that the "warping" of More's humanism was a bad thing. I was simply using the same words described by someone else (Jayme?) when they said "what a warped view of humanism." My response simply meant that in fact More's is closer to the original view, and it is ours that has shifted. "Warped" was not intended to have negative connotation; it was simply used as a stylistic device to tie more closely to the previous post.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Mod #4]

It's my impression that the Spanish Inquisition lasted until 1833.

I believe that at the time of Mary's reign it was going through a relatively quiet period, having already expelled the Jews, and not yet warmed up fully on the Moriscos. There were never very many Protestants in Spain to begin with.

However, I suspect what did Mary in, as far as popularity in England, was her determination to marry Philip II of Spain. It was a very unpopular marriage.

[MAP]

1833? Wow.

I always thought it interesting that Philip was often blamed by the people for all the burnings, while in reality he was begging Mary to back off with it because he knew how badly it was reflecting on him.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

that is a long inquistion

[Colleen, Mod #3]

Alisa wrote: I loved A Tudor Tragedy - it's a great biography!"

The best IMO.

[Aly]

MAP- no offense meant on the term "warping!" I tend to take it in a negative connotation, something I should think about.

What I meant by a personal vendetta, it wasn't the people themselves that she may (or may not have) known, but more their religion. She had a personal vendetta against their religion.

Poor Phillip. He was trying to get Mary to win over the hearts of the people and instead he was blamed for things!! My sympathy for him ends there, though.

[Marylou]

Wasn't Frances Brandon Grey a monster. It is sad to read what Jane Grey went thru before her death Mary Lou

[Lushbug]

Jane Boelyn lady Rochford. not quite sure why. i dont admire her as such as she did some cunning and horrid things but she must have been brave and wily to live for as she did being at the centre of every scandel of Henry VIII's reign (or near enough!). Its probably more true to say she is the tudor character that most intrigues me.Hate Henry himself. How anyone can change into such a monster in such short time is beyond me and despite having read lots of literature on him I still dont feel i understand his actions.

[CF]

^ Do you mean Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford, and Henry VIII's reign?

[Lushbug]

ha yes i meant jane boleyn. its been a long day. Was prev posting about rochester in Jane eyre.lol. sorry corrected it now

[Marylou]

Connie wrote: "Frances Brandon Grey. What a piece of work she was!" Frances B. Grey was a monster. And she was Mary 'Tudor's daughter.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Mod #4]

Yes, the Mary Tudor that was the sister of Henry VIII (not his daughter - they kept reusing the same names! very confusing for all of us).

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

I thought H*'s sister's name was Margaret

[Connie]

Jayme wrote: "I thought H*'s sister's name was Margaret"

Must have gotten confused by "The Tudors". They consolidated his sisters into one weird character. Henry VIII had two sisters: Margaret, who married the King of Scotland and from whom Mary Queen of Scots was descended and Mary, who married King Louis XII of France, then later Charles Brandon.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

ah okay

[Aly]

I honestly like H8. I know he was fat, smelly, bad temper yada yada. He was incredibly complicated. There is more to him than a bad tempered ogre. I think I would be an evil tempered man if I thought my first wife wasn't really my wife and wouldn't disappear, my second wife was condemned to death because of treasonous acts with several men, and my third wife died giving birth to my son. That's enough to ruin anyone. Not sayin his acts were justified, but I guess I see more of the human side of him than just the novelized version of him.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

I am going to plead the fifth on that Aly.

[Marylou]

Well I should just be quiet, but... The more I read about Henry viii the more I dislike him. He was conceited, cruel, terrible to his daughters, had no loyalty for anyone. I think when he was a young king there was lots of hope for him but his importance got to him. Although when I first started reading him he seemed so interesting--romantic, excellent in sports, music, singing, and dance. But what happened?

[Aly]

I don't know what happened. He fascinates me so much! To me, he is the most fascinating Tudor. People write him off as being a crazy person and such, but really, something must have changed him (depression and turning to food? maybe that is why he gained so much weight so fast?). I know that he was more cruel to Mary than Elizabeth. I wonder if he was projecting his feelings for their mothers onto them? I don't know!! And that is why he is so fascinating to me. He is a giant question mark.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

He is a complex man. To think, his biggest worry was that he wasn't going to be remembered. :)

[Marylou]

yes he was really complex and fascinating.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

I think he was slowly going crazy over his obsession to have a male heir.

[Jonathan]

Colleen, we've recently reissued the Lacey Baldwin Smith biog of Catherine Howard ('The Tudor Tragedy') but retitled it just simply 'Catherine Howard'.

[Colleen, Mod #3]

Jonathan wrote: "Colleen, we've recently reissued the Lacey Baldwin Smith biog of Catherine Howard ('The Tudor Tragedy') but retitled it just simply 'Catherine Howard'."

Yes, thanks for posting that so everyone knows Jonathan! :) I have an older copy I snagged off of amazon.com/uk so I forget to link to the re-released copy. Such an excellent book, thanks for re-releasing it!

Here is the link for the re-released version everybody:
CATHERINE HOWARD: The Queen Whose Adulteries Made a Fool of Henry VIII

I do have a question though, isn't that Elizabeth Seymour, sister of Jane Seymour, on the cover?

[ToniS]

Has anyone read a book specifically about Lady Rochford or told from her point of view?

[Lushbug]

There is toni. its called Jane Boleyn: The Infamous Lady Rochford -get it on amazon. very good anf gives a good insight into her character

[Lyn (Readinghearts)]

I am currently reading The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn by Alison Weir and I have to say, I am really beginning to dislike Anne (believe it or not, Colleen). She seems such a shrew!!

But on the other hand, although I wouldn't say I "like" a lot of the Tudors, I am fascinated by ALL of the them, even though I feel many of them were cruel, selfish, self-serving, etc. But I am still a newby to this subject compared to a lot of you, so I am still forming opinions as I read.

[Lyn (Readinghearts)]

Connie wrote: "Frances Brandon Grey. What a piece of work she was!"

Yes, definitely an easy Tudor to dislike in my book.

[Danielle]

Katherine of Aragon- I actually dislike her. I feel bad for her and think it was terrible what Henry and Anne did to her, but she was so stubborn! If she hadn't been and just agreed to the divorce then he might not have broken with Rome at all (I do believe he would have eventually but you see what I mean). Also, we can see how well he treated Anne of Cleves when she was amicable in divorce, and he probably would have done the same for Katherine. In a way, by being so stubborn she brought about her own sorrow. Not that she deserved any of it, but she didnt help matters much.

Jane Seymour - Dislike her also. She waited with baited breath during the fall of Anne and was betrothed to Henry within 24 hours if her death. She had to have been just as ambitious as anne had been, but played it off better under a demure mask. She cant have been as sweet as history makes her out to be.

I'll come back later and talk about my likes :)

[Aly]

Danielle, I don't like Jane Semour either. She acted like she was sweet and quiet, but you know she was just as ambitious as Anne.

Colleen, historians debate whether or not that is Elizabeth Seymour's portrait or not. I personally don't think it is. I can't remember who a lot of historians think the sitter is. I have it saved on a website somewhere; I'll have to dig it up.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

Danielle wrote: "Katherine of Aragon- I actually dislike her. I feel bad for her and think it was terrible what Henry and Anne did to her, but she was so stubborn! If she hadn't been and just agreed to the divorce ..."


Why do you like Jane Seymour? Is there any factual basis that says she was conniving? I am just curious because I don't know that much about her.

[Aly]

To my knowledge, there isn't a record of her being conniving. But let me put it to ya this way:

Anne Boleyn was on the throne. The King's passion was cooling towards her, but he still generally enjoyed her company. She goes into the birthing chamber. The King needs to "satisfy his needs." He finds Jane. He thinks she is going to be excited to be his mistress. Instead, she does exactly what Anne did before her: she didn't accept any of his gifts and plays on her virtue saying its the only dowry she has (which wouldn't be true, but that's for another time). AB had told Henry before she married him "Your wife I cannot be; your mistress I WILL NOT be." Jane seems to have taken this as her motto too. Yet, Henry was attracted, and kept trying to send her presents and such. Once she was found sitting on the King's lap. AB was FURIOUS because she knew exactly what the Seymours were up to. Things went south for Anne (another story for another time), and Jane picked out her wedding clothes very shortly after Anne's execution. There is a story that Henry sent Jane a gift of money in a bag. She kissed the accompanying letter, opened the bag, and grew very excited. She then closed it up and had it returned to Henry. That to me says it all. She knew exactly what she was playing for, knew that to be put up in Anne's position, Anne would first have to be disposed. Jane and her family were doing what the Boleyns did before them, even going as far as using Cromwell to help overthrow Anne.

[Marylou]

Aly, I totally agree with you. Jane S. knew what she was doing. Didn't she marry him immediately after Anne B. was beheaded.
Besides, I so enjoyed your style of writing. You kindof put everything into modern terms.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

I don't disagree with you about AB Aly. I do disagree with you on Jane Seymour. You make it sound like women had so much control over their lives. I will say some women were able to pull it off but not all.

[Aly]

Thank you, Marylou!! That compliment made my day!!!
They were married within two weeks of AB getting beheaded. What a great way to start a marriage!!! "Hey sweetie, just beheaded my wife, now we are free to marry!"

Jayme, you're right, most women didn't have much control over their lives. And the Seymours did push Jane just as much as the Boleyns and Howards pushed Anne. But you also have to realize that this is Henry VIII, the most handsome (although he was kinda starting to get fat by this time), richest (in theory), powerful person in England. And he held sway over what happened on the Continent. What woman wouldn't want to be his wife??!! She would be second only to the King and would enjoy some power. Of course Jane wanted to do this, of course she knew exactly what she was doing!!! And she was very well helped by her brothers who saw a major advantage to themselves should the Seymours succeed. And they did get a major advantage. When Henry died, he made Edward Seymour Lord Protector over Edward VI until he came of age.

[Jayme(theghostreader)]

Aly, I have done the research on the time period. Not extensively as some. I do realize that they thought H* was a catch however, whoever became his wife was at risk of losing her life as well.

[Aly]

I have dedicated the last three years of my life on extensive research about Henry VIII, which ends up including his wives. The risk of Jane losing her life was well worth the reward. Whoever was placed in front of the King did run the risk of losing something, but if she pleased the King, and especially if she bore him a son, she would be revered above all women. Look how having Edward immortalized Jane! She was painted in a dynastic portrait long after her death and when Henry was married to another woman (Katherine Parr).