Tudor History Lovers discussion
Which Tudor do you like / dislike and why ?
message 101:
by
Jayme(theghostreader)
(last edited Feb 05, 2010 05:26PM)
(new)
Feb 05, 2010 05:20PM
I am not discounting your research Aly. What I express is only my opinion based on what I read and researched. I think your statement is based off of a big if. IF Henry was pleased with whichever of his wives. Henry was a hard man to please. Giving birth to a son had a higher probability but once they went barren, or displeased, he would and did tire of them. He would have eventually tired of Jane. He tired of all his wives with the exception of Katherine Parr.
reply
|
flag
I guess I don't know what you mean by my statement being an "IF"
I was referring to this line : 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.
O! That's not an IF statement. Well, it does have the word IF in it, but it's not an IF. Henry almost had Katherine Parr arrested because she was a secret protestant, he didn't tire of her. KH slept with someone else, he didn't tire of her. Anne of Cleves, who knows what happened there. He didn't tire of JS because he thought she was going to bear him a son and when she did she died. Her position would have been fine. He would have never gotten rid of the mother of his son. He grew distant of AB because she raged at him for JS and Madge Shelton. KoA, he did tire of. I'll give you that one. She grew barren and he knew he was never going to get son from her. My statement isn't a big IF. It was a game that families played back then. That is how they thought. It's not me conjecturing or making up a "what if" statement. Higher up families would put their daughters in position to catch the eye of the King. "IF she can please him, the risk is worth the reward." For the Duke of Norfolk, the reward was well enough that he risked two nieces as Queen consorts. The reward was good enough for the Seymour family and Jane to offer her up to him.
I would appreciate that you wouldn't treat me like a moron like I don't know anything about this history because that is how it is coming across Aly. I honestly don't see how anyone could have pleased H8. It seems to be that Henry 8 was so quick to blame and get rid of his wives when it didn't please him he should have looked in the mirror. The things he has done in his reign were big accomplishments? By medieval standards, they thought themselves pretty intelligent when in today's times, they are all stupid morons. Aside from the royal families who could probably read and write and spoke two or three languages, some of the nobles could barely write there names much less peasants. So basically how they thought was pretty dumb. The best a woman could hope for was to marry rich and have many sons. Although a noble accomplishment for women, seems a pretty simple goal. If the only purpose for women was to marry at least they could have choice in who they married but no. It seems to me he chose his wives on the pure basis of eye candy. She is beautiful so she must be pure and good. It also seems to me that he likes his wives less intelligent than he and basically be "groupies" and worship him. Also, you said, Duke of Norfolk risked two nieces. Seems to me he really didn't care THAT much for Katherine Howard. She was sent away to live with her step grandmother.
Jayme wrote: "I would appreciate that you wouldn't treat me like a moron like I don't know anything about this history because that is how it is coming across Aly. I honestly don't see how anyone could have plea..."Henry /v.iii did have accomplishments besides 6 wives. He began the separation of church and state! Women had no rights. However, like women of all times many of them could manipulate their husbands for whatever they wanted.
I wasn't speaking of the wives. The only reason he began the separation of church and state was because the Pope wouldn't grant him the divorce from Katherine of Aragon. It was for selfish reasons. Then he went on to destroy all the Catholic churches and strip the Catholic abbeys. Yes, some of the Catholic churches were corrupt. Yes, some women could persuade their husbands. I wouldn't really call that an accomplishment on their part.
I didn't mean to imply you were a moron; forgive me. I just apparently have a very different view about this part of history than you do.
you're forgiven Aly :)
Lyn M wrote: "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, Coll..."Haha! Does that mean you are thinking about hopping over the fence to my side Lyn?
Ladies, lets keep it civil please.
I thought Mary (sister of Henry VIII) was a free thinker and very remarkable for her time. She was forced to marry the King of France and she married him after forcing a promise from her brother that she would pick her own husband the next time. When the King died six weeks after the wedding Henry wisely or shrewdly (I haven't figured out which applies) sent her heart's desire and Henry's best friend Brandon over she somehow got Brandon to marry her. This was a brave move for a woman who had a meglomaniac for a brother. I say "you go girl". Brandon was so manipulated by her that he married her in spite of the fact that he could have lost his head for his actions. Mary was definitely an interesting lady with a mind of her own. Not a meek and mild woman.
Cel wrote: "Except that he did have boys with Anne, it is just that one died very young, and the others were stillborn. So although he could sire boys, he didn't sire living boys.Possibly some of the miscarri..."
Kate wrote: "For sure Jayme , If she had a son , history would be different now. It was her meal ticket. I think Henry saw what he did for her (executing friends , turning the country and church and other monar..."Janis wrote: "Cel wrote: "Except that he did have boys with Anne, it is just that one died very young, and the others were stillborn. So although he could sire boys, he didn't sire living boys.
Possibly some of..."
Janis wrote: "Cel wrote: "Except that he did have boys with Anne, it is just that one died very young, and the others were stillborn. So although he could sire boys, he didn't sire living boys.
Possibly some of..."
I read something very interesting the other day that may be a clue regarding Anne B's inability to carry sons. She was RH negative and Henry was RH positive or something very similar to that. The first child is born healthy (Elizabeth I) but all subsequent attempts to carry a child full term end in miscarriage because of the RH factor. I think I read this in the Lady in the Tower by Allison Weir.
Marylou wrote: "Claire wrote: "Thomas More (who beat a child servant, almost to death , naked, in front of the household and servants because the child said he didn't think wine turned into blood (probably didn't ..."Thomas More was a very odd, twisted man. We see him as a brilliant legilator and lawyer but there was a dark side to him. There have been unsubstaniated rumors that he had unnatural relations with his daughter Meg. He also whipped himself or flagellate to keep his thoughts pure. He also spread the stories about Richard III being the murderer of his nephews. Makes reading the Enquirer look like pretty lame stuff when we start reading about the Tudors and their cronies. Makes John Edwards look pretty tame.
It is odd that Henry who later emerged as one of the biggest enemies of the Catholic Church was called a Defender of the Faith in his youth by the Pope. He always saw himself as a catholic and the english protestant rites (Unitarian) are almost the same as the Catholic rites in this country. Henry wanted the spoils of the monasteries and convents almost as much as he wanted the right to make decisions about religion in his own country. The Catholic Church also cleaned up Thomas More's image. It wouldn't do for someone whose image was as cloudy as Thomas More's to be "A Man for All Seasons" now -- would it.
Er, the "english protestant" church that Henry VIII founded is now known as the Church of England, or Episcopal Church.They are trinitarians, which the Unitarians (another sect completely) are not.
There was a pretty good book written a few years ago from the perspective of Will Somers, Henry's fool. It was historical fiction with a lot of license taken but it was a good read and I highly recommend to anyone who has a few hours to spend on the beach and sitting on a plane. It is a good read.
Susanna wrote: "Er, the "english protestant" church that Henry VIII founded is now known as the Church of England, or Episcopal Church.They are trinitarians, which the Unitarians (another sect completely) are not."
Ooops!
Janis, where on earth did you read that More had and incestuous relationship with his daughter Meg?
Janis, I think your theory on the RH factor is interesting. That could be a possibility and of course they wouldn't know about things like that then.
I have heard of More's hairshirts and self flagellation, Janis, but I have never read any books about Thomas More having sexual relations with Meg. Where did you ever read that?
Jayme wrote: "I wasn't speaking of the wives. The only reason he began the separation of church and state was because the Pope wouldn't grant him the divorce from Katherine of Aragon. It was for selfish reasons...."Frankly, Jayme, I didn't mean that wives can persuade, help, discuss with, manipulate their husbands. I don't call that an accomplishment, but I do think it helps in marriage now and then.
Please do not write to me like I am a moron, Jayme.
I believe this is a place where we can write our thoughts without being told we are morons.
I never said you were MaryLou.
Everyone, kindly eliminate the personal comments. For a graphical representation of this, I invite everyone to look at this comic: http://xkcd.com/438 Keep your mouse over the comic for some words of wisdom by the awesome artist, Randall Munroe, and have a good evening/day/morning, as appropriate to your time zone.
Janis, re the RH factor thing, I think its a really good bet that is what was going on. I LOVED that book (The Lady in the Tower). Weir proposes some good theories that I think are really fascinating!
I love Anne Boleyn, I don't know why exactly, but her story fascinates me so much. As for who I don't like...hmmm...Probably Jane (Parker) Boleyn or also known as the Lady Rochford.
Oh I didn't like her either. At least what I tread about her.
There are so many interesting people in Tudor times. i have on my shelf to read biographies on Arabella and Bess of Hardwock two other interesting tudor woman who lived thru much. Wonder what it is about Tudor times that produeced such interesting and strong figures- perhaps the turbalance of the time or the fact that u never knew when you were going to packed of to the tower-only the strongest survived almost?
Lushbug wrote: "There are so many interesting people in Tudor times. i have on my shelf to read biographies on Arabella and Bess of Hardwock two other interesting tudor woman whpo lived thru much. wander what it a..."Love reading about Bess of Hardwick. Now THERE'S a fascinating woman who made herself into a powerful woman through shrewdness alone.
May I suggest "The Tower and the Dream" by Jan Westcott. It is a wonderful book about Bess.
I don't really like Jane Rochford (Jane Boleyn) either, but I read a book about her called (amazingly LOL) Jane Rochford by Julia Fox. It gives some good insight to Jane, unfortunately though, there just isn't a lot of info about her. I'm inclined to learn a bit more about Arabella too.
Colleen wrote: "Janis, where on earth did you read that More had and incestuous relationship with his daughter Meg?"
I will have to go back through books I have read and find the quote. I cannot remember where I found it but I remember being astonished at the time I read it because I always thought of Thomas More as he was portrayed in "Man for All Seasons". He does sound like one of our characters from the Enquirer though.
I so agree with you. I was just using Jaymes "word" so she would quit using it. I ethink this should bve a club for learning, not for insulting.
This is a good and friendly place for learning. Lets all keep it that way :)
Janis, I've never read anything of that kind; indeed, everything that I've read (including Ackroyd's excellent bio of More) indicates that he tried his hardest to repress his sexuality. I suspect it came out in a twisted fashion in the hairshirt, the flagellation, the persecution of the embryonic protestant movement. Vanora Bennett's book about More and his adoptive daughter, Portrait of an Unknown Woman, does a great job of bringing out that side of More, and the ambivalence it created (imaginatively, at least) in his adoptive daughter. More and his daughter were close, but it seemed to me in my reading that was a function of the intellectual bond between them (and the fact that More's son was anything but a scholar...)
Re the Rh factor, that was an interesting hypothesis that Weir through into the mix, but if I recall correctly, it was one that she through in then debunked, and ultimately said 'we'll never know'. It irritated me a bit, as she did this throughout, and I was left with the sense that the narrative was being padded for length with "this might be, or maybe not, but who knows" stuff that derailed the main story. Still, a tremendous # of pregnancies end in miscarriages, even today. Until you have one yourself, you don't realize how many. I suspect the only reason these loomed large enough for people to start speculating about Rh factors was the significance of a male heir in the whole equation. And would the same apply to Catherine of Aragon, who had only two live births (one was Mary, the other was a crib death) and five or six miscarriages or still births? No wonder Henry felt cursed!
Well I agree with you. I just didn't like having Jayme being disagreeable. I don't like clubs like tehat. It is interesting that I tried to get her to stop and no one else did, but I did get jumped on. For that reason I have resigned, quit the Tudor Fight Club.
Marylou , please dont leave. We all respect one another and appreciate everyone's thoughts and opinions. Im not sure how this got out of control but its not the norm here.
Marylou, my comment wasn't towards you. It was towards Aly because I felt Aly was treating me like I didn't know anything about the Tudor time period and I am not being disagreeable. I don't like being treated like I am less intelligent than others.
My favorite is Katherine of Aragon. Basically she got the raw end of the deal but she took it with grace and dignity. A true queen
Thanks. I also find Elizabeth fascinating but I cannot say I would have wanted to have tea with her. Especially in her young ages she was super ambitious. But I am a huge theatre geek and she was all about Shakespeare and giving money to the theatres so that is pretty cool.
Wow - I've missed a lot here. Janis - interesting that you mention RH factor in regards to Anne Boleyn. I am currently reading The Lady in the Tower (as I have mentioned a couple of times. lol) and Weir discusses that very thing. It is a really interesting question in my mind because I have personal experience with RH negative. So - allow me to pontificate for a bit. As you say, the first child is always immune, as is any child that is RH negative like the mother. Where you get into a problem is any pregnancies that occur after the first child that is RH positive. At that point, the mother's immune system considers the baby to be a foreign item and fights it. The problem usually occurs after the baby is born because the mother's antibodies fight the babies blood. The interesting thing that Weir brings up is that most RH babies are born and die shortly after, whereas Anne's other pregnancies were either miscarriages, or stillbirths. HOWEVER, even though I have personal experience with that, I don't believe that this negates the theory. In fact, I think it is very plausible and interesting to explore.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Colleen - I go back and forth with Anne throughout this book, alternately feeling sorry for her, and feeling like she is to blame for a lot of what happened to her. I am reserving my final judgement until I finish the book, but yes - I may end up jumping the fence. She is still VERY fascinating, but I am starting to see her with new eyes.
Interestingly, I think Weir is pretty sympathetic to Anne, so it is kind of funny that her discussion is making me somewhat less sympathetic to her, LOL.
Lushbug - What Bess of Hardwick book are you going to read. I started Bess of Hardwick: First Lady of Chatsworth, 1527-1608 by Mary S. Lovell but never got to finish it before I had to return it to the library. I want to finish it someday.
Aly - I agree, Weir is bringing up some really good theories in the book. I am really enjoying her discussion!
I don't think I've ever seen Anne as a romantic heroine, or really been that sympathetic to her. (Neither have I been unsympathetic...) What intrigues me about Weir's book -- which I think presents her as a nuanced character -- is the sense that she played the cards she was dealt as well as she could, but lacked the skills, the experience, the judgment or even just the luck to win the game. As Weir tells it, there were so many possible outcomes, and by the time she realized the inexorable path her choices had placed her on, it was too late to change course -- even if her character had been such that she could admit to errors of judgment!Of the wives, I think i said Katherine Parr, and I stick with that... Of the children, definitely Elizabeth. Again, not because I necessarily 'like' her , but because she is a fascinating individual.
Melanie wrote: "Thanks. I also find Elizabeth fascinating but I cannot say I would have wanted to have tea with her. Especially in her young ages she was super ambitious. But I am a huge theatre geek and she was a..."She is my favorite Tudor figure.
Colleen wrote: "What's the real truth about what Jayme?AB would have certainly survived had she held her tongue on certain things. The execution of Thomas More ate Henry alive afterwords, he deeply regretted i..."
I strongly disagree with your view and bashing on AB. You can't blame on her that she was not capable of giving Henry a son, that's a pretty unfair argument to hold against her :/ And by your comments, I'd say that you base your opinions on her mainly using arguments displayed in "The other Boleyn" opera (though I could be wrong). Which, in my opinion, is not historically accurate, to say the least.
Even so, AB was used as an excuse to break with Rome. It's not all this "I am going to divorce from KoA and then marry youthfull Anne for my "Iwanttohaveamaleheir" complex" No. Henry wanted, more than anything, to be the only sovereign figure in his kingdom, and the Pope represented a rival he had to put down. Anne was just the excuse he had to do so. It's not like Henry would be a man who acted under AB's supposed charm to make a decision like that.
As a Spanish person, I agree that Tudor movies/books are always anglophile, and thus, figures like KoA and the spanish ambassadors are not always seen as they truly were, so I can understand your opinion on KoA. But I believe your opinon on AB is strongly biased. Opinions are like assholes, and I respect yours, but your accusations on Anne are very unfair and lack historical reference, IMHO.
I was just trying to find out the fact from the fiction.
Anariel, I'm confused here. Up to and until the point where his interests clashed with those of the Pope (which happened to be the divorce), Henry has no history of power struggles within his kingdom between religious and secular authority. Rather, he seems to have been jockeying with other monarchs for the Pope's favor and to be viewed within Europe as a learned son of the Church. Contemporary primary sources refer both to his piety and his learning. Compared to his dealings with Francis or Ferdinand and then Charles -- peers -- Henry at times displayed an almost idealistic view of the Papacy, regardless of the latter's actual status. His reaction -- and the break with Rome -- seem to me in part the same kind of behavior that an angry adolescent displays when he is denied something by a previous indulgent grandparent. Certainly, Henry wanted to be the only sovereign figure within his kingdom and didn't want a foreign rival or a subject who could ever attempt to rival him for that role. (Hence his crackdown on all the Plantagenets, Buckingham and even his own courtiers -- he played one off against the other.) But I'm not familiar with any evidence at all that Henry had planned or even desired a break with Rome until he wanted a divorce. Indeed, the evidence seems to speak to the opposite -- he tried for years to work within the existing structure to obtain the divorce (whether the motivation was AB, the need for a male heir, or simply his conscience, which we tend to shrug off these days.) It was when it became clear that was never going to work that he made the break. Advisors who knew they would benefit from such a break pointed out to him the myriad advantages of it -- which certainly included absolute sovereignity, as well as the financial benefits from seizing control of the church's assets.
But Henry VIII was not a monarch who had a tradition of quarrelling with the Pope over jurisdictional issues. Had this been Henry II who broke with the Pope over an interest in divorcing Eleanor of Aquitaine, then I would definitely agree with you that a hypothetical divorce was a rationalization. That Henry had a long track record of resenting what he saw as the Church's interference in his attempts to develop a system of law and order (in particular, the ability of nearly any literate man to claim 'benefit of clergy' and escape into the more benign embrace of the clerical courts). Hence the showdown with Becket. His son, King John, carried on that venerable tradition and ended up being excommunicated. Later monarchs had countless spats with the Papacy over who was going to be appointed to what episcopal see. Henry VIII, in contrast had very very few. Indeed, his relationship with the pope seemed to revolve around him having the pope feed his ego.
Re anglophile readings of the Tudors -- certainly that's true, and it's hardly surprising, given that they were English monarchs!! I've found more English-language novels revolving around other European monarchs than novels in other languages dealing with the Tudors. Indeed, the only one I can think of (that isn't a translation of an English book) is the series by Catherine Hermary Vielle, Le Crépuscule des rois, which includes the whole KoA/AB rivalry in Reine de coeur, the second volume. That author's historical accuracy makes Philippa Gregory look like an Oxford don by comparison! :-)
I'd definitely be interested if you're familiar with any primary sources indicating a rift between the Pope and the king previous to his desire for a divorce. Nothing I've read in any of the bios I've seen or the contemporary chronicles I've looked at signals anything of the kind, and in this case I'd be trusting to English or papal materials (vs the view of a Chapuys or his predecessors, given that ambassadors are great for what they observe but less so on what they interpret, in light of their odd role as go-betweens.)
Tudor History Lovers
Books mentioned in this topic
The Origins of the Second World War (other topics)Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII (other topics)
A Tudor Tragedy: The Life and Times of Catherine Howard (other topics)
The Fifth Queen (other topics)
Lady Jane Grey (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
A.J.P. Taylor (other topics)A.L. Rowse (other topics)
A.L. Rowse (other topics)
Kenneth Clark (other topics)
A.L. Rowse (other topics)
More...
