Tudor History Lovers discussion
Which Tudor do you like / dislike and why ?
Alex - Great post. I always love to see other people's thoughts on the Tudors. Although I have been a member of this group for quite a while, I still consider myself a newbie as far as the Tudors are concerned, especially in relation to some of the people in the group, but we all learn from each other, so it is a great group! Cromwell is fascinating, and the current book is we are reading is quite interesting.
Aly, I didn't know one could grow into being a psychopath. I'm relieved to hear it's not too late for me. :P Keep hope alive, right?Lyn, that Cromwell book really does look cool. I'm restraining myself because my TBR list is getting a little bit terrifying, but I'm bummed that I'm missing it.
I can certainly understand that. In fact, I have missed the last two group reads in a group that I am co-modding because of the very same reason!
Too busy reading Twilight? ;) (Sorry, I couldn't resist poking fun at you for that. My wife likes 'em too. I'm sure they're lovely.)
He may indeed have "grown into" a psychopath, as he had no one to brake him in any serious fashion after his 18th birthday and the end of the very short regency of his grandmother. "Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton
OOH - Now I have to go find something on your read list to hold over your head, lol!! I've been told that I will read anything with pages, so I guess I can't complain!
Lyn, you'll never find it, because I never admit in public that I still read comic books.I used to say I'll read anything with pages...but then I got a Kindle.
Susanna, I'd be more inclined to think he always had those inclinations and his absolute power (apropros quote there) just made him less and less worried about indulging them publicly...but of course I have nothing whatsoever to back that up with.
Bill Simmons' recent piece on Tiger Woods, of all things, made me think of Henry. His point was that if, since birth, you've been told that everything you do is cute and everything you say is funny, it can hardly be surprising when you grow up unable to figure out the difference between right and wrong. (I know that's hardly a blazingly original point.) That upbringing seems tailor-made to produce a sociopath, if not a psycho.
(Although it sounds like you're saying he actually did get some discipline until he became the heir apparent?)
(Edited because I got called away halfway through writing this.)
Well, he was the second son until he was 10 or so. Trained for the church.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist poking fun at you for that. My wife likes 'em too. I'm sure they're lovely.) They're not. The end. Everyone reads them for curiosity then discovers how truly, truly woeful something can be.
Alex that is totally a good point about Henry, but yes, Susanna is right too. Second sons were usually trained for the church so the family didn't have to pay for two very expensive educations. Henry would have been doted on after Prince Arthur died, has anyone seen the pictures of him?
WOW they look alike.
Man, can you imagine what a crap priest Henry would have made?Princes who aren't heir apparent might still be spoiled rotten though, no? Sometimes they are, and sometimes they're not, and sometimes they're locked up in the Tower of London until they starve to death? While Henry was in training to be the worst priest ever, how was he treated? I know little about his early life.
Twilight is off topic here, but I have to say, not true, Clair. EVERYONE does not read them for curiosity, nor does EVERYONE think they are woeful. They are, however, not for everyone. Just like non-fiction history books about the Tudors are not for everyone.Alex - what I remember hearing about his early life, I think that his governesses, etc. did spoil him quite a bit, but there are others here who would probably know more than me. I have tended to focus more on his wives and children than on the man himself.
I believe that the statement that he was trained for the Church is a myth. Per Eric Ives in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:"Lord Herbert of Cherbury claimed that Henry was initially destined for the see of Canterbury but cited no evidence, and since he became heir to the throne at the age he did, any such intention would have had little effect on his training. That a career in the church was ever thought of seems unlikely, given the lands and offices granted to Henry at the age of three to support the dukedom of York."
Medieval English royal families didn't usually reserve their second sons for the Church; a spare would be needed in case the heir died. None of Edward III's many sons went into the Church, and Edward IV's second son clearly wasn't destined for the Church, as he was married when he was still a small boy.
Interesting Susan. I think I read that somewhere also, although I haven't read Ives, but in some book I read, I think he was cited.
I wouldn't say like/dislike, but I'm becoming increasingly interested in both Anne of Cleves and Lady Rochford. The former because she survived Hviii and I can't quite make sense of why, and the latter because I'm wondering if she really was such a sneaky, lying, manipulative lady, or if she just played the part of a conniving courtier to perfection.
Heh. "Non-fiction history books about the Tudors are not for everyone." Well said.Susan, that's a really interesting post. It seems sensible. I don't know enough about the issue to say more than that, but I'd certainly buy it.
Paula, I know too little about those two to add anything useful (yet), so I hope someone more educated jumps in. :)
Alex wrote: "Heh. Susan, that's a really interesting post. It seems sensible. I don't know enough about the issue to say more t..."
Henry VII's position vis-a-vis the throne was still rather insecure when Henry was born--it would been unwise for him to squander a second son on the Church when he might be needed to take Arthur's place as heir. Which, of course, he eventually was.
I can't think of a single English king during the medieval and Tudor periods with more than one legitimate son who put one of the younger legitimate sons into the Church, though my knowledge of the kings before Henry II is admittedly a bit fuzzy--if I'm wrong, I trust someone will correct me. One of Edward I's many daughters became a nun, as did one of Edward IV's many daughters, but sons were just too precious to waste dynastically.
Even in noble families, younger sons who went into the Church in medieval times usually had a couple of brothers between them and the heir to the family estates--George Neville, Archbishop of York, for instance, was a fourth son.
That makes a lot of sense, Susan, I wonder if the myth was started because of his close mentoring by Thomas More? Paula - Interesting thoughts, however, she did turn in her own husband. That seems to me to be pretty vindictive! I wonder if there is any definitive book about her out there?
I think Lady Jane Rochford was jealous of her husband's Anne Boelyn closeness. I believe she did love him but he didn't love her so it was her way of getting back at him. This is only my opinion.
Lyn M wrote:Interesting thoughts, however, she did turn in her own husband. That seems to me to be pretty vindictive! I wonder if there is any definitive book about her out there?"Julia Fox has written Jane Boleyn: The True Story of the Infamous Lady Rochford, a nonfiction book about Jane Boleyn. She believes that Jane was much less culpable in Anne's and George's downfall than she's made out to be.
Fox, the most recent of Jane's biographers, is quoted at length in the Wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roc...
She believes that Jane was intimidated into testifying against her husband.
Sounds like an interesting book. Have you read it, Susan?
Alex wrote: "Fox, the most recent of Jane's biographers, is quoted at length in the Wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roc...
She believes that Jane was intimidated into testifying against h..."
I've read it and found Fox's arguments to be fairly convincing, though there's certainly room for debate about Jane's role.
I have this theory that some controversies in history tend to flip back and forth: one generation believes, for example, that Homer wasn't a real poet, and then the next generation will write new books with evidence that he was, etc. I could be cynical and say you need a new and controversial thesis to sell books, but I prefer to think it's just more fun for history buffs to uncover new and exciting evidence.It does make me think, y'know...you maybe could make a convincing case either way on Jane. And maybe her next important biographer will go back to "Jane as harridan."
I'm not trying to dismiss Fox at all, I promise; I think an attempt to rehabilitate Jane sounds interesting, and Fox's work seems very highly respected. I just think it's interesting how perceptions of some historical figures change over time.
Alex wrote: "I have this theory that some controversies in history tend to flip back and forth: one generation believes, for example, that Homer wasn't a real poet, and then the next generation will write new b..."Oh, I agree. It's good when historians take fresh looks at the evidence and sift out history from myth. Fox's book has its detractors--Alison Weir, for one, takes issue with her conclusions in her recent book on Anne Boleyn--but I'd say it's well worth reading. I also thought that Leanda de Lisle's book on the Grey sisters, The Sisters Who Would Be Queen: The Tragedy of Katherine, Mary and Lady Jane Grey was fascinating, especially in its discussion of how Frances Grey has been demonized over the centuries.
Ah - "take fresh looks at the evidence" is a much better way to put it. I wish I'd put it that way in the first place. :)
That Julia Fox bio is on my Mt. TBR.
The Julia Fox book is really well written and researched. I really enjoyed it. But, for me, Fox didn't sway me too much away from what I personally think of Jane Rochford. I think she was probably manipulative and vindictive. But how much of that is because of the treatment she received in her marriage? I find her more fascinating in her dealings with Katherine Howard! I wish we knew a bit more about her, she seems like such a fascinating person!!I can't wait to read the de Lisle book on the Grey sisters. It's on my TBR list, right after Ives's book on Anne Boleyn.
Just like non-fiction history books about the Tudors are not for everyone. Non-fiction is the only way you'll actually learn something other than Phillipa Gregory filling your head with lies. Although History is somewhat objective, non-fiction is defintely for people who want to learn.
Oh and my name is clearly spelled with an E.
Not trying to make a fuss here people. Just putting forward an opinion.
Hey Claire - I totally see your point, but in the interest of discussion, wouldn't you say Wolf Hall was educational? It presents a certain view of its characters, of course - Cromwell as (sortof) nice guy is certainly controversial - but then the Fox book presents a controversial view on Jane, too, and both books are well-researched.I'm about to start Robert Harris's "Imperium," about Cicero; it gets great reviews and he's evidently a very careful researcher, although the book is fiction.
When I find a novel that's said to be historically accurate, I get pretty excited about it. I also get pretty excited about non-fiction that's written well, of course, and I don't want to sound like I'm recommending that the best way to learn about history is through historical fiction; I don't think that. But I also don't think historical fiction is, like, necessarily all lies, right?
I'd go on, but I have to go watch "The Tudors" and believe everything it says. ;)
Claire wrote: "Just like non-fiction history books about the Tudors are not for everyone. Non-fiction is the only way you'll actually learn something other than Phillipa Gregory filling your head with lies. Alt..."
Claire - I happen to be one of those people who like historical non-fiction about the Tudors, so the dig was to myself, not you, sorry for the misunderstanding. And about leaving the E off your name. ALSO, if you had troubled to look at my read list on my profile, you would actually see that I haven't even read any of the Phillipa Gregory books, although I do have them on my TBR. I have actually read more Tudor non-fiction than fiction. I was just pointing out that voicing an opinion shouldn't sound like you are talking for "everyone" as you stated. Anyway, again, I am sorry to upset you, as I said, I was making fun of myself. (BTW - yes I read and loved all the Twilight books, and I'm not afraid to admit it).
Alex - your post states exactly the way I feel about historical fiction vs. non-fiction. It is an ongoing, age old discussion on this site(which is better) and if you stick around long enough, it will rear it's head many times. But I am disappointed to find that "The Tudors" is not historically accurate. (Before anyone jumps on me, I am just making a joke!)
Just to add to the controversy, a lot of historical fiction is just fun reading, also, but agreeably, not believable. And it always cracks me up the way people think the words Twilight and Philippa Gregory are some sort of insult!
^ Ah all good then. I really don't wish to be fighting with anyone. =] I don't think fiction is an insult, I just am very anti-twilight, lol but don't worry, my mum is very pro-twilight so I know the view. I just need to insult it whenever I get the chance, he he! Back to Tudors! =]
No prob, sorry for the confusion. Sometimes my mouth just runs away with me. BTW - my son's girlfriend does the same thing to me, she is also very anti-Twilight, and never lets me forget it!Like you said, Back to the Tudors.
Thanks, Susan - I added the Fox book to my TBR list!Lyn M - I, too, have a hard time with JR turning evidence against her own husband, but she still kept her head when it seemed a lot of that circle lost theirs, so I give her credit for surviving that chaos.
True Paula, and I would probably do the same thing if I were in her shoes. Especially in a time where marriages were made for political/social reasons, and not for love.
Missed the posts about Moore! He did have strong beliefs... and died for them but cruel? Can't see Erasmus of all people being gullible,though we are judging from our experience, not as Tudors!
Thanks for the recommendations of the Julia Fox book! I found a copy this weekend and it is now patiently waiting behind the Cromwell book and Weir's CofH8 book!
Henry the Eighth and His Court? I found that one the least lively of the Weirs - like a dissertation that got published. Still interesting.
So did I, Sussanna. It was hard to get through, but really fascinating!
Susanna wrote: "Henry the Eighth and His Court? I found that one the least lively of the Weirs - like a dissertation that got published. Still interesting."Susanna - if your response is to me, I meant a different book... "CofH8" was my extremely lazy way of typing Children of Henry VIII. :)
Ah! Reading that one currently. Very interesting, and certainly not as dry as Henry VIII and His Court.
Jayme wrote: "I think Lady Jane Rochford was jealous of her husband's Anne Boelyn closeness. I believe she did love him but he didn't love her so it was her way of getting back at him. This is only my opinion."
I am so fascinated by Lady Rochford, Jayme. I wish I could find more books about her. I'm still anxious to read Jane Boleyn: The True Story of Lady Rochford.
PS: I totally heart you, Lyn, despite your Twilight fandemonium. ;). And, just continuing with the shameless off-topicness of this post-script, if you liked Twilight, Lyn, I'd recommend Shiver. It is no secret to my GR friends that I am no Twilight fan, but I really enjoyed this one. It is a similar concept - human girl, supernatural boy, complicated love story. The way it is written is how I would have, personally, liked to have seen the Twilight Saga written out. Anyway, I'm reading it right now and I'm very much enjoying it, so I'm passing the recommendation onto you.
I am so fascinated by Lady Rochford, Jayme. I wish I could find more books about her. I'm still anxious to read Jane Boleyn: The True Story of Lady Rochford.
PS: I totally heart you, Lyn, despite your Twilight fandemonium. ;). And, just continuing with the shameless off-topicness of this post-script, if you liked Twilight, Lyn, I'd recommend Shiver. It is no secret to my GR friends that I am no Twilight fan, but I really enjoyed this one. It is a similar concept - human girl, supernatural boy, complicated love story. The way it is written is how I would have, personally, liked to have seen the Twilight Saga written out. Anyway, I'm reading it right now and I'm very much enjoying it, so I'm passing the recommendation onto you.
The author of "Shiver" came to my school for an author signing.
You guys are killing me... ack ack ack... I hate Anne Boleyn... back on topic please! :)
Hey Colleen, do you really hate Anne?
I must admit, so do I, I did find her mildly amusing at first, the way she kept Henry on a leash, but then she turned really anoying! I dislike most of the queens, except for Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr, not sure why for the last, maybe because she seems human :)
I must admit, so do I, I did find her mildly amusing at first, the way she kept Henry on a leash, but then she turned really anoying! I dislike most of the queens, except for Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr, not sure why for the last, maybe because she seems human :)
Oh yeah, Niecole, kind of one of my things around here being the most outspoken "don't like AB" people. :) I was saying that as a ha ha ha to get back to the Tudors, twisted humor.I have huge respect for KoA, in fact I was watching the episode of "The Tudors" where she dies for a fourth time and still friggin' cry over it!
I know what you mean!
I read about her as well, in The 6 wives of Henry the VIII and it gave me so much respect for her, the way she handled him, even when he turned rather nasty towards her, it just shows how she was royal all the way, her upbringing so different to the rest
I read about her as well, in The 6 wives of Henry the VIII and it gave me so much respect for her, the way she handled him, even when he turned rather nasty towards her, it just shows how she was royal all the way, her upbringing so different to the rest
OMG, she was such an amazing woman! Someone once commented in the group that it was her fault (the ill treatment she got from Henry) and that, like AoC after her, she should have immediately gone with the divorce and lived out the rest of her days quietly and comfortably. How is a woman, the daughter of great king's and queen's of Spain, to just "give up" without a fight? After 24 years of marriage even and accepting that her marriage was a sham and her beloved daughter a bastard? Come on now! I know I would fight to the death for my honor and my daughter if my husband were to try to do that to me after 24 years of devoted marriage to him!
I know what you mean, I mean everyone knew in their hearts she was the true Queen, that Henry only wanted the marriage to be a sham so that he could come of it easily... he knew that she would fight touth and nail and therefore humiliating her seemed like the only option out to him it seems.
She did everything for that man! I read how she hand embroidered his shirts! My word! Even when he was sleeping with Anne, even when she knew it was over, she still did it, she still cared for him, still did everything a wife would do!
I think she's amazing!!!
My goodness, she was married to him the longest to. She loved her daughter as much as she loved Henry, because Mary was a piece of Henry...
And I mean, just look at the way she was treated to begin with, married to Arthur, then he dies, then married of to Henry... the poor girl at that age! I'd be devistated! Yet she came through it to be a wonderful Queen, a queen the people loved!
She did everything for that man! I read how she hand embroidered his shirts! My word! Even when he was sleeping with Anne, even when she knew it was over, she still did it, she still cared for him, still did everything a wife would do!
I think she's amazing!!!
My goodness, she was married to him the longest to. She loved her daughter as much as she loved Henry, because Mary was a piece of Henry...
And I mean, just look at the way she was treated to begin with, married to Arthur, then he dies, then married of to Henry... the poor girl at that age! I'd be devistated! Yet she came through it to be a wonderful Queen, a queen the people loved!
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...
As to the definition of psychopathy, I'd have to agree with you. But I don't know if he was a psychopath so much when he was younger? Maybe he grew into it (which I guess isn't that unusual). I'm fascinated by Cromwell too!!! What a devious but intelligent man!